Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver redux

George Washington Carver
Voting period ends on 6 May 2016  at 00:05:41 (UTC)


 * Reason:Somewhat redone since last time to maximise contrast without misleading. All parts of his face are clear, and if I squint, the face is still distinct from the background. All photographs of Carver have some issues in black and white - he was a dark-skinned man who wore dark suits with light shirts - but that shouldn't mean no image of him is featureable
 * Articles in which this image appears:George Washington Carver
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
 * Creator:uncredited photo; restored by Adam Cuerden


 * Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still too dark, could easily be fixed with photoshop "levels", then I'd support. --Janke | Talk 06:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Racelifting is not happening. If we make him look light-skinned, we are not only denying reality, we are being racist, saying that he is too dark. Any group picture including him clearly shows he is very, very dark skinned. I realise that's not your intent, but we can't say that someone's too dark-skinned to have a representative FP, or that we should lighten their skin in order to make it look better, without extreme systematic bias. Adam Cuerden' (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Per Janke. Nothing to do with race, racism or skin color – it's about lighting. (Don't see significant difference between this version and the one nominated Feb. 8.) It's a shame – it would be good to have a pic of him in his prime rather than his dotage (hence, my "weak" vote). Sca (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The one in his dotage has exactly the same issues and was delisted because the older ones were obviously better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh historically photographers not used to photographing black people didn't always do a very good job of lighting them. Colour film actual managed to make things worse since it tended to be optimised for white and asian skin. ©Geni (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree that the face is not clear here. It does seem very dark, like a poorly lit room. I am not sure what I could suggest to improve it, and I would not obligate anyone with a burden to fix this, but this is a difficult picture to see.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a photo of Carver with others from the Tuskegee Institute. He really looked like that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - is there a way to increase the contrast with the background by altering the background in some way without changing the levels of the subject?--Godot13 (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed it so that it doesn't look so horridly underexposed, the skin is still very dark - the white shirt is a good reference... OK? If you agree, you can replace the original, or rename this test edit... (IMO, you could go even a bit further...) --Janke | Talk 07:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this a suggested alt. nomination? I do think it's more accessible to the reader. Although the shirt is a bit blown, that's true of the orig., too. Sca (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, in a way - if people agree, the original could perchance be overwritten with this? At least I support this alt, if nobody wants to lighten it even further... --Janke | Talk 15:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The alt makes me uncomfortable. It's almost cetrtainly too light in the skin, even if it looks better. Systemic bias is a major problem - we don't have a lot of black-and-white photographs of very dark skinned people, and correcting to what we think they should look like is dangerous. I'm going by other photos and group shots; I think that's a better guide than "I think it looks better." Also, do not overwrte this is a featured picture on Commons. Oppose alt on encyclopædic grounds. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?
 * Weak Oppose: if the nominator is uncomfortable changing the original picture to make it lighter, then I oppose because the original is simply too dark. When I had my tablet screen at an almost flat angle so I could draw on it, I simply could not see it. I'm sure people in poor lighting conditions, with dim screens, or in the sun will see even less. Pinguinn (🐧) 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That's part of the featured picture criteria. Your monitors are nto in line with the voting criteria, methinks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.
 * I can see all of them quite easily with the Surface 3, the same computer that I had mentioned earlier. Even at the angle I was using it at and couldn't see the image, I could see all 4 circles. Additionally, I'll point out, as I said before, some people may truly not have their monitors calibrated, or have poor ones, or be on a phone in the sun, etc. and see it even less well as I did. We deprive these people of knowledge by excluding them. Pinguinn (🐧) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My monitor is fine. "Brightness" isn't he issue here. So what is the problem? To me it looks like the photographer has used a rather shallow depth of field while focusing on the tip of Mr Carver's nose. Look how out of focus his ears and shoulder are. The result is the lack of firm boarder between his head and the background. The limited contrast between his head and the background results in a problem for some people.©Geni (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We all should bear in mind that this photo was taken more than a century ago. But Adam, I don't see how lightening the photo to make the subject's visage discernible distorts either his race or the historical record. He remains clearly a black or Afro-American person. Sca (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Adam: I suggest you check who originally created that shadow detail test... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The "original" (a JPG) claims to be a "Picasa 300dpi scan vintage 2007", is that a sound base for any kind of restoration? For laptop users, check the angle of your display, I saw nothing on the display test image, with another angle all four circles were perfectly clear (manually calibrated VAIO 2011). The lower image is too bright for me. – Be..anyone &#x1F4A9;  08:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, then: If you see all four circles clearly, your display is definitely too bright, and so will the photo be. The ideal is to "discern" three circles (but they are all almost black, anyhow!), and the fourth just barely, if at all. If the three rightmost circles are not "almost black", your display is too bright. You can also check your mid-tone calibration here:  - if that is off, all bets are lost... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Per Janke – Jobas (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was holding off on voting on this one because I appreciate Adam Cuerden's restorations, but I came across this picture (to the right), which shows that it is really more a matter of poor lighting than skin colour. I believe his features are seen much more clearly in this photo (taken in daylight) than the nominated one. I will regretfully oppose on the grounds of poor lighting. Mattximus (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, his expression is better in that one, too. (And get a load of that flamboyant tie!) Alas, it's not amenable to pulling a mug from it. Sca (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 00:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)