Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Camille Saint-Saëns

Camille Saint-Saëns

 * Reason:A pretty good restoration. Admittedly, this is my first photo restoration, and I'm kind of hoping someone will step in and fix the remaining (hopefully quite minor) flaws, but I think it's pretty good.
 * Articles this image appears in:Camille Saint-Saëns
 * Creator:Bain News Service.


 * Support as nominator --Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose. Superb ev.  Unfortunately a mundane composition in poor focus.  A snapshot of a famous composer.  Strongly recommend uploading an unrestored version and cross-linking between them for review purposes, plus linking to the unrestored version in the nomination.  Durova Charge! 16:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's two others from that photoshoot available 1 2  - would I have been better off with those? (Also, I'll get the original sorted, but I did the work at Uni so I have to sort a couple things out to do so.) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The background is distracting in all three. It's a shame because the subject deserves a featured picture.  But you know the archival searching rule (only about 1 in 1000 has the stuff for FP, even with the best restoration).  Durova Charge! 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The background is distracting in all three. It's a shame because the subject deserves a featured picture.  But you know the archival searching rule (only about 1 in 1000 has the stuff for FP, even with the best restoration).  Durova Charge! 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Regretful Oppose per Durova and Comment: I wonder what ship he's on? Spikebrennan (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Have you been busy selectively dodging and burning? The wall behind him looks distinctly darker on the left side (his right). It could be vignetting or a shadow but it looks a bit uneven. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's in the original. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you have time, I'd offer up the first alt you linked to in place of this one. It's a good, sharp, well-composed portrait, where this one is poorly framed and looks as if he moved his head during the exposure. mikaultalk 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, just checked again and it appears to have a large chunk of emulsion missing around his chin, too big to restore I think. Shame, as the other is covered in fingerprints and just isn't as good. mikaultalk 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As has been mentioned, just not really up to scratch as a FP. Not to say the restoration isn't welcome or appreciated. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 01:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)