In this article we will do a detailed analysis of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg, exploring its most relevant aspects and its impact on current society. From its origins to its evolution over time, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg has played a fundamental role in various contexts, generating debates and controversies around its meaning and implications. Throughout these pages, we will examine its influence in different fields, as well as its relevance in people's daily lives. There is no doubt that Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg has marked a before and after in history, leaving an indelible mark on culture, politics, the economy and in many other areas. Join us on this journey to discover everything Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg has to offer and how it has shaped our world to this day.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2014 at 05:19:36 (UTC)
Reason
High technical standard (object is in focus, good color balance, little grain or compression (ISO 200)), good composition, appropriate lighting, but most and foremost, very high EV as it's a perfect profile of a geisha showing off her make-up, her hair (wig), her kimono, her obi, her doing the seiza, and all of this in her "natural habitat", a zashiki (tatami) room. A rather rare photo, if I may say so myself.
Support - Crop is a little tight (the kimono is a bare hundred pixels or so from the edge) but the composition is still acceptable. Wouldn't this also have good EV in seiza? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Support - Oh, yes. Like the strait back, the stillness and the profile and the blacks and whites with just a touch of colour on lips, hair and robe. Only wish it was slightly more space in front, but it will do anyway.Hafspajen (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Support. I think it's a superior composition compared to the previous geisha FPs and there is plenty of detail. I'll have to assume it's authentic as I'm not really knowledgeable enough to comment on that. Ðiliff«»(Talk)18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)