Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/FDR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] FDR

Edit 1 by Pharaoh Hound. Removed dust, smudges and scratches as best I could without completely destroying the detail.
Edit 1 by Pharaoh Hound. Removed dust, smudges and scratches as best I could without completely destroying the detail.
Edit 2 by Fcb981. Removed dust, smudges and scratches. I think this was successful, Obviously if you look hard at it, it will become clear that it is an edit and maybe someone else can do it better.
Edit 2 by Fcb981. Removed dust, smudges and scratches. I think this was successful, Obviously if you look hard at it, it will become clear that it is an edit and maybe someone else can do it better.
Reason
A historical picture of FDR .
Articles this image appears in
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Creator
Elias Goldensky
Nominator
Bewareofdog
  • Support — Bewareofdog 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I dont know why the picture appears on top.Bewareofdog 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I love the picture and the detail, but those smudges are really killing me. Can someone send up the photoshop signal in Gotham? JHMM13  07:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No wow factor. Its just a portrait, a commodity picture, nothing special. --Dschwen(A) 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose editd 1 and 2. Come on guys are you just judging the thumbnail? Sorry, but on a technical level alone the edits are suboptimal. Edit 1 created a big black spot next to the face, and has visible brush strokes. Edit 2 has a discrepancy between focus unsharpness and masking unsharpness, plus it cuts of some of FDRs hair. --Dschwen(A) 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added an edit to remove the dust and scratches. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the edit, Pharaoh Hound. It looks much better. However, now that I've had a chance to really examine the image, I must say that the blurriness on the sides really throws me off. I do like that it is an extraordinarily high-quality image, but it's too blurry on the sides. JHMM13  18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose edit, Neutral original I'm still the same opinion as before and as long as nobody tries to convince me, it's not gonna change. If the original photo is dirty, it's dirty. End of story. No photoshop. -Wutschwlllm 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose Original When I think about it, I actually believe that the picture just lacks in quality. I can't believe that there's no better picture. And it's definitely not Wikipedia's best. -Wutschwlllm 22:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Someone is confusing the subject with the picture again. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose orginal, support edit1. The original is too dirty and dusty to be approved. The edit clears up those issues. The shallow depth of field does not detract from the subject, because the face is very sharp (in fact, this is part of the draw of the image, it makes things more interesting without reducing the encyclopedic value). This is a very good portrait of a very historic figure. I don't know why people are complaining about no-wow factor. It is a portrait. What, do you expect his head to be on fire, or him juggling or something? Very encyclopedic, historic portrait.-Andrew c 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose all. Horrible quality everywhere on the image, even after edit. Grossly out of focus. They had better photography than this in the 30s. --frothT 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose edit 1, it creates a halo effect around his face where you can see the edge of what was edited. I'd rather have the signs of time on it than the signs of photoshopping. gren グレン 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)