Talk:Eighth Doctor

	Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Infobox pic

After a careful review of the picture which has been in the infobox over a year, file:Eighth Doctor.jpg, I determined it was necessary to delete it. In my view, it was obviously improperly colour-balanced versus the most recent DVD release. It was so red-shifted that it exaggerated the fact that McGann was wearing a wig, but, more disturbingly, it gave him roseacea. The scene from which the picture came, his farewell to Grace at the end, is backlit, which always makes the subject appear dark at 250px. I tried playing around with the image to get it to look okay at 250px, but any lightening made the problem recur. It's just one of those scenes that looks fine on a TV, but when you bring it down to 250px,you run into problems.

I've put up another image. If people don't like it and want to change it, fine. Whatever we might think of the plot, it's a beautifully shot film and there are tons of great images of the Eighth Doctor. But please don't try to use anything from that farewell scene at the end of the film.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">09:36:23 Tue 14 Jun 2011 

For the purposes of future clarification, please note that a user has put a new picture at file:Eighth Doctor.jpg. The current picture at that page is not the one referred to in my earlier post. The current Eighth Doctor.jpg is perfectly acceptable.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">17:05:48 Tue 14 Jun 2011 

Changed to File:Eight.jpg. Previous image looked disproportioned, and may well be. This one is face on. Consulted Revan as to this change. Other opinions?----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:14, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have an opinion. The image you added isn't that great, it's too stretched. Although the Doctor's face in my image however looks just fine. Though this may not be a good enough reason, until this matter is resolved, that image you added is only temporary. Cortion 17:34, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? The image I added was a direct screenshot straight from the standard sized image. It isn't stretched. Your image is stretched if anything. The image I uploaded is a larger file and so it is of a higher quality. It is face on, rather than to the side. I have consulted Revan as to this change so it isn't just personal opinion. This image is often used in media to advertise the Eighth Doctor (but the screenshot is my own). These are my reasons. Lets look at yours: "I prefer this image." Hmm...sorry to sound harsh, but I already intended to change this image and waited to see what others thought. Of course I'm not saying that we should consult on every edit, but as a main page I think It deserves some discussion rather that just personal preference. If anyone can find an image better than this, I'd very much like to see it and if you still differ in opinion please state why. Thanks----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:43, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll weigh in on this, since I kinda started things by deleting the old pic. I like both Skittles' and Cortion's pics. I think they're both fine improvements on what was there before. But if I'm honest, I do have a slight preference for Cortion's. It's one of my very favorite shots of McGann. As someone who's combed that movie for images on many occasions, I think I can pretty much guarantee Cortion hasn't unnaturally warped it. Rather, Geoffrey Sax did. It's taken during the scene where things are very confused for the newly-regenerated Doctor, so there are some in-camera lens effects going on. I think the fact that he's looking left is ideal for an infobox that's placed on the right of a page. Given a choice between an image that's left-facing versus one where the person's eyes are skyward, I would naturally choose the left-facing one every time. It's an old bit of design theory; you tend to want your subjects looking in the direction of the body of text. It's one of the reasons that my offering to the page was right-facing. People will tend to reject images that face away from the text, and I wanted people actively looking for a better shot for the infobox. Like I said, though, both are way better than what was there before.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">18:17:06 Fri 17 Jun 2011 

I prefer the image I submitted because (like you said) it isn't warped and it's closer up. I'm not really sure why you like the other image. Because it's a full body shot? I think a face on image is much better than one where he's facing the text, simply because you want to see the character's face.----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:24, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to explain my preference any better. I've described it pretty thoroughly, above. I will say, though, that you're mischaracterising your shot, and therefore the differences between it and Cortion's.

• You can totally see Eight's face in both shots. Neither your image's nor Cortion's are better than the other's at giving a clear representation of what the character looks like.

• Your picture isn't head-on. It's taken from an unnaturally close up angle with the subject turned towards the camera, eyes up. Because of the innovative nature of Sax's framing, there are few examples of terribly static, head-on shot composition in the movie. Thus, the actual choice is between two stylised pics — one with the eyes looking up and one with the eyes looking left. Both pics have some degree of focus-pulling tricks going on — yours loses focus around the edges because it's so tight on McGann's nose; Cortion's because Sax is actively trying to suggest the loss of equilibrium. I never said that yours wasn't warped. It is, because Sax is a dynamic director, and he had a great DOP working for him.

Now, I'm not saying there's an obvious "winner" between the two. I'm just saying they're both very similar, but the one that's eyes-left pulls the reader towards the copy, whereas yours points the reader towards the wikia header.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">17:40:39 Sun 19 Jun 2011 

Why not use the promotional photos, then? How about this one? Mugen Kagemaru 05:09, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

"Casting"

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the "Casting" section has absolutely no sources? That information, if true (and the way it's written suggest to me that it... may not be), should have come from somewhere and we should make a point of ensuring that it's accurate. I just don't really know nor do I have access to sources that might illuminate such matters (with one exception that does not actually include much of the information present in the secion as-is, so...). Does anyone have any thoughts or sources, etc? If not, I plan on removing it because it's been bothering me. --SB | T 19:32, October 29, 2011 (UTC)