Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Circumcision central Asia2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Circumcision central Asia2.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 07:58:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on 4 Encyclopedias.created by uploaded by Durova - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment - This is certainly an interesting photo, and I would support it for its historical significance, interest and good composition, but before I actually decide on how to vote: The original looks sepia-toned. Do you think that could have been an artistic choice, and if so, one we should respect? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: This is the best version.and we should make Commons the fifth site chooses this image as a featured.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please answer my question. Campaigning like a politician instead of addressing questions you're asked is not likely to be effective on this page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- And to elaborate: If a decision is made that the sepia tone was an artistic choice, it would be very possible to do a restoration that eliminates damage without also getting rid of the sepia. But the desirability and respectfulness toward the photographer of converting this into a brighter black & white picture is what I'd like you to please address. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Do you want the image to be "brighter black & white"? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that compared to the original photo, which is in sepia tones, your "restoration" goes beyond the steps stated in "Other versions": "Cropped. Dirt, creases, and stains removed. Damaged sleeve reconstructed. Colors balanced, including selective color adjustments and partial desaturation." You also changed from sepia toning to black & white and brightened the photo, overall. And what I'm asking is, why is that good, and how sure are you that sepia toning wasn't an artistic choice by the unknown photographer? Do you understand what I'm asking you? I'm sorry that I don't know Arabic, and I'm also sorry I didn't realize you weren't evading my question but didn't understand it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I think that this the most appropriate copy.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that compared to the original photo, which is in sepia tones, your "restoration" goes beyond the steps stated in "Other versions": "Cropped. Dirt, creases, and stains removed. Damaged sleeve reconstructed. Colors balanced, including selective color adjustments and partial desaturation." You also changed from sepia toning to black & white and brightened the photo, overall. And what I'm asking is, why is that good, and how sure are you that sepia toning wasn't an artistic choice by the unknown photographer? Do you understand what I'm asking you? I'm sorry that I don't know Arabic, and I'm also sorry I didn't realize you weren't evading my question but didn't understand it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Do you want the image to be "brighter black & white"? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- And to elaborate: If a decision is made that the sepia tone was an artistic choice, it would be very possible to do a restoration that eliminates damage without also getting rid of the sepia. But the desirability and respectfulness toward the photographer of converting this into a brighter black & white picture is what I'd like you to please address. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please answer my question. Campaigning like a politician instead of addressing questions you're asked is not likely to be effective on this page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: This is the best version.and we should make Commons the fifth site chooses this image as a featured.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Question - So, everyone, since the restorer won't address the question: What do you think about the sepia tones? Was it a good decision to get rid of them in the "restoration", or should we withhold support for this photo on the basis of that decision? I feel like I've been given the runaround, and that makes me emotionally inclined to oppose this nomination, but I don't want to base my vote on the way my question has been treated so far. Please give your opinions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I guess in the end it's a matter of taste and/or what you're using the image for. According to the file description, this is a scan of an en:Albumen print. According to this, it is completely normal for albumen prints to develop a yellow-brownish colour cast quickly after fixation, unless they are "toned" with gold, which made it purplish-brown. Ageing may or may not have had an additional effect on colour, but this print likely never was completely pure black and white. From a scan of the (probably glass-) negative I'd expect B&W, but for a scan from a print the colour cast makes sense to me - at least if you treat it as a historical document on its own (in which case cropping the borders probably wasn't a good idea as well). On the other hand, if you are more interested in the content of the image, it totally makes sense to remove the colour cast. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, El Grafo. I think I'm more interested in this as a historical photo than purely the content - or, rather, I'm interested in both. I think I'd rather compare a more conservative restoration to this one than vote to support this one without a comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- And just to clarify, I will
Oppose a feature for this restoration, pending any effort to do and nominate a more conservative restoration. However, I certainly think this should be a Valued Image, despite my reservations about this form of "restoration" of sepia-toned photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- And just to clarify, I will
- Thanks for your input, El Grafo. I think I'm more interested in this as a historical photo than purely the content - or, rather, I'm interested in both. I think I'd rather compare a more conservative restoration to this one than vote to support this one without a comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I guess in the end it's a matter of taste and/or what you're using the image for. According to the file description, this is a scan of an en:Albumen print. According to this, it is completely normal for albumen prints to develop a yellow-brownish colour cast quickly after fixation, unless they are "toned" with gold, which made it purplish-brown. Ageing may or may not have had an additional effect on colour, but this print likely never was completely pure black and white. From a scan of the (probably glass-) negative I'd expect B&W, but for a scan from a print the colour cast makes sense to me - at least if you treat it as a historical document on its own (in which case cropping the borders probably wasn't a good idea as well). On the other hand, if you are more interested in the content of the image, it totally makes sense to remove the colour cast. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Neutral per Ikan's oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
