Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Guy Mannering

Guy Mannering

 * Reason:This work probably requires a little discussion: It has half-toning. Unfortunately, once you get past 1890 or so, books, save those republishing older editions, almost invariably use it, particularly for colour art.


 * Unless the originals are available in some form - and for book illustrations, they usually aren't - I think that we may have to accept that it's possible to be a great image - and also half toned.


 * This image was scanned at 1200 dpi, then Gaussian blurred (radius 5, I believe), followed by reduction to about 400 dpi. This should help prevent undue artefacts in Wikipedia's thumbnailing tool, and the unadjusted image remains available (if un-colour-adjusted and slightly tilted: I'll make a full-res, unblurred colour-adjusted image if desired.)


 * Also, the colours should be right: I carefully compared it against the original, and think I've got it pretty much spot on.


 * Articles this image appears in:Guy Mannering
 * Creator:N. M. Price.


 * Support as nominator --Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support - the technique of blurring and downsampling gives a much clearer view of the scene, but a much more inaccurate depiction of the work (you can't see the halftoning). Therefore, I support the blurred version but only if the original (perhaps straightened and cropped) is very prominently linked to on the image page and in the caption. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative's up. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How does not being able to see the halftoning make it inaccurate? Halftoning is from the printing method; it's not a part of the original. And anyhow, halftoning looks awful on electronic screens and causes serious problems when reprinting. Thegreenj 01:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Halftoning does look awful on a computer screen at full res and makes the image (the actual scene) hard to see, but removing the halftoning makes it an inaccurate depiction of the object (the piece of paper on which the scene is printed). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the picture itself, and not this particular print, is the object, so removing the halftone would not be misleading. After all, the picture has relevance to the article; the print doesn't. But I see what you're saying. Thegreenj 03:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, there's a clear link in the image description page, and I'll encourage the closer to add a link to the halftoned original on the FP page. The caption here is somewhat meaningless - it won't be seen again after this closes, as far as I'm aware - but I'll ask Howcheng to mention the changes when it comes time for the mainpage run. I trust that will suffice? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditions met. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Bleh999 was able to make a major reduction in half-tone artifacts between File:George IV bust.jpg and File:George IV bust1.jpg, but I don't know what Bleh999 did, and Bleh999 doesn't seem to be active anymore. Thegreenj 01:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to have a go, download the lossless PNG version of Alt 1, and manipulate at will. This was scanned at 1200 dpi - a quite large resolution - so it's probably not exactly comparable to the George IV bust, which appears to be at much lower resolution, where the half-toning is less visible. All I would ask is that, if we do get a lot of alternatives, that this go into "Nominations needing further input" if more time is needed to work it through. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original: I actually thought I had already supported this one, as I recall studying the original and alternative. I see no issue at all with the corrections made to avoid the appearance of half-toning.  Good quality and perfect for the article it's in.   Mae din \talk 06:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original The process outlined above seems reasonable given that is serving an article about Guy Mannering not N. M. Price. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's now been ten days, and this has unanimous support. Is there any reason why it's still open? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original per nom and comments above. Good restoration.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

--Ksempac (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)