Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chancy Brown

Chancy Brown



 * Reason:An early daguerrotype by an early African-American daguerrotypist about a uniquely African-American topic: the repatriation of African-Americans to Liberia. A difficult piece of history and a striking portrait.  Restored version of Image:ChancyBrown.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:American Colonization Society, Augustus Washington
 * Creator:Augustus Washington


 * Support as nominator Durova Charge! 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 only Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Either one. faithless   (speak)  02:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either, although I actually like the original more; it gives off a more historic "vibe." Dr. e  X  treme  15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. Could you elaborate on how this image illustrates the article? (i.e., the first one - I hardly regard Augustus Washington as an 'article', and this probably isn't the best possible illustration for it anyway). This individual is not mentioned at all in the article, and I don't see how he illustrates the content very well. --jjron (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 13,000 African-Americans moved to Liberia during the early- to mid-nineteenth century under the aegis of the American Colonization Society and this had a long term impact on Liberian culture because these people brought Southern plantation culture with them, setting themselves up at the top. Note the thoroughly Westernized apparel of this African state official: epaulette, tuxedo front, velvet jacket, and satin or silk vest--all status symbols.  The article had no image at all until I added this, and a mid-level government employee illustrates that cultural juxtaposition better than a president or cabinet member, who arguably would have needed to imitate European/North American fashions for diplomatic reasons.  Durova Charge! 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's rather interesting, but I still can't really buy this as a good illustration of the particular article/s. It almost seems that it's been a picture in search of an article, and I don't feel it's found a particularly good home (admittedly I have been wondering what would make a particularly good illustration for this article; I haven't got a good answer, but I don't think this is it). Also the fuzziness that Janke mentions helps sway me. So, on the balance, have to Oppose. Sorry. --jjron (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too low quality scan. Very fuzzy in full size. --Janke | Talk 06:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The scan was up to the usual superb Library of Congress standards: 50 megabytes on a clean high resolution machine. The original was soft focus.  I sharpened as much as I dared without introducing too much noise.  For this subject I doubt we'll find much alternative imagery.  Durova Charge! 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment and no vote. I agree with comments above that this image doesn't really effectively illustrate any of the articles in which it's presently located.  How about History of Liberia or someplace like that?  Spikebrennan (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, despite being a quite compelling portrait. I'm sure it would make a good illustration somewhere, but you would have to find a scan of an original print, rather than a photo of a framed copy, to get the quality up to FPC levels. --mikaultalk 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so you know: A Daguerrotype is a unique original, and cannot be printed, only reproduced by photography or scanning the original silvered metal plate! It is this plate that is framed, often in elaborately decorated frames. We're talking of the very first photos - there were no negatives at that time! --Janke | Talk 06:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, right enough, I missed that. It doesn't excuse the poor repro though. Image quality wise, these weren't so different to wet plates and scan equally well; this one was photographed in the frame, which if you look closely at the scratches etc on the original, has resulted in a double-image, making the image look really blurred. --mikaultalk 11:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)