Speaking as a photographer, you have to keep in mind that they may well be limited as to what they can do.
The photo of Halle Berry was clearly taken by a professional who may very well not be at liberty to CC the image even if they wanted to. They may have been given permission to take photos for a certain use only, and Wikipedia might fall outside that. At worst, they may even have been forced to give away their copyright and line themselves up for damages by letting you use it (Jane's Addiction, I'm looking at you... http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/07/17/concert-photographers-asked-to-transfer-copyright-to-janes-addiction/). I didn't shoot Steven Segal, but I believe his contract bought all your photos for $1 and then exposed you to $1,000,000 of damages if you broke the contract. Here's the PDF of the release the photographers had to sign to shoot him - http://www.blackshadow.com.au/releases/seagal.pdf
Personally, I've been in a position where I'd like to donate better images of bands which I've taken professionally to Wikipedia, but at the end of the day, I may not have the right to do so as it falls outside the remit I was given when I took the photo, and I'm not prepared to potentially expose myself to any liability to help out.
In my opinion your best bet genuinely is a talented amateur who wasn't tied to any contract when they took the shot, and can CC license the shot with impunity.