Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2009

Incidentally, has anyone noticed how much he looks like Jimmy Wales? --mikaul^talk 10:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose— It is a fine photograph in may respects, but inadequate lighting contributes to poor definition of the lower facial features - there is severe blurring of the chin/beard with its shadow. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I believe this image has good resolution, detail, DoF and EV. Enough characteristics to become a FP. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer edit 1. I think portraits have a very difficult time getting through, and this one is clearly above average. I'm not a big fan of the tight crop, but it's good enough for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I'm tempted to support per Diliff, but I think if we're going to feature a picture of Jimmy Wales, we should insist upon the highest possible quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nice photo and, Jimbo, we love you, man.--
  talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Smashing picture of
  Jimbo, It would be good to see it as a FP. Harlem675 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per FCB1. Also not a fan of the cropping. South Nashua (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of a Périnet piston valve.

Reason

Technically OK, a detailed view that is not usually available.

Articles this image appears in

Piston valve

Creator

Eusebius

• Support as nominator --Eusebius (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional weak support - Interesting enough I guess, a little spacey but good probably. Really needs a better caption though especially mentioning the fact that this is from a trumpet. -Ben pcc (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not include it on purpose, because the piston valves found on tubas, saxhorns, flugelhorns and so on look the same, and present the exact same features in principle. In other words, I designed the caption so that the picture is presented as describing the concept of a piston valve, more than a specific trumpet piston valve (I hope I am clear). I'm ready to change it to "Anatomy of a trumpet piston valve" if you think it is better. --Eusebius (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support. Caption needs improving, and a description of the various parts would be nice on the description page. MER-C 09:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've modified the caption to mention the trumpet. I'm unable to name or describe precisely the various parts. --Eusebius (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an accurate depiction.
  talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Suggest the new description now used. wadester16 16:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice, except that it might be slightly misleading (although accurate from the player's point of view): the open trumpet reads C/C/G/C/E/G/B♭/C, but plays B♭/B♭/F/B♭/D/F/A♭/B♭ (because it's a B♭ trumpet). I'm not sure there's a way to state it nicely. --Eusebius (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, not sure how to get that in that way either. Though the links bring you to places where you can figure that out, I guess. wadester16 17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've included a link to Transposing instrument, I think it is enough. --Eusebius (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nicely done; perfect place and article to link. wadester16 07:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very accurate work. --Carioca (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we need more of these for FP GerardM (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on the whole instrument ;-) But it takes a lot of time... --Eusebius (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Funnily enough I had just been thinking about doing a valve image myself. 'Weak' because the cutout on that green washer type thing fourth from the top looks to have been done a bit poorly. If I'm wrong, or if it gets fixed, change to full support. BTW agree with earlier comments on naming/description of parts - surely the names for these parts shouldn't be that hard to find? --jjron (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Trompette - premier piston - montage perspective.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chaga Hut

Reason

Good quality and very good EV. I thought the Bank of Tanzania would be my last TZ related nom but found a few more images. Compared to the only other image of the subject, this one is pretty good.

Articles this image appears in

Hut (dwelling)

