Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grand Staircase of the Titanic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Grand Staircase of the Titanic

I'm (Andrew c) completing this nomination for Ahadland1234 (talk ·  contribs) because the initial nom was ill-formatted and didn't follow procedure. The original reason for nom was "interesting image which conveys the tragic beauty of the doomed passenger liner". The image is included in Grand Staircase of the Titanic. It was uploaded by Ahadland1234 on Nov first and the copyright tag is PD-self.

• Nominate and support. (originally Ahadland1234)
• Oppose image isn't that sharp, color balance is off, the shadows are awfully dark, and there is a blown highlight in the middle. Plus, where is this image from? It can't be a photo of the actual Titanic. Is it a recreation, or from the movie (if it is the latter, then the copyright would be off)?--Andrew c 00:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well is there anyway you could make it less crap, your never gonna believe it but its actually from my parents home. Skeptical, because i can afford a good camera and my parents have tasteAhadland 01:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose no source information.--Wiltoey 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andrew c, this is a staircase in your parents house?, is this something that should be on Wikipedia? --Coasttocoast 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that reconstructions are intrinsically invalid - we use photos of roman re-enactors on Wikipedia - you could equally well say of those, "That's a chartered accountant from Norwich? Is this something that should be on Wikipedia?". If this is an authentic reproduction, based on good sources, of something for which it isn't possible to get good-quality photos of the original, it might be a valid featured picture candidate. That doesn't answer image quality objections, of course. TSP 02:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Downsampled, rotated, level-adjusted, sharpened edit added as edit 1, mostly because I was looking at it in Photoshop so thought I might as well. I don't know if it's much better.... The original isn't much above minimum size, and has a lot of JPEG artifacts which sharpening at full size immediately brought out. TSP 02:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose original, oppose edit 1. Off color and artifacts. The edit helps, but is too small for an unexceptional image. Plus, the subject is questionable as said above. --Tewy 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Off colour and artifacts" im not sure what you mean by and artifacts, thats what the ship itself looked like, although the picture was taken later in the day, but I think it has a charm. Is there a way to make the woodwork sharper?
    • The lighting gave the picture an overuse of warm colors, which doesn't look natural. I'd prefer to see it in a well lit setting. If it's too dark because it's indoors, then a longer exposure might help. You can see artifacts in areas such as where the two front pillars meet the dark areas, or on the white ceiling panels. I guess that's minor, and since you've explained that this a replica true to original plans, I'll change my vote to a weak oppose. As for detail, it might just be the camera (but without the metadata, I don't know the specs of the shot are, so I don't know). --Tewy 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is really in your parent's house? That's rather amazing, but it does make me question its validity for FP status, and also makes me think it should be pretty easy for you to get a better picture of, e.g., better lighting, better composition (get the whole staircase), address other concerns above, and perhaps a different angle would be more informative. --jjron 13:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty severe focus issues throughout entire picture. I can't make out any of the nice detail on the banisters. Also I'm still not clear, is this a photo hanging in your parents house, or is it a recreation to scale? --207.38.206.107 15:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC) --Bridgecross 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (why can't i stay signed in?)

It is a recreation to scale, scale meaning it is identical to the ship's staircase

• • Can you sign this please? (I'm pretty sure it's Bridgecross) --Tewy 17:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you check "Remember me" (or "Remember my login on this computer" in Special:Preferences) when you sign in? --Tewy 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If this photograph really is from your parents' house, then the caption should explicitly state that this is a replica, and should include some evidence of the accuracy. --Tewy 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed the caption and have expressedly indicated that this is a replica
  • My parent's applied to view the original plans from the Harland and Wolff shipyard, they were given some photographs, which craftsmen recreated. It is built with the same materials as theTitanic's staircase, i.e. bronze, wrought iron etc. It would be impossible to get a picture of all of the staircase as it descends four levels.

• Im no expert critique but the image seems pretty clear to me
  • Can you please sign your comments with --~~~~ ? Thanks. --Tewy 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Whem I look at the pineapples on the rail, and the wrought-iron work, I just dont see the same crisp detail as other architectural FPs at max res. Are you using a tripod for stability? Also more lighting would get you a longer exposure. Just some suggestions.---Bridgecross 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But the staircase is lit naturally via the dome. Admittedly the gilded light fittings help too, but they're not that powerful Ahadland1234

There is one part of the image I'm unhappy about. In the top left part of the image, the second white panel from the left appears to have a mark on it, could an edit take that out?

If you mean the hair or dust, I think my edit already did take it out; though the only way I could get sharpness I was happy with was to take down the resolution significantly. Is this a scan of a printed photo? If so, could you rescan (higher resolution if possible) and save it as a maximum-quality JPEG? The main quality problem at the moment is artefacts from being saved as a low-quality JPEG; though framing is also an issue, so if there was any way you could get a larger field of view that would be helpful too. TSP 00:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well its a scale replica of the staircase in my house, and i was right up against the wall to take it though. Other than technical faults tho, is it a good subject? encyclopaedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) .

I think a really high-quality image of this subject might have a chance at becoming featured. It would probably need to be immaculately well-composed, 2000+ pixels across, really sharp, and free of JPEG artefacts, though, to overcome the concerns about encyclopedicness of the subject. At the moment, this doesn't provide all that much better an impression of the staircase than Image:Titanic_grand_staircase.gif, which is also more encyclopedic because it is a photograph of the original, not a reconstruction. Standing slightly to the side might give a less obviously 'cropped' view of the subject (stopping the bottom step being cut off), as well as enabling the carved panel to be seen properly instead of being blocked by the torch. PS. Please sign your comments using ~~~~ - it gets really confusing if you don't. TSP 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the {{PD-self}} tag, Image:Titanic_grand_staircase.gif seems to be another photo of Ahadland1234's parents' replica. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. The respective captions on Grand Staircase of the Titanic suggest otherwise, though, and Ahadland1234 has said above that there exist photographs of the original and his family is in possession of them (which would also be consistent with the image's low-quality and black and white nature), so I'd just assumed it was a mistag and should have been {{PD-pre-1923}} or similar. TSP 17:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)