Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/King Kelly baseball card, 1888

King Kelly Goodwin Champions card

Reason

A beautiful early baseball card that's also an interesting industrial artifact. From the Library of Congress collection at memory.loc.gov. For the full set, see my Commons user page. Proposed PotD caption:

Benday dots

.

Articles this image appears in

Baseball card, King Kelly, Pointillism

Creator

Goodwin & Company

Nominator

trialsanderrors

• Support (oppose edit, no reason to change hue) — trialsanderrors 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (original, oppose edit) lovely subject, great quality scan, very informative caption. Mak (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support, per above. Jellocube27 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not only is it beautiful and razor sharp, it's so encyclopedic that it has a very strong contribution to three almost unrelated articles. Impressive! Enuja 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, and nom.--HereToHelp 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support very striking image which is not technically flawed, and also has a very detailed caption. Ahadland 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - great scan, pin sharp, wonderful enc. This is a perfect example of the ideal FPC - hosted on Commons, way above the resolution guidelines, perfect description, tagged impeccably, nomination flawless - even including a PotD caption. Absolutely great. I propose we add this to the WIAFP page as a shining example to new contributors and voters. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I'm sure if I post it on Commons it'll sink without a trace... ~ trialsanderrors 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try us ;-) -- Lycaon 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, Support Edit 1 Surprised no one has noticed the color cast yet. --Fir0002 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure it's actually "color cast"? The image is of a paper object mass produced in the 1880s. A yellow discoloration from acidic paper is to be expected. I don't think it takes anything away from the image as it is in the original. Mak (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fwiw, the mount paper in the original photograph has a higher saturation level, almost identical to the card paper. I partially desaturated the border to create more contrast to the card, but I didn't set it all the way to zero saturation because that created an unappealing contrast. So the 60% desaturation is a compromise I found least intrusive. I've looked at pretty much the whole LoC collection since I started working on this set and I can't find any evidence that the yellowing is the result of the reproduction. The card is about as yellowed as one would expect after 120 years. ~ trialsanderrors 07:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, an excellent picture. Not certain which version would be better- I think they both look pretty good. J Milburn 11:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent.
  chat} 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - original, excellent picture and highly encyclopedic. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]