Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/And all seems dark as night for it
Appearance
"It is far better to face the bullets than to be killed at home by a bomb."
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 02:48:36 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/It_is_far_better_to_face_the_bullets.jpg/250px-It_is_far_better_to_face_the_bullets.jpg)
- Reason
- A rather striking, albeit simple, recruitment poster from WWI. Such posters tended to be a little over the top. There are prettier ones, but this one is widely in use. Part of my work on Operation Great War Centennial.
- Articles in which this image appears
- In no particular order: Recruitment to the British Army during the First World War, Zeppelin
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War I
- Creator
- Publicity Department, Central Recruiting Depot. Restoration by Adam Cuerden.
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Nice clear-cut scan. Great restoration as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)]
- Support - Solid restoration.--Godot13 (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Fantastic. Though I think the Blitzed Brits would have been happier with blimps than bombers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support — Interesting bit of (attempted) wartime psychology. High historical EV. Sca (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Question There is a yellow taint in the upper part of the white frame. Is that intentional? -- Slaunger (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it's what I think you're looking at, it appeared to be ink, so I left it. I think they were using yellow ink to modify the blues/greens. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, some of it is ink, yes, but there is also a tendency of a more yellow gradient cast in the upper parts of the image as if it was a bit bleached by light over the years or so. Nothing serious though, just an observation. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble seeing it, to be honest. Any comparison that'd make it easy to notice? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- For me it is quite evident by just looking at the preview in the nom page. But nevermind, it is not a serious issue at all. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, right. I think that's somewhat more of a lightness/darkness issue than a saturation issue. The LoC scans are done with a book scanner, I believe, which don't help matters. If it's not that visible, I think I might leave it, particularly given how much of the green border on the left and top had to be reconstructed (see TIFF/LoC link), which could throw attempts to do subtle tweaks off. Thoough there is one thing I could try... let me load this up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Slaunger: Think that worked. Used the hue-saturation tool with the select tools to get a bit of selectivity. How's it look now? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is a subtle edit, but I do notice the improvement. Thanks for investing your time in it. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- No worries! I just had to figure out a good way to do it, given I didn't want the reconstructed green outer borders to change. (They're partially made by flipping borders from other sides, so are about the right colour already. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is a subtle edit, but I do notice the improvement. Thanks for investing your time in it. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Slaunger: Think that worked. Used the hue-saturation tool with the select tools to get a bit of selectivity. How's it look now? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, right. I think that's somewhat more of a lightness/darkness issue than a saturation issue. The LoC scans are done with a book scanner, I believe, which don't help matters. If it's not that visible, I think I might leave it, particularly given how much of the green border on the left and top had to be reconstructed (see TIFF/LoC link), which could throw attempts to do subtle tweaks off. Thoough there is one thing I could try... let me load this up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- For me it is quite evident by just looking at the preview in the nom page. But nevermind, it is not a serious issue at all. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble seeing it, to be honest. Any comparison that'd make it easy to notice? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, some of it is ink, yes, but there is also a tendency of a more yellow gradient cast in the upper parts of the image as if it was a bit bleached by light over the years or so. Nothing serious though, just an observation. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it's what I think you're looking at, it appeared to be ink, so I left it. I think they were using yellow ink to modify the blues/greens. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Good restoration and high EV. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support : per Slaunger. --JLPC (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:It is far better to face the bullets.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)