Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2015 at 11:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Engin Umut Akkaya - In the Lab.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Engin Umut Akkaya - In the Lab.JPG
What about the two people in the background? I don't really understand what you're talking about, Medium. It's a laboratory where several people are working, not just the boss who's of main interest here. It's the normal working atmosphere of a lab. --Tremonist (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel allegation don't makes sense... this is a very good photo, in a very interesting environment related to the subject. -- RTA22:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little more sharpness would have been nice. But it is an interesting composition for a portrait and I like the expression on his face. --Tsui (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What an odd reason to oppose, Daniel, INC. Having their work on a magazine cover is the sort of thing portrait photographers aspire to achieve. This is a good environmental portrait. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant discussion
@Colin: Colin, I well understand that, having had pictures I've taken hereused on magazine covers. And I was perhaps less clear than I thought I was ... it was never my intention to suggest that this was ideal for a magazine cover; that was what Kruusamägi read into my words. And why would a picture oriented this way be used, uncropped, on a magazine cover? It wouldn't be a particular good way to use it from a design standpoint.
What I meant by saying "magazine feature" was that it would be an ideal illustration for the story inside the magazine's pages, not the cover. And, in my journalistic experience, that's the fate of photos that weren't good enough for the cover or (especially) where the photographer knew it wasn't going to be the cover shot.
Frankly I don't see this as a good portrait, environment or not. The people in the back are a little distracting, for one thing. And that folded-arms pose makes the subject look like an insufferably smug bastard to me ... I do not know this man and I am sure he is probably not an insufferably smug bastard, but this pose, especially with all the subordinates scurrying about in the background doing all the work while the boss appears to be taking a break to take all the credit and bask in his own reflected glory for a visiting photographer, his arms arrayed so we can perhaps not coincidentally see both his cuff links, does not make me want to get to know him more so that I might correct that impression.
At bottom, this is a portrait that seems to depict the subject entirely on his terms, not getting below the surface, whereas I think we would all agree most of the best portraits, in whatever medium, are always something of a compromise between artist and subject. That's not happening here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I misread "cover", and agree the landscape orientation doesn't make it an typical candidate. But I disagree with your comments about failed covers or that somehow shooting an image for a feature might possibly, in any shape or form, be remotely a good reason to oppose at Commons FP. This isn't Wikipedia, and we have the same educational mission as any factual magazine. Many of the images one sees inside magazine covers would be of featurable quality and I would love if we had professional-quality portrait photographers regularly donating images here. Creating photos for the insides of magazines, on a professional basis (rather than getting lucky), is something well beyond your or my talents. Well beyond. So I think you're over-reaching yourself in your criticism here. I'm afraid your other comments are so embarrassing, inappropriate and shameful I shall stop now. -- Colin (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would understand better if I said it looked like the sort of picture a tourist might take while visiting the lab? That has been a favorite line of opposition for you in the past, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WFT? Daniel, are you trying to get yourself blocked with personal attacks like that. Why don't, in future, you just stick with "no wow" rather than adding all this clueless arrogant bullshit about magazine features because, frankly, it is embarrassing. There are flaws in this picture, it isn't perfect by any means, but I do wonder if you haven't actually recently looked at the inside of a magazine that values high-quality editorial photographs, or considered the talent required to take such images on a professional basis. You wouldn't then go around thinking that being good enough for a magazine feature was somehow a valid criticism. As for your closing comment, all of us here take photos on vacation and we're aware of the difference between a carefully planned and executed photo and one that is snapped in a hurry. So the "tourist snapshot" remark is one I'm quite qualified to make, and I don't have to pretend to everyone that I'm Steve McCurry. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I am amused at the idea of accusing someone else of blockable personal attacks while simultaneously being so uncivil as to describe their arguments as "clueless arrogant bullshit." I think I feel the same way about your reasoning as you do about mine at this point. I am collapsing this so we are not further tempted to discuss this and get even more off-topic. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The biggest issue is the light: his forehead is overexposed, and that's a no-go for me. The rest is quite average. I'd like to see more of the lab,... or not at all. Yann (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info created and uploaded by Yigit Altay - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose
Neutral It is true. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 16:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment Could you please explain why a photo that suits well to as magazine cover isn't suitable for Commons FP. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
