Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:The harbour in Kingstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland, in about 1895 - Option 2.jpg

Dunleary, Co. Dublin, Ireland

 * Reason:Dunleary (then Kingstown; and also known by its Gaelic spelling, Dún Laoghaire) was hit by a bomb in WWII, which, of course, rather changes the view.
 * A version of this - it's had more work applied since then - ran a month ago, but - well, let's just say it was under highly confusing circumstances, and, while not opposed, it didn't reach a quorum.
 * Also, the colours are typical of those gotten from then-contemporary methods of tinting photographs: Not exactly natural, but making a good effort in that direction. For natural colours, you needed to use artistic methods, such as paintings and lithographs, which couldn't be done with a photograph without merely using the photograph as the springboard for art.


 * Articles this image appears in:Dún Laoghaire
 * Creator:Detroit Publishing Co.


 * Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support One question though, is the "12106. - KINGSTOWN, CO. DUBLIN" in the bottom left corner necessary (for credit or other reasons)? It's a tiny bit distracting, IMO, if it isn't necessary. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be misleading to edit it out, I think: it's from the original printing. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 15:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But isn't the subject matter/EV what is displayed, not the print itself? I understand why one would not edit the words out of this picture for example, as it is part of the EV of the image, but here it doesn't seem to be. I trust your judgment infinitely more than my own in these matters, just seems odd. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't like doing edits unless they either represent fixing aging and damage, or fixing a failed aspect of the clear artistic intent - e.g., if the woodblocks that make up a woodblock engraving were glued together badly, it may be reasonable to fill in the gaps, since the artistic intent was not to include those lines. In this case, though, the caption was included as part of the photocrom itself, so removing it seems a little dodgy. I'll think about it, and might do an alt. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't... it's not going to add anything in value or aesthetics and degrades historical value, which is 99% of its worth here. --mikaultalk 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak support. Not the best photochrom original (no quay has waters that still) and the cleanup seems a little off (spots remain, sky purple?) but squeaks along on historic value.  Durova  298 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Colours are as accurate as I can get them from the hints in the LOC original, as for your spots, I think you're referring to what I presumed was grain and texture. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Should it not have an ? --  can  dle &bull; wicke  15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, though I've never quite seen the point for images hosted on commons. Added, though. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it assists those who prefer to view this. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - high encyclopedic value, strong details. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Good enc., but I'm not satisfied with the water from the artwork itself. It doesn't seem realistic how it's flat and not moving (I'd mention the colour, but Shoemaker explained that above).  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with 19th century photography, nor Dunleary, to say what causes that, I'm afraid. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 189 FCs served 06:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably a combination of the very limited colour palette and lack of detail in the original photo. While adding more colours was an option, printers were limited, with respect to subtle colour gradations, to tonal gradations on the original. --mikaultalk 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)