Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John McCain, 1973

John McCain, 1973[edit]

Reason: A year ago we had a featured picture candidacy for John McCain at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John McCain and I opposed, citing the formal portrait as competent but not spectacular formal portraiture. Here's wishing we had noticed sooner that this alternative is in public domain. The eyes are much more expressive; note the tension in his hands, with cigarettes and coffee both within close reach. Coming from the time when McCain first gained public attention as a former prisoner of war, this is worth a look. Restored version of File:John McCain 1974.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: John McCain, Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain
Creator: Thomas J. O'Halloran, for US News and World Report

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The file title is very misleading, as the photo is from 1973, not 1974. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh. :) Fixed. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not 100% sold on its encyclopedic value, but it has an unspeakable quality about it that makes me keep looking at it. Portraits with this level of impact are rare. I do not know if this is just me, though. --KP Botany (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Illustrates in a striking manner this part of his life. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very striking no doubt, but is it just me or is the picture really noisy/grainy --Muhammad(talk) 13:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For indoors photography with natural lighting they needed a high speed film, so grain is normal here. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the historical nature of this photo is enough to overcome the graininess. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that the composition is very nice, but the graininess is very distracting, unfortunately as it's present in the original and can't be fixed, I can't see a way to change my mind. I don't normally worry about the technical issues as I'm not an expert, but if it's really obvious like this then it must be bad. Terri G (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Viva McCain! But seriously, an awesome picture. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very emotive, but, as per the others, unfortunately too grainy. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 02:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - highly attractive, good vector of McCain, great photograph. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't mind that it's grainy, the expression and setting is genuine. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very, very expressive. And you'd be grainy too if you had just spent 5½ years in a North Vietnamese prison camp. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The grain has nothing to do with McCain's time in a prison camp. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right that the grain is unrelated to McCain's POW experience, although during the film era it was a convention to photograph men using higher speed film than was used to photograph women, because noticeable film grain was associated esthetically with masculinity. It's unclear here whether that was an esthetic choice or a simple necessity of shooting indoors under natural lighting. File:Gerald Ford hearing2.jpg had a similar discussion during candidacy. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Weak support For the aesthetic use of grain. Made me laugh :-) --Muhammad(talk) 09:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, there is that aspect. The reason the grain does not bother me is that the photo appears to be a home snapshot, rather than an image shot by a news photographer, and I think this enhances the overall captivating portrait of the POW returned home aspect of the image. Yes, made me laugh, also. --KP Botany (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As per the others, and the nom. I don't think the graininess here is particularly bad/noticeable/unusual/avoidable, etc. Maedin\^talk 17:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The grain doesn't make this worthy of an oppose. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good image, high EV, would be hard to remove grain without rather destructive techniques (eg blurring) on a person's face. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally, I think the grain is a little too much. Is downsampling a possibility? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always a possibility. Downsampling doesn't improve an image, though. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know it doesn't...I was wondering if if would really reduce some of the grain, though. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is indeed a concern, even for a photo of the time. EV, on the other hand is not really an issue (well used in both articles). But the consensus is not clear. After 10+ days, supports make up less than 75%, so therefore, this image is Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]