Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:The Yanks mop up on Bougainville.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Yanks mop up on Bougainville

Version 3 - The 3000×2325px version from DVIC is far superior.

Comparison of the DVIC (left) and ARC (right) versions, showing possible cloning

Articles

Bougainville campaign, M4 Sherman

Creator

US Government

Reason

One of the few pictures from the Pacific War that clearly shows actual combat operations in the jungles of the South Pacific islands. The soldiers involved are also dramatically silhouetted by the sun shining down through the jungle canopy. The action captured includes one soldier sprinting for cover as another carefully fires his rifle at a target unseen by the viewer.

Nominated by

Cla68 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Cla68 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral Are there really very few pictures of the pacific war? There seems to be plenty of video footage. And the picture its self is unremarkable with not great composition and very dark shadows. -Fcb981 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, Given your considerable knowlage on the subject I will trust that you nominated a picture that impressed you and I will trust that you can evalute the rareity better than I can. Thanks -Fcb981 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The South Pacific theater (South West Pacific theatre of World War II, Solomon Islands campaign) was way less photographed than the Central Pacific campaigns. And the pictures that do exist are mainly posed, rear-area, airfield personnel, or after-battle shots. Jungle warfare is apparently difficult to photograph or film and the few military and media photographers who were there appear to have been reluctant to expose themselves to enemy fire. I don't agree with you that the picture is unremarkable. I think it captures the drama of close quarters combat very well. The troops in the picture are using the tank as "rolling cover" because the human beings that they are hunting are, judging by the angle of the standing rifleman, probably 50 yards away or less. You can see how the three soldiers are coordinating their cover-and-fire tactics. One covers from a ground position while the other two take turns firing from either side of the tank and then quickly retreat back into cover. I think that the act of men hunting other men is very dramatic as well as being relatively rarely photographed and I think this photo captures the drama of it in a place where a lot of intense combat took place and a lot of people died, but where there isn't much photographic documentation of what actually occurred. Cla68 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• weak support v3 I actually rather like this image, composition included, there is a lot of action and the level of activity / detail pulls you in. The inky shadows are unfortunate though. Debivort 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I love this photo. The quality may not be the best, but the composition is dramatic (and I don't think the inky shadows detract too much, in any event). It really captures how terrifying this sort of battle was, and how brave the men doing it were. Calliopejen1 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great composition and the quality may be excused due to its historical value. Mgiganteus1 09:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support version 3 Support Being historical, artistic yet informative, all in a rare shot make this one impossible to oppose. J Are you green? 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Wonderful picture Booksworm Talk to me! 17:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I only support Version 1 - no. 3 (especially) has this strange unnatural feel to it.... Booksworm Talk to me! 08:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Whoa. ^8thstar 14:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 3 Oppose nominated edit The original is in a bad condition but might be fixable with a good edit. This one is for one not cleaned up and for two blows the highlights even more than the original. I might support a proper edit or a better version if someone can find one. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is another version at Defenselink that shows better detail in the foreground and the tank in the picture. That version, however, cuts off the top of the image thereby reducing the dramatic effect of the sun's rays filtering through the foliage so I chose not to use that version. I don't know of any other versions better than the one I originally listed here. Cla68 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The unitedstatesveterans.com version I link to shows that the foliage in the background and the tank are in fact not blown out. Sadly the link through leads nowhere, but it means there should be a better version available (which also shows another soldier on the right). ~ trialsanderrors 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The linked version you were looking for is here, thanks to the Internet archive. It's the very same version that is also actually in archives.gov (ID 531183, "Use War and Conflict Number 1185 when ordering a reproduction or requesting information about this image.", NAIL Control Number: NWDNS-111-SC-189099; search at the ARC for "bougainville" to find it, deep-linking doesn't work). But the online version still isn't really large enough. It's also available at the Library of Congress, but only as a thumbnail. If someone could order it at ARC, I'm sure a better scan could be produced. Lupo 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose first two. ARC version is too light (and the online version too small), but both versions here are way too dark. Lupo 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • However, I think the the 3000×2325px version from DVIC (description) is perfectly fine. They did not crop anything away, it's rather the two versions shown in this nomination that are cropped. The two shown here are just inferior. Lupo 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and please give this poor image a better name. "The Yanks mop up at Bougainville" is so unencyclopedic (even if DVIC and ARC use it), and "Bougainville_WWII_141" is scarcely better. Lupo 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll support the DVIC version if you upload it. Also, a for deep research, and of course you can give the image whichever name you think is most encyclopedic. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I uploaded the better version. I don't see a "move" tab in Commons so how do I rename the image? Cla68 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • There is no move option for images. You should add the DVIC version here to be considered for featured status. ~ trialsanderrors 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
          • It is here now. It's the top image in this section. Cla68 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Uh no, we don't do it this way. This should be added as a separate image under a different name, preferably by Lupo who found it, and then added here as an alternative to the two nominated versions. ~ trialsanderrors 00:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
