Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ida B. Wells

Ida B. Wells
Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2013  at 01:47:47 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good scan of a good portrait, which captures a certain elegant confidence also reflected in Wells's writing. I made literally six edits of a few pixels each--some speckles immediately around the face. Since there is no detail in the background I don't think the remaining spots there do anything other than appropriately to mark the print's age. I would cheerfully support also the uncropped, unedited version if there's interest in that, since it gives a nice example of this kind of commercial portrait print, but it's not currently in use.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ida B. Wells
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Political
 * Should this be Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers? She was a journalist... Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Creator:Mary Garrity


 * Support as nominator --Chick Bowen 01:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support either, although I'm not sure what the purpose of the saturation decrease was. Yes, the paper will have darkened with time, but the decrease also (very slightly) affects the tone of her skin and dress. It's pretty subtle, though. Chick Bowen 19:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My experience is that things tend to come out a little over-saturated when scanned, and we know Google Art isn't perfect with colours. It's a judgement call, of course. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This could use a restoration (it's not bad, though). I'm on it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alt 1 uploaded, Support Alt 1. It's a slightly different crop (nearer the original photographic card's - the edges weren't quite square so I couldn't get it perfect, but this is nearer) But it's not excessively different. I also pulled back the saturation just slightly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is that motion blur there on her shirt? Looks like she wasn't quite still when getting photographed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Still, it's not like we can retake. If I had to guess, it's small enough that it could well just be her breathing given the long time of the shot and the complexity of the shirt (probably a dress, really) Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * support alt1: Understatement and a half on the retake. Since this still in focus generally, and we're not using the image in an article about fashion, I still support alt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, it's not visible even at 1500px wide, so I don't imagine the problem would be visible at the original size of the photograph.
 * Support alt1 This is an amazing picture.  I took a very close look at the motion blur around her right shoulder— almost certainly the product of breathing.  I even took a quick shot at seeing if such a problem was at all correctable.  Turns out that, at least with my skill set, it is not.  What is great is that the rest of the image is so clear, especially considering the era in which it was taken.  Other portraits from this time period of this clarity are extremely rare, and concerns about the motion blur should be disregarded just as a hypothetical complaint that it is not in color: it is beautiful in b&w, and the motion blur is a trivial event.  This woman held incredibly still for this picture, and the photographer did an excellent job of taking it.  It is well-worth being a Wikipedia featured picture.  KDS4444 (diff) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support either for the reasons above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 J Kadavoor J e e 05:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 07:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)