Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ramallah spinner2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Ramallah spinner2.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 May 2009 at 17:56:54
Info created by American Colony Jerusalem - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Ramallah spinner.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)- Info Hand tinted print created in 1919.
Support -- Durova (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)- Support --ianaré (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose in the original there is a wall or sth in the background which got lost in the restoration. Furthermore the dark area in the background has a bluish touch, I don't think that this is realistic. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The original had to be rotated by several degrees, so recropping necessarily lost a portion of background including the structural element at left. Other than that there was virutally no photographic detail in the background: only texture from the printed surface and a few creases. The paper print had yellowed significantly in 90 years. Durova (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hm...we really should discuss restorations here. In my opinion in a restoration a picture shouldn't get rotated. The only things that should get changed are things that got lost over the years (colours, scratches,..) --AngMoKio (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the rare occasions when the rotation constitutes artistic intent, certainly. That's not usually the case. Durova (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hm...we really should discuss restorations here. In my opinion in a restoration a picture shouldn't get rotated. The only things that should get changed are things that got lost over the years (colours, scratches,..) --AngMoKio (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The original had to be rotated by several degrees, so recropping necessarily lost a portion of background including the structural element at left. Other than that there was virutally no photographic detail in the background: only texture from the printed surface and a few creases. The paper print had yellowed significantly in 90 years. Durova (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Question I can't believe why you changed the color and removed objects from the background ad libitum. From where do you know the background was dark blue ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes a restoration yields a surprising result; you're welcome to repeat these steps yourself. Begin from the original: it needs substantial clockwise rotation. Once that is completed, the only cropping option removes the sole structural element. Examine the remaining image at 200% resolution: it's creasing and surface texture on the print, with a substantial amont of dust and grit. If the color balance on the background is not to your taste I could rebalance it, but the fact is this was a hand tinted black and white photographic print. Brush strokes are still visible in the jacket, which demonstrate that not all of the print was painted. Please read the upload and restoration notes before taking offense. Durova (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- No offense, but how you decide it ?. e.g. the bleached stripe on the left side --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes a restoration yields a surprising result; you're welcome to repeat these steps yourself. Begin from the original: it needs substantial clockwise rotation. Once that is completed, the only cropping option removes the sole structural element. Examine the remaining image at 200% resolution: it's creasing and surface texture on the print, with a substantial amont of dust and grit. If the color balance on the background is not to your taste I could rebalance it, but the fact is this was a hand tinted black and white photographic print. Brush strokes are still visible in the jacket, which demonstrate that not all of the print was painted. Please read the upload and restoration notes before taking offense. Durova (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - after extensive examination. I can only value the restauration which in my discretion is done by rule of thumb estimate. The dimension was changed, distracting aging artefacts was only cropped instead of tenderly restored. The new coloring is without a concrete reference. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ec with above) Basically from locating certain features on the image and orienting around them. The rotation is based upon the man's spine and the spindle. Parts of the man's head covering are close to true white; balance color accordingly. Durova (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Followup: this really is one of the oddest opposes I've yet seen. Many hundreds of small damaged areas were indeed corrected by hand. This was painstaking work that took hours working as small as four pixels wide. The cropping is fully explained by the rotation; substantial areas would have to have been constructed by guesswork to address the complaint. Saturation was not altered; the appearance of saturation changes are fully explained by histogram adjustment. Opposes based upon esthetics I could understand. After over 40 FPs on Commons and nearly 200 at a sister project, it's a bit off-putting to be on the receiving end of a rationale that is practically an accusation of lying in discussion and upload notes. Durova (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see it different. The man pushes the thread with his middle finger. Where is your source that the image was rotated inside the frame ? I ask because on the original TIF which I downloaded there is stamp by W Colony, Jerusalem (on the right side below) which is relatively straight - the frame, too. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Instead of a rotation I see a slight trapezoid distortion, based on the white frame --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Followup: this really is one of the oddest opposes I've yet seen. Many hundreds of small damaged areas were indeed corrected by hand. This was painstaking work that took hours working as small as four pixels wide. The cropping is fully explained by the rotation; substantial areas would have to have been constructed by guesswork to address the complaint. Saturation was not altered; the appearance of saturation changes are fully explained by histogram adjustment. Opposes based upon esthetics I could understand. After over 40 FPs on Commons and nearly 200 at a sister project, it's a bit off-putting to be on the receiving end of a rationale that is practically an accusation of lying in discussion and upload notes. Durova (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Looks good, but I do wonder if we could have a version with restored background elements? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Richard Bartz, I think too much has been cut away. --Estrilda (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bluish. —kallerna™ 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- OpposeThe choice to rotate the whole picture seems somewhat arbitrary (Why wouldn't the "vertical" bar of the spindle be slightly slanted, since the man is holding its upper tip with his fingers, having presumably just stopped it from spinning ? Why shouldn't this elderly man lean forward when spinning, maybe precisely to give room to the spindle to revolve w/o getting caught in his coat ?) The resulting crop is unfortunate. Furthermore, the clinically-white balance of color seems out of place. A slight "de-yellowing" would have been enough ; the painting over the photograph has been done in respect with the tone of the photo paper, whitening it so dramatically makes the painting appear out of place, like it has been smeared by a 3 y.o. --JY REHBY (discuter) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- no anonymous votes please --ianaré (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. --JY REHBY (discuter) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
