Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Second oath of office of Barack Obama edit.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Second oath of office of Barack Obama edit.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2010 at 07:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Pete Souza - uploaded by TCY/Clindberg - edited and nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Support Maybe this is asking for it since the other one failed, but I think this is FP material too. He looks more presidential this time - does that help? -- 99of9 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Fairly mediocre all around in lighting, color, and composition. I like the previous Presidential nom better, at least the subject matter was very interesting. Steven Walling 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)- Oppose, I agree with Steven. --Aqwis (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good one. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid I don't get this one. I understand the significance of the moment however the composition/angle is really not that good. --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps Pete Souza, the official White House photographer did actually pick this way of composition on purpose? With the intent to show the act as a dynamic situation rather than a classic "official" moment? If he had wanted to give the picture a classic static appearance, he certainly would have had the means and the position to do so. If you take a look at Souza's pictures, you will notice that he gives his Obama pictures a jazzy, casual look. Certainly on purpose.
- Note how this is not just a snapshot. The room itself is symmetrical (the two chandeliers, the fireplace), and probably very solemn and static. However, the photographer decided to take a step to the left to breake up the symmetry, to create tension and dynamic.
- The two chandeliers (to the left and right) and the mantelpiece (in the middle) frame the two men very effectfully. This is only possible because the photographer intently chose a lateral position rather than frontal - if he had picked a frontal position, Obama would stand in front of the mantelpiece, his head half covering the painting on the wall, and the chandelier on the left would be behind the judge's head, making him look like he has an aureola.
- The photographer intently picked an angle from which we can see both men in profile, with their heads surrounded by free space. Obama's smile, which the photographer thought would be more important, is seen slightly from the front. Both men look each other in the eye, creating a certain tension, which they break up with a smile.
- You'll also notice that the Portrait on the wall is not just decoration of the room, but it looks like it part of the situation, like it is smiling down on this act - the photographer perhaps noticed a smile similar to Obama's, earnest but also with a hint of irony. It's the mildly ironical situation of Obama's "second oath", captured ingeniously in what seemes like a snapshot, but is in fact a rather clever composition. I doubt many photographers would have been able to take a picture like this if put in the same position.
- I've looked at it longer and my respect for the photographer grew even more: the straight lines in the picture are all at an angle, which makes it dynamic and lively. The straight lines form a vanishing point towards Obama, who is the focus of the picture. The golden picture frame on the wall actually almost frames Obama's hand. The wide-angle lens creates an intimate atmosphere. The lighting is actually pretty good considering there was direct flashlight involved - neither under- nor overexposed, no disturbing dark shadows.
- This is not mediocrity or accident, this is very, very clever photography. --DuckobertDag (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you like it so much, I suggest you also add support. --99of9 (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've only now noticed that there is an uncropped version, which is clearly better in composition. 99of9, you should leave the cropping to the original photographer, who clearly understands more of it than you do. --DuckobertDag (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you played the ball not the man, per the voting guidelines "criticising the author/nominator rather than the image". If you do want to discuss my edits, I was correcting other problems with the image when I made the crop, which I still believe is an improvement as it removes some subjects that were cut in half (hand/fireplace). If you prefer the original, you are welcome to put it up as an alternative - I may even support that too. 99of9 (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well I think that one should respect the photographer - if the picture was published this way, it should be left untinkered with. You wouldn't "improve" a painting by cropping it and tinkering with contrast and colour to make it look like you want it to look. Sorry about the personal attack though. --DuckobertDag (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually around here it's quite common for edited photographs to succeed where the original failed. Collaboration is after all the spirit of wikis. The photographer certainly has my respect, but that doesn't mean he did everything perfectly the first time. Anyway, his version is obviously still available untouched for everyone to see. I have simply made a derivative work, which he would certainly be agreeable to, given the license he released it under. --99of9 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - prefer the uncropped original. Jonathunder (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
