Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver c. 1910

George Washington Carver
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016  at 17:48:11 (UTC)
 * Reason:The other restoration (of a different image) failed as there was too much shadow; here, every feature is clear.
 * Articles in which this image appears:George Washington Carver
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
 * Creator:Unknown photographer; restored by User:Adam Cuerden


 * Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, though I do think some more contrast would help. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Jobas (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Lacking in contrast and brightness. Regarding the digital altering of the brightness/contrast from the original scan : A photograph should not only be taken in such a way that it reflects reality, but also to expose useful or interesting detail in the depiction of a subject. The problem with attempting to match a preconceived idea of the skin tone of the subject is that the camera is far inferior to the human eye in exposing detail across a wide dynamic range. There is no absolute value when it comes to exposure or lighting so it is reasonable to vary it according  the subject  in order to preserve detail and compensate for this deficiency. If it is a picture of someone who has very pale skin or very dark skin I would expect the exposures and lighting to be different in order to preserve detail. I don't think this is unreasonable or in any way insensitive to the subjects race. For this reason I think adjusting the brightness of a photo very substantially from the original photo for this reason is not justified and I will likely oppose where I think this has a significant negative effect on the detail and clarity of the image. - Wolftick (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But, Wolftick, this is from c. 1910. Those are rules for modern photography. We know he was dark. looking at pictures of him with other staff at the Institute shows he's by far the darkest skinned, and all other images I find that allow us a chance of seeing him in a context that allows us to judge clearly agree. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The technology and capabilities have changed but I don't think the rules have. An image where the subject is insufficiently lit/exposed such that it makes it difficult to make out detail is a problem however light or dark the subject is. The group photo I think you mean is a better example in my opinon . The relative darkness of the skin tone is clear but the lighting means that detail and clarity is preserved. - Wolftick (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But the thing is, there's a huge amount of detail and clarit. Every bit of his face is sharp and clear, as is his coat. There was never much detail in the collar and tie; the background has a lot of detail as well. The only thing that might possibly be awkward is that the background is a ssomewhat similar colour to him, but he's clearly distinct from it, even in thumbnail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Maybe a matter of taste, but I actually love the toning. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I just found this: we do have a FP of G.W. Carver in this category Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering. It was modified and replaced in this edit . The existing FP seems to be a good image. Bammesk (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I... disagree. Comprehensively. That was very late in his life, has weird composition (it's all shifted left), strange contrast (everything looks really faded), a large out-of-focus flower, what might be a hand at the bottom of the image, which is a blob - it's terrible. Perhaps you could crop that into something passable, but that shouldn't be an FP, and this should. Further, if the problem is that this one supposedly doesn't have enough contrast between him and the background, that one has exactly the same issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I will reconsider post delist of existing FP. About the contrast of this nom, I see merit in both sides. Wouldn't something between and  work? Bammesk (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But, Bammesk, an existing FP is not a reason to oppose an FP, particularly when they're separated by thirty years, so don't overlap. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In my previous edit, I had removed (striked) my oppose. I am ambivalent on supporting this nom. As Vesuvius Dogg noted, in a way it is a matter of taste, I like the image and the restoration quality but I find it a little hard to look at, too dark as a whole or overall. Bammesk (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's weird that you're saying that. I think I should look at this on a couple other monitors, and compare. Maybe mine's on the light side. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a tweak, a.k.a. jumped it between two screens and tried to find something I liked on both. See if it's fixed it so that you like it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No change Adam, most recent upload displays the same. May be others can opine. Bammesk (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)