Annkathrin Kammeyer
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2012 at 06:32:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- Great portrait, high quality, high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Annkathrin Kammeyer
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Peter Weis
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nice portrait and good EV. ■ MMXX talk 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a bland headshot... — raekyt 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Nice portrait IMO - bland but very encyclopaedic and of an interesting subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Excellent portrait. Colin°Talk 20:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: While this is a very good portrait, it does not appear to be significantly better than other portraits I've seen on Wikipedia. The article this image is associated with is stub-class and, although the image makes the article look better, the article does not carry enough weight on it's own to add any significant meaning or value to the image that is not already present.16bitz 19:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm quite flabbergasted by the oppose comments here. Perhaps there's confusion with Commons where "wow" is part of the criteria? Or with FA where we discuss the article -- the strength of the article isn't important at FP. What do you expect from a portrait of a minor German politician? Should she pull a funny face? You aren't seeing the usual flaws of a portrait like bad choice of lens, or flash shadow on the wall, or harsh lighting, or dark under-eyes or neck, or red eyes, or a distracting background, or half of someone else's head cropped out, or the eyes not being in focus, or a hair sticking out their nose,... This is simply an extremely professionally-done portrait using top equipment by one of our top portrait photographers. It is very high resolution 18MP and a licence as free as the wind. Please review some more portraits on Wikipedia that aren't FPs (try randomly clicking on a category of minor politicians, say). The EV of this photograph is without question -- it doesn't merely "make the article look better". A quality portrait is vital to a bio article and this fits that bill. I really don't see how you can say the article isn't more valuable because of the presence of the image. Do you think all bio articles should be plain text or need to show some kind of action shot or wearing a costume? If this doesn't cross the bar for an FP portrait then I really don't understand the criteria. Colin°Talk 20:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- +1. Tomer T (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I firmly believe that every article on wikipedia COULD have a Featured Picture associated with it, so don't get me wrong here. I just don't think that official portraits are exactly "our best work" when it comes to pictures. We've promoted a few of them, but the VAST MAJORITY of images like this do not get passed, and I can't see why this would be any different. It's basically just a head-shot, with a plain white background, of a girl giving a weird smile and that's all you have. Sure it has extremely high EV, but it's just simply not the best work we could do. Maybe a shot of her actually doing something, in the legislator hall, or shaking the hand of someone, or talking, or giving a speech, or something other than doing nothing staring at the camera. There's a million ways you can make highly visually interesting portraits of political figures, and this definitely is not one of those ways. — raekyt 01:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- So you've ignored all the FP criteral where this excels and it comes down to your personal taste in images for bio articles. Politician shaking hands? Come on. That's a cliche. Politician making speech. Another cliche. Politician talking -- maybe for video for but for photographs the risk of an odd facial expression is high. So, no, I'm not really convinced there are a "million ways you can make highly visually interesting portraits of political figures". There's a reason why a classic portrait is the most common shot. There's nothing distracting going on. The lighting can be controlled. The image can be high resolution relatively close up. For the lead picture in a bio article, this sort of picture is absolutely head and shoulders (:-)) above any other pose or situation. You can vote on taste, of course, but that's a factor that needs weighed against the other qualities, which are all exceptional. To me it seems to make about as much sense as opposing JJ Harrison's bird photos because you're sick of the sea as a background and or flying as a pose. Bird photos generally don't float my boat, but I wouldn't oppose based on that. And we may well get "official portraits" nominated at FP, but most are small web-quality shots. And this isn't some official government photo shoot but was taken by one of our own users. Decent portraits taken by a Wikipedian... they're as rare as hens teeth. Colin°Talk 11:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- There's no comparison between a bird in it's natural habitat and a awkward head-shot of a politician... Here is a political ad for her, as you can see she has a FAR more natural smile then this picture, where she has some awkward smirk. Or here where she has again, a more natural smile and a non-plain white background. Or here where she is in her "natural environment" like the bird pictures you hate. Although that's not the best quality, but it illustrates the point. I'm not throwing away any criteria, and personal likes/dislikes are a valid reason for opposing... The biggest problem is the mid-sentence smirk on her face that is definitely not as natural of a smile as the others, that and there's clearly better that can exist of her. This isn't the best, shes young and recently elected, plenty more can potentially exist that will be better, why compromise now for this picture? — raekyt 14:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The bird comparison was merely that taste should be considered only one aspect of one's support or oppose, and possibly overridden if other aspects are exemplary. I don't hate bird pictures but they are just as samey as the politician official portraits you dislike. Yet we have hundreds of FP birds and only a handful of FP politicians (many dead) There are reasons for the limited style and range of a bird photo just as there are reasons that politicians are careful about their appearance in photographs. The other reasons you give now for opposing are getting to be more like a proper review and one I could disagree with yet respect. Btw, there is another shot of her File:Annkathrin Kammeyer IMG 6463 edit.jpg. My main issue is with "Just a bland headshot" as a reason for oppose. It is just as bad me saying "Just another bird on sea shot". Well I give you File:Sharbat Gula.jpg. I suspect some here would regard that as just another bland headshot too :-) Colin°Talk
