Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Annie Besant, LoC.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Annie Besant, LoC.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2014 at 07:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info photographer unknown, uploaded, restored and nominated by Yann (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)- Info High resolution picture of a famous personality after restoration. Annie Besant was a prominent British socialist, theosophist, women's rights activist, writer and orator and supporter of Irish and Indian self-rule.
Support -- Yann (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)- Support --P e z i (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support — A good featured picture candidate. --Saqib (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose -- I don't see anything really remarkable in this picture other than being old. Most of the picture is unsharp (due to upsamplimg?) and part of it is severely overexposed. These faults would be mitigated by an extraordinary rarity or historical value, which is not tye case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)- Oppose Susan Sontag has said that "all photographs are interesting as well as touching if they are old enough". But unfortunately I don't yet see it as old enough to overcome the technical shortcomings. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per others -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar, Kruusamägi, Christian Ferrer: I think it is wrong to judge the quality of a picture from the 19th century by modern DSLR standard. Also this is high resolution scanned from a print or a negative, therefore, you have to judge the sharpness on the size of the original. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Yann: you are right about the need to evaluate the picture in the original size. The problem is that we don't have it! Maybe the scanned image should be resampled to the size of the original print! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just some years later, when this image was taken, there was an Estonian photographer named Johannes Pääsuke, who took hundreds of images on glass negatives. Many of them have far better quality and they could be scanned with even higher resolutions. I haven't managed to convince the museum to let thous scans for public use (currently only images with ridiculously small size of 640 px are available), but thous stand as the benchmarks for me to show what was possible back then. In compassion, this images just don't stand out. Sorry. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Yann: you are right about the need to evaluate the picture in the original size. The problem is that we don't have it! Maybe the scanned image should be resampled to the size of the original print! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar, Kruusamägi, Christian Ferrer: I think it is wrong to judge the quality of a picture from the 19th century by modern DSLR standard. Also this is high resolution scanned from a print or a negative, therefore, you have to judge the sharpness on the size of the original. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support If someday we are shown a picture of God, they are always those who find the misplaced or overexposed picture. This lady is not God, but what a pleasure to see her there.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose For sure an interesting picture, very useful for our encyclopedias, but the technical quality could be better, and this one does not fit the FP criteria in my humble opinion, even for an old picture, I'm sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support imho ok --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
