Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mary of Teck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mary of Teck

Versions
Original - Mary of Teck was the Queen Consort of George V. Queen Mary was also the Empress of India. Before her accession, she was successively Duchess of York, Duchess of Cornwall and Princess of Wales. By birth, she was a princess of Teck, in the Kingdom of Württemberg, with the style Her Serene Highness. To her family, she was informally known as May, after her birth month.	Edit 1 - downsample, slight sharpen, cleanup	Edit 2 - downsample, more cleanup and enhancement	Edit 3 by Fir0002 - significant downsample, sharpening, cleanup, enhancement

Queen Mary was known for setting the tone of the British Royal Family, as a model of regal formality and propriety, especially during state occasions. She was the first Queen Consort to attend the coronation of her successors. Noted for superbly bejewelling herself for formal events, Queen Mary left a collection of jewels now considered priceless.]]

Reason: An impressive portrait, for its day, of the Queen Consort Mary of Teck who was an enigmatic public figure and as such, is a notable person so the image is encyclopedic too. Good quality, illustrates subject, fantastic resolution, what more do you want from the early 20th century photographers :D
Articles this image appears in: Mary of Teck
Creator: Bain News service apparently; although it may be possible that the image was taken over seventy years ago, and therefore copyright may be irrelevant. My reasoning for this is that she lived until 1953 and lives to be 85, and she looks relatively young in the photograph, so maybe this was taken 70 yrs ago

Support Edit 3 Hadseys (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Way too fuzzy at full resolution. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Have to agree with Howcheng on this one. Could someone downsample it? Clegs (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well it probably is over a hundred yrs old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  - So is which is crystal-clear. howcheng {chat} 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Well this photograph is of significantly higher resolution and so one can't expect it to be "crystal clear" although despite the blurriness, you can still make out all of the fine details on Her Majesty's face and on her clothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Still opposed. I don't think any of the edits is up to FP quality. howcheng {chat} 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This would be a good candidate for downsampling and cleanup (there are also hairs on the image). Spikebrennan (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit2 I've downsampled much as per Edit1 but cleaned up most of the really heavy stuff and separated a few midtones. It's a fine old portrait, this; great light, expression and presence. --mikaul^talk 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Edit 3 Just to confuse voters and the closer more I've uploaded another edit. I think it has the best sharpness/cleanup of the edits, and personally I don't think there is any useful information in the higher res of the other edits. --Fir0002 02:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

- Hmm.. Is selective sharpening a good idea on an old image? It looks a bit weird with alternating soft and hard grain. I see your thinking behind the image size, I'm not sure you've gained anything with such a large downsample, either. And you've missed a few nasty bits in the cleanup.. OTOH, I thought my edit had lost a bit of detail, so I've been back and tweaked it a bit more. I much prefer it, but push come to shove I'd support any clean version. --mikaul^talk 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Support any, although my preference is probably for Edit 2. CillaИ ♦ XC 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Any All appear to be of good composition and have encyclopedic value. If pressed, I'd go with Edit 3. --Shark face 217 03:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we can get a few more votes down before closing this one - any more opinions that may make it more convincing? --jjron (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)