Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buchenwald Slave Laborers Liberation.jpg

Buchenwald slave laborers

 * Reason:Important historical photograph which also happens to include a well-known personality (Wiesel). I am aware that there are some odd artifacts in the picture (such as the ghostly doubling of the ear of the standing prisoner, more obvious in the full version).  These are apparently in the original (see [here]
 * Articles this image appears in:1945, Buchenwald concentration camp, Elie Wiesel, Night (book), 1945, Internment, List of concentration and internment camps.
 * Creator:Private H. Miller (U.S. Army)

MER-C 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator &mdash; Spikebrennan 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Support, the historical relevance far, far outweighs the minor technical issues (and consider that this was done 60 years ago, in less-than-ideal conditions). I'd seen this picture before, but never really zoomed in; I was astonished to see their eyes. After all they've been through, they still have strong, proud eyes, especially the standing prisoner, they're still human. --Golbez 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support, I think this image is great and very historical. Considering the conditions under which the picture was taken, as well as its age, I don't think technical quality should even be a factor. It's near impossible to get a higher quality of this image without having to resort to extensive photo manipulation. --AutoGyro 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, technical quality could be a factor if it was likely a better scan or print of the same photo existed. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Adam Cuerden talk 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Haunting and moving. Adam Cuerden talk 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, striking immediacy, professional framing, very good considering field conditions & darkness of barracks. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. To me, one of those "iconic" historical images that are in all the textbooks and we should FP the best version available of.  This is that photo.  Zakolantern 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very disturbing image even after all this time. ~ Veledan • Talk 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The image is featured world-wide; Wikipedia should not be an exception. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - no doubt about it. Cacophony 07:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment only: the DVIC copy (which is the one I had uploaded) has been restored by the DVIC. It has a minor cloning error at the foot of the pole on the right. User:Dschwen once said he'd try to produce a better cleaned up version (see User talk:Dschwen). Lupo 08:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The slight doubling of the standing man (it's not just his left ear!) is indeed already present in the original TIFFs available here and here. Lupo 09:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. But given the restoration, maybe we should create a new image that hasn't been touched up from the original TIFF's Lupo linked, especially considering how other historic photos this month have tended towards the original, pen-marked, imperfect versions over the cleaned ones. Regardless, it's a great photo. As for the ghost, I'm sure that's part of the exposure, likely from the man moving during the exposure--the main image we see is from the flash, the ghost from movement before/after the flash fired while the shutter was open. --Peter 19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that explanation. I was wondering how it was possible that his upper parts were ghosted, but the beam he's leaning on and his legs were not.  --TotoBaggins 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support. An iconic image of the horrors of World War II. The minor technical issues pale to irrelevance when compared to its historic significance. Valentinian T / C 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Great encyclopedic and historic value, great composition, and acceptable technical quality. Abecedare 07:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, per above, not much else to say. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, per above, not much else to say. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)