Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ed Walsh portrait 1911.jpg

Ed Walsh, featured

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 03:04:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Ed Walsh Commons:Featured picture candidates/Ed Walsh

•  Info created by Paul Thompson - uploaded by Staxringold - nominated by Staxringold and Durova -- Staxringold (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Restored version of File:Ed Walsh portrait 1911 ORIGINAL.jpg. See Ed Walsh.
•  Support -- Staxringold (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic. -- JovanCormac 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support great! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like this portrait --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent portrait. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• weak  Support This was a hard decision. I absolutely agree this is a great portrait and you did a great job retouching. The only point that bothers me with this picture, is that the reflexions you can see in the original picture are still too apparent IMO. Is there any chance you can get rid of them? --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a pretty obvious depth of field decision by the original photographer. Note how only the face is in sharp focus; Walsh's uniform is already soft focus. To my eye the background composition goes well with the knitted brow and intense expression to suggest this was taken on a game day. The location and score are not important, but the competitive spirit matters. Durova (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not what I meant. What I meant are the faint reflections above the right shoulder and beneath the left shoulder, respectively. They are more clearly visible in the original picture. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 05:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Interesting point. If you would like to perform an edit on that feel free; you seem to see them more clearly (might be a monitor calibration issue?). Durova (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Could be, at least it's less obvious on the screen of my laptop. I would give it a try and fix it, but unfortunately I'm not very skilled at retouching. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose The overall impression is great, but a lot of noise particularly in the background that probably could easily be removed. Also sharpness is not ideal, but that's something that can hardly be resolved and alone not an issue enough to decline FP. -- H005 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not noise - this is a pre-digital photograph. What you are talking about is likely grain, and for authenticity reasons shouldn't be removed/reduced. -- JovanCormac 07:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Whether you call it noise or grain - it's certainly not an effect intended by the original photographer, but a technical flaw of those times that can be overcome with today's technology. If you want authenticity, you shouldn't edit it at all and rather go with the original image. -- H005 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily. During the pre-digital era photographers were known to select film grain in accordance with lighting conditions and subject matter. Low light conditions required high speed (grainier) film as a technical matter; when there was room for discretion photographers sometimes selected grainy films for male subjects, since grain was associated with masculinity. Durova (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --kaʁstn 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Manjel (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People