Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1910 Houston Pano

1910 Houston Pano
Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 04:52:35 (UTC)
 * Reason:A very decent set of photos for the time period, valuable to show the state of the city then. Restored / stitched version of File:1910 Houston pano - original.jpg
 * Articles in which this image appears:History of Houston
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:Unknown / Haines Photo Co. Restored by Jujutacular


 * Support as nominator -- Jujutacular  T · C 04:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine to me, and a great historical record of the city at the time... Gazhiley (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The resolution seems pretty low with height = 636 !! Is there a way to obtain a higher quality scan? It should be noted that the stitching lines are clearly visible at full resolution. --Banzoo (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We gotta cut older photographs some slack. The first photograph was way too grainy (which springs from the “rubber stamp” action of shrunken pitch being used to imprint ink on paper). I think we can forgive these things in images that were taken when guys who fought in the Civil War were still around. My problem with this one is it is framed too high. As it loaded in, I found myself reflexively tilting my head (where’s the rest?). Greg L (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the technical issue when the photograph was taken, I understand that this is an old photo. But this shouldn't influence today's modern scanning and stitching methods to digitize the old photos. For instance, try comparing to this panorama which is few decades older than this one. --Banzoo (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't debate, a higher quality scan is certainly possible, but it's certainly better than LOC's first scan. As for stitching though, I honestly don't see any lines. Could you annotate them on Commons perhaps?  Jujutacular  T · C 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added 2 annotations on where the stitching are visible (difference in sharpness, and/or lightness), you might need to adjust the levels in order to match the colors between intersecting pictures. --Banzoo (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some adjustments which have hopefully addressed this issue.  Jujutacular  T · C 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe this is a digital stitching. Why would someone take a series of photographs in 1910 like this? I think it is abundantly clear that this panorama was made as such back in 1910 and this is just a single-piece scan of the original. What one got for seams back then is what we get today. I was doing stuff like this in 1969: photographers actually had to use scissors. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone put the pictures together by hand in the original: seen here, with clear lines between the photos. I digitally stitched those seams.  Jujutacular  T · C 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. I struck my above post. It was “scissors and white space between them (way too easy). Although it might be *nice*, I wouldn’t expect someone to tackle the task of making the seams disappear after deleting the whitespace. I might add though, that the far-right frame could be lightened to make that junction look less noticeable; that’s the only one that jumps out at me. Greg L (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Has potential, but it has some visible and distracting colour banding in the sky along the stitch lines. Since this is B&W, does anyone have a problem with applying complete desaturation? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)