- There is a VAST difference between File:Sharbat Gula.jpg and this picture, File:Sharbat Gula.jpg is NOT bland, and an extremely haunting portrait, and doesn't come off as bland in any way. There's emotion, there's hardship, there's sadness in those eyes, and but the nominated picture here, isn't any of that and to me is just "another headshot." As for File:Annkathrin_Kammeyer_IMG_6463_edit.jpg there's clear reasons why that isn't our best work. — raekyt 16:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Well I give you File:Sharbat Gula.jpg. I suspect some here would regard that as just another bland headshot too :-)" (I'm going to ignore the horrifying possibility that FP seems to have now got its own Godwin's Law). Who are they, Colin? Could they possibly be those who oppose this photo for FP? You'd already tried to ridicule them with your 'flabbergasted' suppositions and accusations; that didn't seem to work, so why not imagine something especially insulting? Your partiality and need to see this image make FP has gone beyond support and efforts at persuasion and the drama you are dealing out is making a mockery of this process. Do you behave like this every time you're disagreed with? Or is there some especial reason why objectivity seems to have been replaced with borderline hysteria? Plutonium27 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Calling my response "passionate" is reasonable, but "borderline hysteria"? I think you are perhaps guilty yourself of hyperbole wrt to the opposing side and becoming insulting and should consider retracting those comments. Can we stick to discussing the picture and how to review it? Perhaps you think FPC should just be a vote or a series of "+1"s? My style is to discuss images rather than just vote and walk away. If we just did that, the process would indeed be dull and no-one would learn anything, myself included. Far from being a "mockery", whatever you mean by that, this sort of discussion is how FPC develops its standards and consensus. I chose that image simply as a counter to Raeky's preference for an image where the person does "something other than doing nothing staring at the camera", along with a sequence of clichéd alternatives. So Annkathrin doesn't have haunting eyes therefore she must do a dance for the camera in order not to be "bland". We're simply having a discussion about how to rate portraits. I think we have very conflicting standards when compared to other things like birds or objects. This is reflecting in the bias in our FP collections. Colin°Talk 17:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't something new, if you go through the archives you'll find TOOOONS of political headshots that have failed, they almost always do, many far more interesting and less bland than this one. — raekyt 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've gone through the archives. Yes there are a couple of people like yourself who complain about boring headshots. They are in the minority. Most appreciate the EV for a politician (most of whom are plain and have awkward smiles). For people in other professions, a different kind of picture may be more appropriate. Good political pictures are indeed rare (even official ones are often crap) and it is very hard to get access for a Wikipedian to take a free picture, as is the case here. Generally, reasons for oppose come for images that deviate from a studio headshot, leading to a cluttered image and distracting elements, or where the quality of the image just isn't that great. Those don't apply here. Colin°Talk 09:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I retract nothing, Colin. Your escalating imaginary suppositions just prove my point more, especially as you now admit you're doing this to make a WP:POINT: "I chose that image simply as a counter to Raeky's preference..." Plutonium27 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Eh? I haven't admitted any such thing. You're seeing what you want to see. You know, the Godwin's law aspect of an FPC dicussion is that when folk start discussing other reviewers, rather than the text and how to reviewing, then they have lost the argument and it is time to stop. Goodbye. Colin°Talk 11:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I retract nothing, Colin. Your escalating imaginary suppositions just prove my point more, especially as you now admit you're doing this to make a WP:POINT: "I chose that image simply as a counter to Raeky's preference..." Plutonium27 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've gone through the archives. Yes there are a couple of people like yourself who complain about boring headshots. They are in the minority. Most appreciate the EV for a politician (most of whom are plain and have awkward smiles). For people in other professions, a different kind of picture may be more appropriate. Good political pictures are indeed rare (even official ones are often crap) and it is very hard to get access for a Wikipedian to take a free picture, as is the case here. Generally, reasons for oppose come for images that deviate from a studio headshot, leading to a cluttered image and distracting elements, or where the quality of the image just isn't that great. Those don't apply here. Colin°Talk 09:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't something new, if you go through the archives you'll find TOOOONS of political headshots that have failed, they almost always do, many far more interesting and less bland than this one. — raekyt 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Calling my response "passionate" is reasonable, but "borderline hysteria"? I think you are perhaps guilty yourself of hyperbole wrt to the opposing side and becoming insulting and should consider retracting those comments. Can we stick to discussing the picture and how to review it? Perhaps you think FPC should just be a vote or a series of "+1"s? My style is to discuss images rather than just vote and walk away. If we just did that, the process would indeed be dull and no-one would learn anything, myself included. Far from being a "mockery", whatever you mean by that, this sort of discussion is how FPC develops its standards and consensus. I