Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Crystal Palace

Crystal Palace, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2014 at 07:05:36 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

•  Info created by Philip Henry Delamotte - uploaded by Petrusbarbygere - nominated by Monfie -- Monfie (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Monfie (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- The earlier version of these pictures have a neutral, cream or beige background. The change to a stark white background is unnecessary, is out of keeping with the date of the image, and is less aesthetically appealing. On no account should a starkly black and white image be uploaded over a photographic image or printed image that originally has a tinted ground. Amandajm (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I think exactly the opposite. But resolution is too low here to be FP. Yann (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Yann, it's not entirely about personal taste. It is about the appropriate use and modification of a heritage item/primary source, which is someone's artwork, whether it is in copyright or not. The only justification for changing a photo on a coloured ground to a white ground, or changing a sepia photo to black and white is because the media in which it is going to be printed (e.g. a journal) is in monochrome, not colour. I would like to see the images on coloured paper reinstated, along with the black an white option. Amandajm (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry to disagree, but there never was any color on these pictures. It was a fashion at that time to print pictures in sepia tone. I don't think there is any valid reason to continue this, except if you want to make a picture "look old", but this is not an educational purpose. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• If these are scans of prints and the prints are sepia tone, isn't it a lie to convert them to B&W and say this is what the artist intended? Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Saffron Blaze: "Lie" is a strong statement, and knowning what the artist intended is wide speculation. Sepia tone prints were done for technical reason: they withstand better the test of time, but with digital pictures, this reason disappeared. In my opinion, black and white represents better the reality of the original shot. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sepia tone prints were made for more than just technical reasons. There are many who deliberately used sepia toning for aesthetic reasons as well as what they considered as improving the image itself. Just because the negative is black and white does not mean we should be overriding the published product. It is not as if they were forced to use sepia toning. If they wanted the image to be truly black and white they could have published it as such. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting discussion. I agree with Saffron Blaze: if the original work used sepia toning, the digital copy should by no means remove that. But of course it would always be possible to offer an additional derivative version convertet to BW... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)