Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/General Piet Cronjé

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Boer general Piet Cronjé as prisoner of war

Original - General Piet Cronjé (1836-1911), veteran general of the army of the South African Republic during the Second Boer War, taken prisoner by the British when he surrendered after losing the battle of Paardeberg on 27 February 1900. The photograph shows Cronjé as prisoner of war on Saint Helena where he remained until the conclusion of the war on 31 May 1902.

Reason

This semi-formal portrait of a historical celebrity of his day:

• is technically a good photograph, with lots of detail, sufficient contrast and razor sharp where it matters;
• is of print quality;
• is well over a 100 years old and shows little sign of damage;
• has a good composition, focusing on the subject, but with just enough (out of focus) background detail to place the man in context;
• is historically and artistically a unique picture showing the hero of the First Boer War at the worst of times, being the first Boer general to be defeated in the Second Boer War and taken prisoner by the British; the sadness shines through in the look in Cronjé's eyes;
• is of historical importance because no copies of this private portrait are known to exist (anymore).

Articles this image appears in

Piet Cronjé, Second Boer War

Creator

Original photo probably taken by B. Grant, image uploaded by Michel Doortmont

• Support as nominator Michel Doortmont (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems like the top should be cropped, but is that frowned upon for "historical" photos? Kaldari (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose due to the signature^? on the image. crassic!^[talk] 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: About the cropping and the signature. I regarded both elements as integral to the historic nature of the image. Signature makes the portrait even more unique, as it is the original signature of Cronjé. Besides, it does not influence the composition. Top of the portrait could be cropped to give more focus on the person depicted, but in this case I would want to keep the original layout of the photograph, as it is not disturbing and actually adds to the context: outside, in camp, subject behind fence. Michel Doortmont (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support as is, but the photo could benefit from some restoration. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  I agree on that, but I would not know how. The main damage seems to be foxing (discolorating smudges due to moist or dust damage) and Photoshop does not seem to offer a tool to tackle this problem. I have tried. Also, I do not have the original at hand to see what the exact problem is. Thanks for the support. Michel Doortmont (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but there are just too many JPEG artefacts, and the signature isn't really appropriate for Second Boer War. Time3000 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  I wonder if what you call 'JPEG artefacts' is in fact the foxing on the original?

  Why is the signature not appropriate for the Second Boer War [article]? Here I totally disagree. The signature as such might have a negative influence on the image per sé, but in the historical context it is a definite asset. Cronjé signed 'P.A. Cronjé. Generaal ZWC' for 'General South African Army Command' (Zuidafrikaansche Weermacht Commando), fundamentally commenting on his own position in the camp, and on the political position of the Boer republics as perceived by him: defying the British stance that the republics were already incorporated into the Empire. So, again, highly relevant I would say. Michel Doortmont (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  It's definitely JPEG artefacts - there are clear boxes of noise on the image at full size, and they're even more visible at 400% (look on his jacket). I see your point about the signature though, so I've struck that from my original comment. I still have to oppose because of the artefacts - I can't honestly say that I think it's "among WP's best work". Time3000 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  You are right, I was concentrating on the face, where it's less visible, but in the jacket at 400% they are quite visible. unfortunately it is impossible for me to rescan the photo in the near future, as it sits in South-Africa and I am in the Netherlands. Will make an effort to do that when the opportunity arises though. Michel Doortmont (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Signature in image, may have historical value but to me it is dirt on the image. Also, it is not cropped tight enough. Wasted space above and an akward view of his legs and the signature towards the bottom. Capital photographer (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)