chose that image simply as a counter to Raeky's preference for an image where the person does "something other than doing nothing staring at the camera", along with a sequence of clichéd alternatives. So Annkathrin doesn't have haunting eyes therefore she must do a dance for the camera in order not to be "bland". We're simply having a discussion about how to rate portraits. I think we have very conflicting standards when compared to other things like birds or objects. This is reflecting in the bias in our FP collections. Colin°Talk 17:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Well I give you File:Sharbat Gula.jpg. I suspect some here would regard that as just another bland headshot too :-)" (I'm going to ignore the horrifying possibility that FP seems to have now got its own Godwin's Law). Who are they, Colin? Could they possibly be those who oppose this photo for FP? You'd already tried to ridicule them with your 'flabbergasted' suppositions and accusations; that didn't seem to work, so why not imagine something especially insulting? Your partiality and need to see this image make FP has gone beyond support and efforts at persuasion and the drama you are dealing out is making a mockery of this process. Do you behave like this every time you're disagreed with? Or is there some especial reason why objectivity seems to have been replaced with borderline hysteria? Plutonium27 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is a VAST difference between File:Sharbat Gula.jpg and this picture, File:Sharbat Gula.jpg is NOT bland, and an extremely haunting portrait, and doesn't come off as bland in any way. There's emotion, there's hardship, there's sadness in those eyes, and but the nominated picture here, isn't any of that and to me is just "another headshot." As for File:Annkathrin_Kammeyer_IMG_6463_edit.jpg there's clear reasons why that isn't our best work. — raekyt 16:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The bird comparison was merely that taste should be considered only one aspect of one's support or oppose, and possibly overridden if other aspects are exemplary. I don't hate bird pictures but they are just as samey as the politician official portraits you dislike. Yet we have hundreds of FP birds and only a handful of FP politicians (many dead) There are reasons for the limited style and range of a bird photo just as there are reasons that politicians are careful about their appearance in photographs. The other reasons you give now for opposing are getting to be more like a proper review and one I could disagree with yet respect. Btw, there is another shot of her File:Annkathrin Kammeyer IMG 6463 edit.jpg. My main issue is with "Just a bland headshot" as a reason for oppose. It is just as bad me saying "Just another bird on sea shot". Well I give you File:Sharbat Gula.jpg. I suspect some here would regard that as just another bland headshot too :-) Colin°Talk
- There's no comparison between a bird in it's natural habitat and a awkward head-shot of a politician... Here is a political ad for her, as you can see she has a FAR more natural smile then this picture, where she has some awkward smirk. Or here where she has again, a more natural smile and a non-plain white background. Or here where she is in her "natural environment" like the bird pictures you hate. Although that's not the best quality, but it illustrates the point. I'm not throwing away any criteria, and personal likes/dislikes are a valid reason for opposing... The biggest problem is the mid-sentence smirk on her face that is definitely not as natural of a smile as the others, that and there's clearly better that can exist of her. This isn't the best, shes young and recently elected, plenty more can potentially exist that will be better, why compromise now for this picture? — raekyt 14:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- So you've ignored all the FP criteral where this excels and it comes down to your personal taste in images for bio articles. Politician shaking hands? Come on. That's a cliche. Politician making speech. Another cliche. Politician talking -- maybe for video for but for photographs the risk of an odd facial expression is high. So, no, I'm not really convinced there are a "million ways you can make highly visually interesting portraits of political figures". There's a reason why a classic portrait is the most common shot. There's nothing distracting going on. The lighting can be controlled. The image can be high resolution relatively close up. For the lead picture in a bio article, this sort of picture is absolutely head and shoulders (:-)) above any other pose or situation. You can vote on taste, of course, but that's a factor that needs weighed against the other qualities, which are all exceptional. To me it seems to make about as much sense as opposing JJ Harrison's bird photos because you're sick of the sea as a background and or flying as a pose. Bird photos generally don't float my boat, but I wouldn't oppose based on that. And we may well get "official portraits" nominated at FP, but most are small web-quality shots. And this isn't some official government photo shoot but was taken by one of our own users. Decent portraits taken by a Wikipedian... they're as rare as hens teeth. Colin°Talk 11:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support excellent portrait for me too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2012
(UTC)
- Oppose As Colin says in his passionate support (above): "This is simply an extremely professionally-done portrait using top equipment by one of our top portrait photographers." It is good quality - no argument there. But that is simply all it is. I can't see where it fulfills the FP criteria: it has nothing that can objectively be claimed to be of exceptional interest or value, not in the photo, the subject nor the context. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support I find a 21 year old getting herself elected to Parliament quite notable. Thus an excellent picture of her has merit. I also find the discrimination given humans suspect when we routinely FP toasters and irons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Isn't stimulating my interest in the subject, sorry. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Well up to our usual standard for such subjects. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Pine✉ 01:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Armbrust The Homonculus 09:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Annkathrin Kammeyer IMG 3337 edit.jpg --Julia\talk 06:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)