Creator

User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does anyone else see the reddish hue around every leaf, and the sky is looking purple on my computer. I wanted to ask about it before voting. Other pictures are showing correct, as well as the tests above. Thank you very much!! Zulualpha (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a blown sky was removed? I've done that before, and if you don't find a good replacement for the sky, it comes out looking something like this, especially if the fill-in isn't carefully done. Given the lighting, I'd say it was probable. Thegreenj 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sky was blown to some extent and I tried to recover the blown areas. If anybody wants to give it a retry, I can provide the blown version as well --Muhammad(talk) 02:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you shoot in raw? If you did, why not provide the original and a -1 EV version. That would be a good start. If you're determined to replace the sky with nothing but the blown version, you may want to try using a much lighter, somewhat desaturated blue gradient as your sky. That said, I'm not sure I would consider totally replacing the sky (as appears to have been done here) appropriate encyclopedia ethics. Thegreenj 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would much rather a blown sky (sometimes this is unavoidable, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose for it) than an a faked sky which is simply overexposure that has been darkened, and is therefore missing all colour info (essentially grey). I don't really agree with using a blue gradient either, as it would likely not look realistic, not to mention the ethical issues. If the raw file exists, it might be possible to recover but even then, not always. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uploaded original I didn't shoot raw. --Muhammad(talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank goodness others see it... I thought I needed to adjust my moniter. I'm an amateur photographer and also currently working as a photography assistant. We shoot with film and therefore I am not as familiar with photo-shopping techniques. Would “fixing” the blown sky on the computer also account for the red hue around the leaves, or is that another problem? Zulualpha (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I only see the red hue on leaves where they touch the sky, so I assume that's a part of it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Or possibly chromatic aberration. The high contrast boundary between a leaf and a blown sky would definitely bring that out. Thegreenj 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm glad to see the comments above so I know I'm not crazy, that sky looks VERY awkward. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've never seen grey blown highlights here before, but there you go. Might be recoverable in RAW, but that only makes the chromatic aberration look worse. MER-C 04:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thegreen, Diliff anything you can do about the original, any comments? --Muhammad(talk) 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the look of the original, no, but it would really depend if you shot it in RAW and could recover the highlights there. It looks beyond recovery to be honest. But having said that, I don't think the blown sky is that important. It would be nice if it wasn't, but I've shot in forests quite often and it is nearly impossible to retain detail in the sky when properly exposing for the forest floor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the blown sky being unimportant. A few lines of clouds would not affect the EV of this image and otherwise the quality is pretty good, right? --Muhammad(talk) 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not just the blown sky though, the whole top of the hut seems overly flushed with light - again probably a side-effect of the shooting conditions. You could try to selectively edit that, but I'd tend to say it just doesn't come up to FP standards, difficulty of shooting conditions notwithstanding (though they typically are ignored). Would support it at VPC though (please don't give me a lecture about mentioning VP as some users are wont to do ;-) ). --jjron (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see why a small part of the image which provides no additional information should affect the larger part of the image. And apart from the exposure, it is otherwise very good and we have been known to make exceptions in rare cases. --Muhammad(talk) 02:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The overexposed/flushed out 'roof' of the hut is probably 1/3 of the high EV part of the image - that's hardly a 'small part'. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original unedited version only Too bad for the blown sky, but anybody who've been in a forest will understand. On the other hand the grey sky of the edited version looked completely fake. Except for the sky, the picture is great, with a lot of EV (Bonus point for the great caption in the summary. Wish all FPC would have this kind of caption !). I would have liked to see more Tanzania's pictures (and I mean real people/place, not insects or flowers :p). Ksempac (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "original", wow, that just looks.. ..uncanny! How is that even remotely an improvement? Weak support alternative (real original), the blown sky cheapens the look of the image, but this is great stuff none the less. I find this way more interesting than the umpteenth insect macro. --Dschwen 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unedited version. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chaga_hut_noadj.jpg Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With 3 supports and 1 weak support, this does not have enough support to meet the requirement. Issue raised here: here. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait of United States President Barack Obama

Reason

A very impressive image, shot by an impressive photographer. An instantly recognizable photograph, seen throughout the entire world, as a representation of the current President of the United States. Though I am personally not a supporter of President Obama, this image is extremely inspiring, and a perfect capture of the subject. The lighting and contrast of the photo is superb, with the red, white and blue flag in the background providing a sense of integrity, as well as patriotism. Very professional image that is worthy of being a featured image on the English Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Barack Obama, President of the United States, etc.

