Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Interborough Rattled Transit Restored.png

Interborough Rattled Transit Political Cartoon

 * Reason:Humorous cartoon about the Interborough Rapid Transit (a private transit company that eventually was bought out by the New York City Subway) critical of the system's service, in 1905. Restored version of File:Interborough Rattled Transit.png; smaller (1.86mb) version available: File:Interborough Rattled Transit Downsampled Restored.png. Could be just as relevant today in some urban subways. :-)
 * Articles this image appears in:New York City Subway, History of the IRT subway before 1918, History of the New York City Subway
 * Creator:Rogers, W. A. (William Allen) (published in the New York Herald)


 * Support as nominator -- wadester 16  20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wadester, I've told you that you shouldn't downsample engravings and such. However, you seem to have taken it into your head that your first step, when restoring, is to downsample to a tiny size, and yet you do not document this act very well, giving the misleading impression that this is as large as the image could be gotten. While you're doing that, such restorations cannot be considered Wikipedia's best work, even if no other flaws could be found. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What other option do I have when the original is 23 mb and won't thumbnail? This is still 1660 px in its smallest dimension, which easily meets the FP criteria for size. I'm also trying to be considerate of others with slow connections.  wadester 16  21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You could restore and upload at full size as well as a downsampled version of the restoration for thumbnailing (as has been done before); after all the work restoring, it's a trivial amount of effort to provide a higher quality image. Also if you're concerned about others with slow internet, 6MB is still a pretty big file; an additional jpeg version might be helpful. Just link the other versions in the image page, and everyone's happy. Thegreenj 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at my restorations, you'll see that nearly all of them have a PNG version (which generally doesn't thumbnail) and a JPEG (which does), as well as the same (or sometimes just the PNG) for the original. Just note at the top that the image is a lossless version of XXX.jpg, which doesn't currently display due to the PNG thumbnailer problem, but should be kept to allow further editing.
 * Also, the PNG thumbnailer limit is 12 megapixels, not three, so even for the stated reason for the downsample - which I'd still oppose over - you went way too far. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Highest-res version uploaded over the original shown above. Smaller version linked in text above. Alt, in grayscale, is also offered for those that may prefer it.  wadester 16  05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment All the LoC's film images tend to be rather soft, including this one, so I've sharpened it a bit. Time3000 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The brightness of the paper seems pretty inconsistent. The bottom left is much brighter than the other corners, particularly the left side. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and brick red seems an odd tone for the colours - This scan is pretty bad, and very uneven in tone - dark in parts, light in others, and this sort of art didn't have washes. It'd be better to lose the paper (which is badly posterised) and just keep the ink, if we're to salvage this. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just a scanner issue, Shoemaker. This is a second generation copy.  Remember my complaints about the slightly off-focus Kodak duplicates LoC was making several decades ago?  It's often hard to work off those things.  Durova  294 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's hoping you saved a version prior to changing the histogram, Wadester. There are pretty severe brightness variations in different parts of this image.  It's a phenomenon I blogged about several months back.  Have a look at how much better Jake Wartenberg made the Montana State Capitol before he nominated.  After that's ready, try adjusting color balance instead of desaturating.  This fade is rich in magenta and deficient in cyan.  A few minor issues could also use a touch-up.  It looks like someone made a diagonal scratch to interrupt the lines of the I-beam pillar.  Durova  294 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - appears downsampled (or blurred) and then desaturated. The downsampling/blurring tends to lose detail in the paper, making it look washed; also not a wise option for an engraving (or anything involving thin strokes), since they can get discarded in either process. Wholesale blurring and sharpening is not good, unless you know you can get away with it (ie., no-one is going to complain). It would be better if the paper were restored before the desaturation/levels adjustment to avoid the overblown whites. At any rate, if you do use levels (or whatever) in the future, it's a good way to check against over-bright and over-dark [not relevant here] areas, so you know where to work next. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, this isn't downsampled, at least not by me.  wadester 16  19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment uploaded new version over original, using Alt 2 as basis. Colors adjusted per Durova, and brightness adjusted per Diliff. Unfortunately I'm on my way out for vacation and may not be around much until next week. Irrational timing on my part, admittedly.  wadester 16  19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's getting closer. Global changes seldom do the trick with this type of image.  It's still got brightness variances, which produce some loss of paper texture.  Also the color balance has local irregularities.  Have uploaded an edit with notes to make it a little easier to see.  The ideal solution is to go back and work on the uneven fade first, in order to retain the texture.  Then try a series of feathered layer adjustments to get a consistent color balance.  Good call to leave the pencil marks visible from before the artist inked the sketch.  The hard part is to leave that intact while getting out the smudges and dirt. Looks effortless when it's done right, but but actually quite difficult.  A tough choice for a first restoration FPC.  Durova  297 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

--Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)