Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DutchGapb.jpg

African-American soldiers

 * Reason:A photograph from the American Civil War showing two African-American soldiers guarding a post near Dutch Gap, Virginia, 1864. Encyclopedic topic, high resolution file.  What makes this click for me are the body positions of the soldiers: one flattens himself against the ruined farmhouse wall while the other takes cover behind a barrel.  Restored from Image:DutchGap.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Dutch Gap, United States Colored Troops
 * Creator:unknown


 * Support as nominator Durova Charge! 02:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, with request Obviously, a superb and encyclopaedic photo, well-restored. However, could the bayonet on the musket of the standing soldier be sharpened a bit? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done a slight sharpening on that bayonet. Hit refresh to see it.  What it looks like we're dealing with is technical limits of the camera.  Notice how the barrel is in sharp focus while the crouching soldier is in softer focus; that suggests a long exposure time was necessary.  Durova Charge! 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this a snapshot or a pose? Louis waweru (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. I reviewed the Library of Congress files for the Dutch Gap and found a few other shots of this farmhouse and its posted guards.  Those were more casual, which could mean either that this was a composed shot or that an alert had gone up in the minutes before this shot was taken.  Without greater written notes than we have it would be hard to tell.  I can say, having served in the military myself, that these soldiers are good at taking cover.  If this is a posed shot it's well done.  Durova Charge! 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, already a notable photo outside of Wikipedia. MrPrada (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose EV is not in doubt. Very little of the photo is in focus. Quality is not great.  crassic ![ talk ] 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose  crassic ![ talk ] 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Not the greatest quality, but considering the age and the historical importance the quality really isn't bad. faithless   (speak)  07:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Very encyclopedic, and of a high quality considering its age. For what it's worth, it looks like it's posed to me, but I know nothing about photography or the military. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent find.  Given the age and overall quality, the flaws noted above are not nearly big enough problems to spoil a very encyclopedic, attractive and valuable image.--ragesoss (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice touch up job, but I still I prefer the untouched version. I would support that one as well. Louis waweru (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare them at 500% resolution. Durova Charge! 17:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not meet FP technical quality standards. EgraS (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Historical significance overcomes technical requirements in this instance. Amazing quality for the time period.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * weak Support it would have been better if the right stereograph has been stitched on, placing the soldiers more in the center of the picture Thisglad (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a stereograph. Durova Charge! 18:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is - have a look at the library of congress record. The problem with stitching on the right half is that the two photos were taken from different angles (the whole point of a stereograph) so not everything will match up exactly.  Time3000 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Serves me right for taking over a month to finish the edit.  The reasons I selected this crop had a lot to do with how Wikipedia presents images in articles.  The main interest is the two soldiers - ruined farmhouses are mundane sights - and those soldiers would get lost in a 200-300 pixel thumbnail of the full shot (which was certainly large enough for cropping).  Purists who want the original context can get to that pretty quickly from the image page.  Some people would articulate this crop in terms of the rule of thirds; I'm more intuitive.  Those soldiers need somewhere to look.  Their faces and postures are more engaging in a crop that emphasizes what's on the other side of that corner wall where they're hiding.  Durova Charge! 18:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support very historical. Spencer  T♦C 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Per all.--CPacker (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well damn, the left side feels very overexposed. Would it be terrible to edit the photo to fix this? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * SupportRyan shell (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Come on, what is going here? Quality is low, and I do doubt the EV. This photo is most likely staged. The soldiers are taking cover, but the photographer has plenty of time to stand in the line of fire, handling is bulky apparatus with gelatine glass plates, shooting a stereograph!?! So what do we learn from this photo? Where is the historical significance? Who was making history here? --Dschwen 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A large percentage of combat photography is staged even in modern times, it's kind of difficult for someone to stand out in the open to take pictures Thisglad (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So? We're not featuring those either. The point is that the pic has no historical significance. --Dschwen 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if you think it has no historical significance, that is not the sole requirement for a featured picture. Brian0918's comment points out a few reasons of why it has encyclopedic value.: "Any encyclopedic value would be from the content of the image itself, not the historical significance. It shows the uniforms, poses, and weaponry of the time." Louis waweru (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And a high resolution well exposed color museum photograph would certainly do a better job illustrating these things. Sorry, this leaves nothing in favour of this pic. --Dschwen 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that the museum photo does not show its content in context, whereas this photo is closer to reality. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-04-18 16:10Z


 * Support. Very high-quality for anything from that time period.   Spinach Dip  19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Largely per Dschwen. Poses of soldiers are entirely unconvincing that they're in battle - they scarcely look interested, much less utterly focussed or scared as would be expected. To me this means EV and historical considerations are marginal. Overexposure on the left is almost painful to look at (note, I agree with Durova though that the composition is quite good, with the soldiers at right of frame looking to the left). --jjron (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course they're not actually in battle. Are you forgetting the exposure time on photographs back then? Any encyclopedic value would be from the content of the image itself, not the historical significance. It shows the uniforms, poses, and weaponry of the time. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-04-11 16:47Z
 * Comment The picture, overall, is just not good quality – I have seen better quality photos from this time period. The encyclopedic value is high, I'll agree. But the photo is extremely over exposed and nothing – except maybe the barrel – is in focus.  crassic ![ talk ] 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * they didn't have autofocus or rangefinders in the 19th century, most images from this era actually look more out of focus than this Thisglad (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We've seen better examples here. --Dschwen 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, there's hundreds of great photos from the ACW. Re Brian, a lot of the comments seem to be tossing up whether or not they're in battle - the point I was trying to make is not only are they most likely not in battle, it's not even a convincing act. I was actually referring back to the nominator's reason which referred to the body positions of the soldiers, and pointing out that to me it's not convincing. To illustrate uniforms and weaponry doesn't need a period picture, and there's lots better anyway. To illustrate the poses, well as I said the soldiers aren't that convincing, so firstly do I really believe their poses, and secondly are their poses really that amazing? --jjron (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks posed to me, too, which lowers the enc. Also, not-so-very-sharp in full size. --Janke | Talk 09:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Janke is likely right, given that the soldiers haven't moved between the two exposures that constitute the stereograph, and the overexposure suggesting long shutter time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: The stereo halves might have been shot simultaneously, with a dual lens camera... --Janke | Talk 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the angle between those two images? Your lenses would have to be about two metres apart. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose, being staged doesn't bother me so much but the blur on a staged photo does. I'd support if there was no better image of African American soldiers during the Civil War but I think there probably are. gren グレン 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support; encyclopedic, quality issues go with the time, historically relevant, and utterly unreproducible. If someone else comes along with a better photo of black soldiers in the Civil War, will support replacing this with that, but til then... --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - it's pretty good for that time, not to mention it has a pleasant composition (not counting the tech. quality of course), and its EV. diego_pmc (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)