Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Billy the Kid tintype, Fort Sumner, 1879-80.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Billy the Kid tintype, Fort Sumner, 1879-80.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2011 at 04:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Billy the Kid tintype that recently sold for USD $2,300,000, the 4th highest amount for a photograph of all time.
Retouched verstion
  •  Info The only known authenticated image of Billy the Kid. Tintype that recently sold for USD $2,300,000, the 4th highest amount for a photograph of all time. Created by unknown photographer.
  •  Support -- Scewing (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info as stated here this image is mirror inverted. in addition to the orientation of the Winchester Model 1873's loading gate, we can verify this information by the orientation of McCarty's belt and vest. The buttons of his vest are right over left (from McCarty's pov if closed) in this mirrored version but should be left over right (from McCarty's pov if closed) - that's what we can see on countless images of the same period. The belt ends to the right (from McCarty's pov) but should rather end to the left (from McCarty's pov). These are two additional inidcators which give proof to the fact that is image is mirror inverted. I'd be happy to perform a digital restoration of this unique item if you could provide a high res tiff scan. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 05:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I emailed the auction house and they're sending my request for a lossless image to the photographer who took the digital image of the tintype. Can you tell from the original EXIF metadata whether or not he took the picture in a lossy or lossless format? Scewing (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This digital copy was created using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which could theoretically provide a 21.1MP raw file. Using 320ISO is nonsense - repros should be done at the lowest ISO possible, for the Canon this would be ISO50. Using a 100mm lense is good, because it prevents the image from major distortions. The library of congress mainly useses a P45 digital back for their digitasations. Hasselblad has recently announced the H4D-200MS. There more pixels, the merrier! If they get 2.3M $ for that particular image, maybe they can invest 1 or 2 $ in a proper scan before they actually sell it. I disdain the idea of not having a seriously high resolution scan while this image is vanishing in some sort of private collection. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 06:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, true, you may choose ISO50 on a 5DII, but it's an "ISO enhancement" setting as the ISO 25600 on the other side of the ISO range for this camera is, AFAIK. The lowest ISO setting on this Canon without any electronic tricks is ISO 100, I guess; ISO 50 being of some use for situations where you need a longer exposure but where a ND filter is not an hand, at the price of not having the last bit of possible detail in the image. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All DSLR ISO works with electronic tricks. There's no film that gets exposed. For clarification: ISO 50 is basically ISO 100 with different metering. It falls 2/3 of a stop short at the highlights. Depending on your setting to digititise an image, this might be handy. On the other hand exposure bracketing might be useful here as well. You can remedy the effects of improper lighting and digitally increase the dynamic range of an image via this method. Maybe we are lucky and they'll do a better scan next time. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment After I saw you'd uploaded this, I was hoping you'd nominate it. I too hope for a mirror reversal of a high(er)-resolution version, which I would gladly support. While the continual use of the mirrored image needs to be discontinued, in my opinion (and I was surprised the media still uses it to such a heavy extent), I also believe the disintegration of the photograph is as notable as the image itself. If the restoration is done extremely well, I could support that as well, but the original I think stands on its own for sure. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've retouched the image and cleaned it a little but I didn't flip it, it still could benefit from more restoration but I don't think it could be up to FP standards.   ■ MMXX  talk  19:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is a new version.   ■ MMXX  talk  14:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]