Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A Jicarilla Man, 1904

A Jicarilla Man, 1904, Edward S. Curtis
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 01:35:20 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is one of the clearest and highest resolution portraits of an Apache Indian. It is currently being used in the Jicarilla Apache article, where I replaced a faded, framed, and difficult to see portrait of a Jicarilla female. Although the image itself is available in black & white from the U.S. Library of Congress, it was of a far lower resolution (if this matters to anyone). I kept the sepia coloring because it absolutely pops off the page. I consider this a significant and valuable addition to the article because of its clarity compared to the previous image used, and also in comparison with most of the Apache photographs available for use. I also believe it meets all technical criteria, most importantly within the digital manipulation guidelines. An explanation of the work performed can be found in the image description.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Jicarilla Apache
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Traditional
 * Creator:Keraunoscopia (restoration only)


 * Support as nominator --– Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 01:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Having reviewed it, I can see no reason not to support. Nicely done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - A little soft at full resolution, but I don't consider it a deal breaker. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true, but I decided against sharpening it. (Normally I would sharpen on the luminosity channel in selective areas, the eyes especially and features on the face.) But something held me back this time, I'm not sure why. It can always be added later, too. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash; Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I might have left the contrast where it was--this way you've really deepened the shadow at the bridge of his nose. I consider that a small complaint, though, so full support. Chick Bowen 16:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I restored the contrasted version (oops). I'll keep this in mind for future restorations; definitely a mistake on my part to not leave the contrast tweaks for later. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Some minor issues per the above but overall a good image. Cat-five  t  c   06:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support sharpness is lacking but I think the historic value makes up for that. --Pine✉ 20:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 05:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)