Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/PalmercarpenterA.jpg

Reason

Previously nominated in April 2007 but did not pass. Nonetheless, I think it's a great image and very encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

Numerous, including

Tradesman

.

Creator

Palmer, Alfred T., photographer. (Farm Security Administration - Office of War Information Collection) (c. 1942)

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - looks too artificial to me, maybe its the brightness of the sky but it doesn't look real. Also the picture is grainy and has numerous black things covering parts of the photo --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it possible to get a higher quality scan, one that doesn't have a bunch of fibers showing on the photo? Clegs (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Durova's edit - was previously nominated for peer review here and then for FP here. The reason it looks artificial is that this was quite an early colour photograph, and probably used artificial light despite being on location. Support for historical significance (both to photography, American industry and the TVA) and high resolution. If someone could try to get rid of the fibres that would be great, but there's hundreds of them. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're almost certainly correct; I was looking through the Library of Congress archives tonight and spotted another Alfred Palmer color photo from the same period where the lamp was in the frame. (oops) ;) Durova^Charge! 12:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you post a link? I'd like to see that. --mikaul^talk 12:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I downloaded a low resolution version for you. Made me laugh out loud. :) Image:AlfredPalmerlamp.jpg. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks! I'd figured his stuff was shot on the near-mythical sheet film version of Kodachrome and that frame confirms it. He's using at least one other lamp there, too; looks like uncorrected incandescent stuff, which explains the warm cast to the whites in this nom. Very interesting! --mikaul^talk 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support actually it's one of the pics I had set aside for the landmark images workshop. Bear in mind that the processing on early color photography tended to exaggerate saturation. It does have some dust and other detritus because of its age. I could try my hand at cleanup. Durova^Charge! 19:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done another edit on this with specific choices I'd like to explain. I've put extensive work into addressing the dust, scratches, and artifacts on the original (there were a lot of tiny ones) but made no other alteration. This is, in part, a historic document on the history of early color photography. In the United States in particular, heavily saturated colors were favored at the time this was made. This is an excellent example of that style of photography and it would be a mistake to impose our own era's notions of color balance upon it. Durova^Charge! 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done, a huge improvement - I've changed my vote to support your edit. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit three. I was the original uploader, and I just love this image. Out of the thousand-plus images I've uploaded it's one of my few favorites. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great job on the edit, Durova! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral: is this meant to be showing a historical photograph, or carpentry? As a historical photograph it's kinda cool, and I'd think of supporting it, but simply an illustration, then it would need to be compared to modern day photos, in which case the lightning/saturation is quite unnatural. Also, I've added the edit from the previous nom, but unfortunately it's lost much of the detail —Pengo 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Edit 2 from original nom is washed out, lacks contrast - usually, we edit images in the opposite direction. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Boring. -- carol 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Could you give us a little more information? 'Boring' is not a vote, much less a comment. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite certain that it is a comment about the image, not a feeling about the image and definitely not a vote against the image. -- carol 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit three Good color, interesting subject. Now that the scratch/fiber flaws have been fixed, I really like it. Clegs (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 3 Great shot from a great photographer. I love the tone of these old kodachromes, and Palmer was a prolific wartime exponent of early colour photography. He has some fantastic aerial and industrial shots, but I've never seen anything online above 600 pixels. Keep the big uns coming! --mikaul^talk 10:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit by Durova, "third version." I was waiting to vote until someone uploaded a version minus dust and scratches and such but keeping color balance and full resolution from original. Excellent job! - Enuja (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit three Useful picture, and cleaned up properly. SirFozzie (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Edit 3 An amazing, historical photograph that shows manhood at its best. --Sharkface217 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:PalmercarpenterA.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]