Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Edgar Allan Poe 2.jpg

Edgar Allan Poe

 * Reason:The most famous image of Poe and a good example of a daguerreotype... what more could you ask for?
 * Articles this image appears in:Edgar Allan Poe, Daguerreotype, and a few other miscellaneous places
 * Creator:W.S. Hartshorn
 * Nominator:  howcheng  {chat}


 * Support &mdash;  howcheng  {chat} 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support however it may be copyrighted, (that was a joke) :p. Seriously highly enc, can't ask for more. ~ Arjun  17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have made an edit of the original to remove a lot of the dust and other things. -Andrew c 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think removing the dust was very successful, however I'm still thinking about removing the writing which gave copyright information. I know we have a practice of removing watermarks or not accepting watermarked photos, however to my mind this is more equivalent to a signature on a painting. It adds provenance and authorship and is part of the encyclopedic story of the image. Are there other physical copies of this daguerreotype which do not have the date and name? Do we know who added that information? For myself, I think I would prefer to see a version with dust/spot removal but which left the copyright tag intact. Mak (talk)  18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. In my opinion, editing historical pictures is something that's done too quickly here. If the copyright information is on the original image, it has to stay there (after all this is an encyclopedia!!!!). I am even a little bit bothered by editing out scratches, dust and so on of historical pictures, especially if they are part of the source. This is just unscientific and I would even go so far as to call it unethical. (see this nomination for another example. -Wutschwlllm 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that too. The Library of Congress doesn't say why the copyright statement exists, but it definitely seems to have been added after the fact (after all, the image was made in 1848 and the text says 1904), but I don't think editing out dust/scratches is bad -- most likely they were not there when the image was originally created, but have since accumulated on the surface.  howcheng  {chat} 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If people want, I can supply a dust removed version with the text intact. But Poe was dead in 1904, so the 'copyright' information is only confusing. I imagine this scan came from some sort of collectors reprint or post-card, because we can all agree it isn't a scan of the original (unless someone would sign the original 50 years after the fact), plus the copyright has expired. As for the more general question of removing dust or not, the original image taken over 150 years ago didn't have dust and scratches and finger prints. I don't see how noise and distortion like this add to the encyclopedic content. But if you disagree with me, don't vote for my edit. I won't be that offended :p-Andrew c 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC) I have uploaded a version with the writting in tact.-Andrew c 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in that time period would write on an original image in their collection. Looking into this image further, as well as daguerreotypes, I'm even more strongly against this edit. It looks like the person who added the signature to the image was the owner for some period, and his widow then donated it to the Library of Congress. This, as I mentioned, gives important provenance of the object. Also, daguerreotypes were easily damaged, and so were kept in glass-fronted cases. In my mind, it's possible that the print removed belonged either to Poe or the original photographer! At this time there is no way to know, but wouldn't it be sad if this information were lost? To be fair, I think I tend to see such "photos" more as artifacts than Andrew c does, and I think there can probably be appropriate times for the cleanest, nicest image of Poe, and of a faithful representation of an early Daguerreotype of Poe, with all the smudges, signatures, and dust which go along with that. I wasn't trying to criticise, but start a conversation about what's being captured here. A photo or an artifact. Mak (talk)  23:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. I mean to say that my understanding now is that the signature exists on the only extant original, in the possession of the Library of Congress. Mak  (talk)  23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. In my opinion, if the original version has all the scratches and dust on it, they should not be removed. If it's just a copy (like a postcard or whatever) and this copy is a bit "dirty", there's nothing bad about editing dirt out. But editing out the dirt of an historical picture changes it's historical value to zero. I know, some people here are quality fanatics, but if the original version looks that way, I'm really not sure if editing something out is the correct way. I think this is highly debatable. -Wutschwlllm 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit great image, encyclopedic. Support original for now, see above comment. Mak (talk)  18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Support original Support Edit 2 Very enc.  I would also support a de-scratched version with the extant signature. --TotoBaggins 02:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original per TotoBaggins. Madman 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The edit is very well done.  For a picture this old, it is pretty good and it holds encyclopedic quality.  -Midnight Rider 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original - edit went too far. Edit 2 is better, but I retract my vote for now. --Janke | Talk 11:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 very clear for something 150 years old. Jorcoga  ( Hi! / Review ) 00:29, Saturday, 3 February '07
 * Support edited Wow that is an awesome picture!! Good all around.--68.203.112.214 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original, Strong Oppose edits See my comments above -Wutschwlllm 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit Good picture of him. · A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit &mdash; I agree with Wutschwlllm, the edit is a bit too much. If this image is representing daguerreotype, then removing the scratches and other artifacts is simply not acceptable, it would be creating a false representation of an old image. If this were simply an old photograph of a man, then maybe the edit would work; but this is a special type of photography. ♠ SG →Talk 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree completely that if we are trying to illustrate a deguerreotype, then we shouldn't edit the image. However, after reading and looking through the images, I do not believe this would be a featured picture quality reference for a deguerreotype. I believe including a color image with frame would be more encyclopedic. And I am also skeptical that this image isn't a reproduction (due to the signature and quality of the image). On those grounds, I would not vote support on the original if it is meant to represent a deguerreotype. And if this is supposed to represent E.A. Poe, then I see nothing wrong with my edit and would support promotion to FP under those grounds (a historic portrait of a notable person in American literature).-Andrew c 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I am no expert on this subject, I'm not sure if a Daguerreotype could have been duplicated in 1904. In fact, a Daguerreotype cannot be duplicated in normal circumstances (one reason why it was replaced soon by the negative-positive photography). The only why (I can think of right know) is to a.) take a "normal" picture of it and b.) scanning it (which was definitely not possible in 1904). Since this picture is from the Library of Congress, I do believe that it is an original and someone just wrote on it. Of course, there are "better" Daguerreotypes, but on the other hand this one shows one of the most famous poets.... Even if it does not represent a Daguerreotype that well, it still is an Daguerreotype and therefore should not be altered (in my opinion). -Wutschwlllm 11:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)