Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Marion Russell - The Custer Fight (1903).jpg

The Custer Fight (1903)
Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 21:02:59 (UTC)
 * Reason:Rather a nice view of the somewhat romanticised view of Indians in the Old West. I particularly like the use of fading out for more distant groups, which is very advanced lithography, requiring many, many maskings of the various plates, since the number of masks used determines how many variations in lightness you can get. It is pulled off superbly.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Lithography, Charles Marion Russell, Battle of Little Bighorn
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others (used to illustrate the section on the battle discussing its depiction in art, so I don't think it's really at its highest-EV in history)
 * Creator:Charles Marion Russell


 * Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The white balance seems to be a bit off from the key. Are you setting it based on the artwork or the color key? I think there's an argument for doing it off the artwork itself, but I usually try to use the key if present. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally use the key to get the initial levels, then, if it appears justified, do small tweaks  after cropping, to account for fading, yellowing, and any contrast or saturation issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support (first and third version). It looks better to me now. I do agree there are situations that call for tweaking the contrast though. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mild support I agree with the white balance concern, but check out the Lithography article. The image's caption implies that this is how Charles artwork looks? Gut Monk (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You may have a point. I've reverted to my first upload, which was based on the blocks alone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Have to support a Russell painting, it's decent quality. Also Adam you really should use the template... LOC has a bad history of changing their url format quite often... —  raeky  t  11:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is they just changed it, and I don't think LOC-image supports the new format. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's trivial to change the template's link, which automatically updates the link on thousands of images, if you don't use the link the next time they change the format, here in a few days if you go by their previous record, your link will be broken and no easy way to fix it... Thats why it's always best to use a source template if it exists, and create one if you do a lot of uploading from a specific source... My two cents on the matter. —  raeky  t  23:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is kind of boring, it just looks like a medium-quality scan. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  17:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a lithograph. Lithographs have a natural maximum resolution, as part of their nature. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)