Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Booker T. Washington by Francis Benjamin Johnston, c. 1895.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 01:21:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Frances Benjamin Johnston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 03:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Good historical portrait and very valuable for historical reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Neutral – It's a quality and valuable historical portrait, but the photograph seems to have a somewhat shallow depth of field, with both his shoulders being out of focus. It doesn't appear bad while zoomed out, but becomes very noticeable when zoomed in to look at details. I don't know if this is normal for historical photographs of this time, but I wouldn't feel right to support it based on the discussions of some contemporary photographs discussed here. ~Mable (chat) 11:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Kind of have to judge 19th century photography by different standards. A medium with such long exposures that required head braces just isn't comparable to a modern dSLR; it's still the relatively early days of the medium. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Even judged by today's standards, the composition, expression, and exposure are all very good. The shallow DoF has legitimate mitigating reasons. -- Ram-Man 02:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support There's some motion blur at full size, but that's to be expected given the slooow shutter speeds at that time. And more importantly: It's sharp enough at screen size and should print just fine on A4 (with a little bit of sharpening, maybe). I'm not blown away wow-wise, but I think it's got something special to it (even though I'm not sure what exactly it is). Otherwise per Ram-Man. --El Grafo (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Jiel (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Limitations of the photograph are not the restorer's fault. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
