Oppose Good job editing all the damage out but now there's too much contrast. Compared to the original, it's lost detail in the shadows and highlights. See the man's suit and the wings. Calibas05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but my mind might have problems from having seen so many mid-20th century b&w prints. The original untouched print was almost just a gray rectangle -- so everyone is just guessing, aren't they? Me and everyone who saw the prints disagree with your evaluation, btw. -- carol06:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that the new, higher res version is a bit noisier than the FP version. Although to be honest, I think my favourite is the original, slightly damaged one. But if this new one prints better (I haven't tried) then there is real value in having all three of them. Regards, Ben Aveling10:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which will print on paper better and will reduce for web display better? Grain is not noise to the best of my understanding of those words. -- carol03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by John T. Daniels - uploaded by CarolSpears - nominated by CarolSpears. It is bigger and better than the current FP version, and I am sorry about that.--carol 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Support It makes beautiful prints, even through color print kiosk. --carol 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Good job editing all the damage out but now there's too much contrast. Compared to the original, it's lost detail in the shadows and highlights. See the man's suit and the wings. Calibas 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me that the new, higher res version is a bit noisier than the FP version. 
FP detail
original detail
this version