Creator

Pete Souza

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Previous nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, I'd like to point out, since you kindly provided the link, that the closing administrator on the previous nomination had suggested relisting the image, when it was not promoted back in January. Not that it matters, but I just wanted to make sure that it is noted for this process as well.
    talk) 06:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose Am I allowed to cite my diatribe during the previous nom? Compositionally, it's a very poor pastiche of the Reagan one. Yes, it's been shot with a digital camera and yes, it's the President of the United States. These two things are all this image has to commend itself as a featured picture. Not enough, IMO. --mikaul^talk 11:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as before --Muhammad(talk) 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose The background is rather bland, other than the color of the US Flag, the tie is slightly askew with heavy shadowing beneath, and the subject's facial expression looks, umm, constipated. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high technical quality, good representation of the subject, among the very best images of living people on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV, good quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very recognisable and looks good with the flag in the background. LizzieHarrison 11:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If the presidential portrait photos (certainly this one and other modern ones) aren't of EV, providing an HQ portrait of one of the most powerful people in the world... Then no biographical image is a FP. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I feel there are many other photographs of the president that are much better - they show his personality and are a better balance. I understand the reason the president is off center (to allow the flag to be seen and as a whole, they are center), but I still find the fact he is so off center (you can see down his arm!), along with the shadowing mentioned above, to be distracting. Further, if you look at other presidential photos, they are much more centered than this one. I'm not disputing the EV of the photo... it is a photo of the current President of the United States. I oppose because of the above reasons AND it simply isn't as quality as the other presidential photos as a whole, IMO.Zulualpha (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Zulualpha -- mcshadypl ^TC 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, off center, unnatural expression, poor background. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See rule of thirds. Durova²⁹⁷ 22:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unnatural expression?? I have no tie to this image, but really? Less natural than File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg? Than File:Peter Levy BBC.jpg? Than File:Saddam Hussein at trial, July 2004-edit1.JPEG? It's a guy sitting there. I think the background is fine, but whatever on that front, but I do not see how his expression is an issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer all your questions: yes. It's a poor image, no action, no story, just a mundane expressionless photo. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's... What a portrait is... That's what basically every FP portrait is... Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, that's a passport photo, or maybe something from the 19th century but without the decent lighting and depiction of powerful persona. --mikaul^talk 07:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then will there be several dozen FP for removal noms coming from you guys? Because again, the standard for FP portraits is pretty clear from the ones currently in the library, and this photo meets them. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - sorry, but the positioning is really distracting and takes away from the image. Plus, the flags look really blurry and my eyes kinda burn from looking at the image because of the blur, especially when they try to adjust to read the words which are too close to center not to be drawn towards. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obvious EV. And i do like the composition...for once a people picture with a bit of originality. Nice rule of thirds. Can't understand why people are so put up by this composition. Ksempac (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torres del Paine

Reason

High resolution image in great lighting conditions of an iconic rock formation. This is a vertical panorama of three images taken at about 7am, on an uncharacteristically bright, cloudless day. Regarding flaws, the composition isn't perfect, and perhaps the polariser blackens the sky a bit too much.