              • It would have been ok with me. But anyway, I uploaded it under a neutral name. May I propose the two others for deletion at the commons? Lupo 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Fine with me as long as it doesn't mess up the link to the article that uses it (Bougainville campaign). Cla68 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • I think I've replaced the darker, cropped versions in all places. BTW, two things: (1) the two originally nominated images are mis-tagged, they should be {{PD-USGov}}, not {{PD-US}}. PD-US is used only for images published before 1923. (2) Please do not just copy the highly POV descriptions from U.S. Army (or other official) sites. Try to rephrase! Terms like "Japs" are considered highly offensive, especially at the commons. Lupo 06:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Support original from gov. archiveSupport version 3 Softer on the eyes. Uh...little question here. Is that a shell casing hovering in front of the soldier's (the one firing) helmet? That would be awesome if it it was. However, why is the other pic (the first one) missing that shadow? I'm guessing someone tried to clean-up the image and took too much out. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Darn, I think you're right. The black blot is in the ARC version, but not in the large DVIC version. What now? Shall I re-add it to the large version? I'm fairly confident I could do it, and in this case the modification would be a restoration, a correction of an overzealous cleanup done at DVIC, so I guess it should be ok from a moral point of view. Lupo 07:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's unidentifiable, even in close-up. The DVIC version doesn't look cleaned up to me either, so unless we have other evidence that it's a shell casing I wouldn't put it back in. ~ trialsanderrors 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah...I guessing that version 1 and 2 were based on the DVIC version, so the "shell casing" is probably a scanning or printing error. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The DVIC version definitiely has been cloned in the area of the "shell case" (I've uploaded a comparison at approx 200%, above) which is interesting... does this mean the black mark was there on the original print? The first two (smaller) versions are clearly of the same scan; the larger one is a much better scan but is the one with the obvious retouching.. I'm pretty sure the original submission is a high contrast version of the one with the "shell case" in which the mystery object has also been cloned out, only rather more cleverly. I too would be very wary about adding this back in to the bigger version, but I'm fairly sure it is an original detail. If our detectives would like to take the forensic report back to the US govt website, maybe we could uncover an original scan..? Worth a try, I think. mikaul^talk 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support DVIC version. Lupo 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 3 Despite high reproductibility and low historical value. BeefRendang 09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, not unique enough.--Svetovid 11:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Suport Version 3. While all are good the last is clearly the superior shot. Theonlyedge 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 3 – This is the best example of a photo from the jungles of the Second World War I've seen. Centy 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• SupportV3 very good picture --St.daniel ^Talk 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great photo Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Pending news on possible missing detail (see above) I'd like to support version 3, as it's clearly the best scan, but the shading (performed on the scan, I think) is awful. There's no way the soldiers should be silhouetted to a toneless black while the foreground shadows are a 60% grey, it just looks unnatural and wrong. It's a shame, as it just needs a little tweak to put right. Is it too late in the nomination to upload something better? I'd suggest the existing version 3 just be swapped out for a properly shaded one, to save having a version 4, more voting, etc - what d'you think? Just to clarify, I'm not proposing a version anything like as contrasty and heavily shaded as the original nom, just enough to stop the rest of the scene looking flat. mikaul^talk 19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Version 3, shows retouching, not encyclopedic. 217.132.79.90 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please sign in when voting. J Are you green? 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong!. This is a premature conclusion. If the two are different scans it might just be a piece of dirt on the scanner or film in one version and a cleaner scanjob on the other version. --Dschwen 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If someone really, really wants a perfectly clean scan, I can go down to the archives and do a 4800dpi one of the slide in the research room. Noclip 12:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You have access to a hard copy? How?!? Anyways, I'm fine with the current res of version 3. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The slide is available to the public for scanning through the National Archives. Noclip 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see an unadulterated scan of the original print to settle the shell casing issue. Please, if it's easy enough for you, I'd realy appreaciate it. Don't worry about dust & scratches, I'll happily do all of that if you upload the raw scan. 3000x2000 pixels is fine. mikaul^talk 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Would that happen to be at the same site as the Buchenwald slide? --Dschwen 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I just discovered this NARA/ARC mirror. A great resource, and: they do have the original, uncompressed TIFFs! The Bougainville image is here, with a link to the 3000×2337 TIFF from the NARA (not the DVIC). The Buchenwald image is here, with the 3000×2424 TIFF here. Both TIFFs show quite a bit of dust that could probably be carefully be removed digitally. Lupo 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S.: Both TIFFs are about 7MB each.)
      • Awesome, thanks, I'll see if I can get the Buchenwald cleaned up. --Dschwen 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The TIFF of the Bougainville photo has also lots of scratches that probably cannot be removed easily. In some areas, it is better than the DVIC scan, though. The shooting soldier, for instance, isn't just saturated black. Lupo 07:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • An already cleaned-up version of the Buchenwald picture is also available at the DIV: 2699×2160px JPG (description). Lupo 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:U.S. Soldiers at Bougainville (Solomon Islands) March 1944.jpg MER-C 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)