Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HumanNewborn

Human Newborn[edit]

A newborn infant, seconds after delivery

I think this is a great illustration of a human newborn, both in appearance and behavior, and it appears in the Infant article. I took the photo, and it is my daughter, just seconds after delivery.

Nominate and support. - Ernest F 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. The photo is of acceptable technical quality but it doesn't seem particularly feature-worthy to me. -- Moondigger 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good picture indeed. And congratulations ! Ericd 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a shame the head is slightly blurred but the pic illustrates the article so perfectly that I must support - Adrian Pingstone 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a fairly unique moment in a person's life captured nicely. And it would really be missing if it weren't in the infant article. --Dschwen 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per Moondigger. However, Congrats! -- AJ24 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per Moondigger. --Mad Max 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. congrats. but this picture is not feature-worthy to me either. If you have got another angle which illustrates what your caption says, with less distractions, it would be great.--Pedit 20:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 7 edits, 6 of which are on FPC --Fir0002 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Irrelevant how many edits I made. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!--Pedit 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. per Moondigger. say1988 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The foot/sock and the rest of the background is distracting. The doctor or nurse holding the baby seems robotic due to the composition of the picture (cropped head, holding position, visible portion of the hand looking more like a tentacle than a human body part) and the flapping, unnaturally colored protective gear (light blue and neon green -- the worst hospital colors!). Compare, for instance, this photo from Flickr where the staff is wearing form-fitting white or dark blue coats and more naturally colored gloves. For the subject of childbirth, I'd like to see a series of pictures or a movie rather than a single snapshot, though of course a nice snapshot might always qualify for FPC status. All that said, congratulations to bringing a new life into this world. Maybe you can make another baby for us and try shooting some more pictures. ;-) --Eloquence* 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Green gloves and blue coat I like it ! At least we see the oposition between the newborn baby and the medical environement. Ericd 22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there some rule that says medical environments have to look ugly and dehumanizing? ;-) Eloquence* 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, but they often are. Seriously I think the use of unatural colors might contribute to security, for instance a green glove will make a surgeon's hand contrast with the patient body. Ericd 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose that's true -- the flesh-colored gloves in the example above may be a bit extreme. Neutral white would be a reasonable compromise.--Eloquence * 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure if the protocol for a FPC is to support what you nominate, and I guess I am slightly biased, but: The distractions - the foot, the doctors hand, and the extreme coloring of hospital garb are an integral part of the scene. Those first seconds of life are rather difficult to capture, and I think it would be impossible to frame the subject with some more esthetically pleasing surroundings in this case. Although, I will try again next time ;) Ernest F 13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. My wife is due Dec 20th, so I'd give it a try, but unfortunatly my Cannon S500 doesn't provide good enough pics. -Ravedave 05:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The S500 is a perfectly capable point & shoot. You should be able to get decent quality photos out of it, if you work around its limitations (flash, mostly). -- Moondigger 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, flash, I think, is the biggest obstacle for most point and shoot cameras. This picture came out as well as (I think) it did because of the overhead hosptial light. --Ernest F 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The ambient light is often enough to get something without flash at 1/15s or 1/8s. Stop breathing and try not to shake camera. With some training you should be able to have an unblurred shot. Ericd 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olegivvit 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - technically it is acceptable, despite the blurring... but to me it's not at all aesthetically pleasing - the opposite. No offence. Jono (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is blurred, except her right foot ? I like it ! Thanks God she's alive ! Ericd 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Her right foot is blurred. Jono (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. howch e ng {chat} 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - you just cannot get a realistic picture of an infant just seconds after delivery without mess. I like it because it's real, not artistic; it's real life, real blood, real flesh and not some photoshoped & spotless landscape photo. Renata 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I completely agree with Renata. It isn't a sterile or perfectly composed image but it does what it intends well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good illustration of the subject. That is just the way it looks like! My congratulations, Ernest_F! Mikeo 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The picture is only OK, and it doesn't add as much as it could to the article. Key parts of the body are obscured and half of the face is not even visible. --Hetar 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vircabutar 07:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only thing keeping me from supporting is that is not 'pleasing to the eye'. It's a photo that i would place on top of the TV if I were a relative or something, but not one i'd like to have as a FP (with all due respect, of course).Nnfolz 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being there, I can tell you that the event itself was not necessarily 'pleasing to the eye'! However, I don't believe a FPC needs to meet that criteria. For instance, the 'Warsaw Ghetto' candidate below is certainly not pleasing to the eye, however, it captures and illustrates the subject in a vivid manner.--Ernest F 18:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support As per comments re. real life situation --New t on2 12:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]