Articles this image appears in

Cordillera del Paine

Creator

Stevage

• Support as nominator --Stevage 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, the polarisation of the sky is a bit OTT - that must have been some seriously clear blue sky. Fantastic looking scenery, but I'm not a fan of the composition. Doesn't look like the best vantage point and it feels a bit cramped and confused. And while it has plenty of resolution, the detail is fairly poor at 100%. Not suggesting you downsample it necessarily though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For context, see the alternative. Stevage 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like a better vantage point would be further up the slope to the left... You'd lose the reflection in the water, I suppose, but it would be a more complete and higher EV view IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all - loss of detail due to JPEG artifacts. Also per Diliff. MER-C 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to nit-pick at this vote in particular, but I've seen jpeg artifacts misidentified increasingly frequently around FPC. They don't appear as noise or as general lack of sharpness; they look like 8x8 pixel squares. Jpeg artifacts aren't a major problem with this photo at 100%, and they're certainly not causing the detail loss here; diffraction (f/22!?) or optics is more likely, IMO. (FWIW, this is what detail loss from jpeg artifacts looks like.) Thegreenj 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. With no disrespect to MER-C intended, I do think he does occasionally misdiagnose JPEG artifacts. There are some strange artifacts in the dark blue sky, but I suspect that it is sensor noise that the camera has attempted to perform in-camera reduction on (badly). It usually ends up as patchy, blobby artifacts on P&S cameras (which I assume was used in this case, as it doesn't seem to have the pixel level sharpness of a DSLR, even at f/22!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, EXIF says it is a DSLR and a high-end one as well (Pentax K10D), the ISO was only 280 and the shutter speed was 1/125. At those settings, noise really shouldn't be a problem... MER-C 09:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I hadn't had a good look at the EXIF, but with those settings and the camear there's not really any logical explanation for the poor image quality. It seems even more obvious in the sky of the alternative image, and I think there might actually be a bit of blocky JPEG artifacts in that one too by the looks of it. Stevage, what do you think? Is that image quality typical from your camera? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noise is always worse in the blue channel and varies according to the chip; can be really bad with Sony DSLRs, maybe Pentax use the same chip? Other quality issues (softness, lack of contrast, fringing) are just cheap lens related, that said no DX lens is going to be impressive stopped right down. Weird "choice" of ISO/exposure for a straight auto setting, it has to be said. --mikaul^talk 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I believe Pentax does/did use a Sony chip, as did Nikon until fairly recently. I've never seen a lens that unsharp though. Even the cheapest, crappiest lenses can produce better images. It actually looks a little upsampled to me. I'm not saying it has been - that's just what it looks like. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The reflections at the bottom of both pictures is mind-bending! Because the formations are so strange and interesting, you can't really tell where the rock ends and the water begins. Smaug123 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Roy

Reason

Restored version of File:Dalziel Brothers - Sir Walter Scott - Rob Roy in the Crypt of Glasgow Cathedral unrestored.jpg. This shows the gothic, atmospheric meeting that sets off the exciting second half of the book, and I think does an excellent job at capturing the mood. The engravers are highly notable, and the book is, of course, very well known. This was nominated before (and actually had a consensus of support which was overruled, then it got caught up in various drama related to a series of awkward closures...); however, I think it's now accepted that a good illustration of a book is useful to have, which a lot of the opposes seemed against at the time.

Articles this image appears in

Dalziel Brothers, and Glasgow Cathedral

.

Creator

the

Dalziel Brothers

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁸ 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice restoration, but I'm not sure the image of a character's back has a good EV.--Caspian blue 17:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osbaldistone is in three-quarters view - you CAN see his face, Rob Roy isn't seen at this point in the story. To do what you suggest, it would have to be of a completely different scene. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I supported last time and again. I can't imagine a better illustration for the novel; it shows all the intrigue and promise of action that fills the novel. The caption on the page gives you all the information you need to know: "Listen—but do not look back." Makings for a good novel, that line, ;-)
  talk 07:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I don't think I voted last time, but Shoemaker's and Maedin's arguments convince me --Muhammad(talk) 23:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it's a wonderful example of its kind; EV for the novel is less significant but obviously not a drawback. Nice restoration. --mikaul^talk 09:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an image in my field and definitely high quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dalziel Brothers - Sir Walter Scott - Rob Roy in the Crypt of Glasgow Cathedral.jpg --Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interborough Rattled Transit Political Cartoon

Reason

Humorous cartoon about the

Interborough Rapid Transit (a private transit company that eventually was bought out by the New York City Subway) critical of the system's service, in 1905. Restored version of File:Interborough Rattled Transit.png; smaller (1.86mb) version available: File:Interborough Rattled Transit Downsampled Restored.png

. Could be just as relevant today in some urban subways. :-)

Articles this image appears in

History of the IRT subway before 1918, History of the New York City Subway

Creator

Rogers, W. A. (William Allen) (published in the New York Herald)

• Support as nominator --wadester16 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wadester, I've told you that you shouldn't downsample engravings and such. However, you seem to have taken it into your head that your first step, when restoring, is to downsample to a tiny size, and yet you do not document this act very well, giving the misleading impression that this is as large as the image could be gotten. While you're doing that, such restorations cannot be considered Wikipedia's best work, even if no other flaws could be found. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other option do I have when the original is 23 mb and won't thumbnail? This is still 1660 px in its smallest dimension, which easily meets the FP criteria for size. I'm also trying to be considerate of others with slow connections. wadester16 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could restore and upload at full size as well as a downsampled version of the restoration for thumbnailing (as has been done before); after all the work restoring, it's a trivial amount of effort to provide a higher quality image. Also if you're concerned about others with slow internet, 6MB is still a pretty big file; an additional jpeg version might be helpful. Just link the other versions in the image page, and everyone's happy. Thegreenj 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look at my restorations, you'll see that nearly all of them have a PNG version (which generally doesn't thumbnail) and a JPEG (which does), as well as the same (or sometimes just the PNG) for the original. Just note at the top that the image is a lossless version of XXX.jpg, which doesn't currently display due to the PNG thumbnailer problem, but should be kept to allow further editing.

Also, the PNG thumbnailer limit is 12 megapixels, not three, so even for the stated reason for the downsample - which I'd still oppose over - you went way too far. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Highest-res version uploaded over the original shown above. Smaller version linked in text above. Alt, in grayscale, is also offered for those that may prefer it. wadester16 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All the LoC's film images tend to be rather soft, including this one, so I've sharpened it a bit. Time3000 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The brightness of the paper seems pretty inconsistent. The bottom left is much brighter than the other corners, particularly the left side. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, and brick red seems an odd tone for the colours - This scan is pretty bad, and very uneven in tone - dark in parts, light in others, and this sort of art didn't have washes. It'd be better to lose the paper (which is badly posterised) and just keep the ink, if we're to salvage this. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just a scanner issue, Shoemaker. This is a second generation copy. Remember my complaints about the slightly off-focus Kodak duplicates LoC was making several decades ago? It's often hard to work off those things. Durova²⁹⁴ 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's hoping you saved a version prior to changing the histogram, Wadester. There are pretty severe brightness variations in different parts of this image. It's a phenomenon I blogged about several months back. Have a look at how much better Jake Wartenberg made the Montana State Capitol before he nominated. After that's ready, try adjusting color balance instead of desaturating. This fade is rich in magenta and deficient in cyan. A few minor issues could also use a touch-up. It looks like someone made a diagonal scratch to interrupt the lines of the I-beam pillar. Durova²⁹⁴ 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - appears downsampled (or blurred) and then desaturated. The downsampling/blurring tends to lose detail in the paper, making it look washed; also not a wise option for an engraving (or anything involving thin strokes), since they can get discarded in either process. Wholesale blurring and sharpening is not good, unless you know you can get away with it (ie., no-one is going to complain). It would be better if the paper were restored before the desaturation/levels adjustment to avoid the overblown whites. At any rate, if you do use levels (or whatever) in the future, it's a good way to check against over-bright and over-dark [not relevant here] areas, so you know where to work next.
  Xavexgoem (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Just to be clear, this isn't downsampled, at least not by me. wadester16 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment uploaded new version over original, using Alt 2 as basis. Colors adjusted per Durova, and brightness adjusted per Diliff. Unfortunately I'm on my way out for vacation and may not be around much until next week. Irrational timing on my part, admittedly. wadester16 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's getting closer. Global changes seldom do the trick with this type of image. It's still got brightness variances, which produce some loss of paper texture. Also the color balance has local irregularities. Have uploaded an edit with notes to make it a little easier to see. The ideal solution is to go back and work on the uneven fade first, in order to retain the texture. Then try a series of feathered layer adjustments to get a consistent color balance. Good call to leave the pencil marks visible from before the artist inked the sketch. The hard part is to leave that intact while getting out the smudges and dirt. Looks effortless when it's done right, but but actually quite difficult. A tough choice for a first restoration FPC. Durova²⁹⁷ 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chaga Hut

Reason

Good quality and very good EV. I thought the Bank of Tanzania would be my last TZ related nom but found a few more images. Compared to the only other image of the subject, this one is pretty good.

Articles this image appears in

Hut (dwelling)

Creator

User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim