Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Into the Jaws of Death

Into the Jaws of Death, digital restoration
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2011 at 14:09:25 (UTC)
 * Reason:restored iconic image with high historic value, used in various media
 * Articles in which this image appears:please see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1944_NormandyLST.jpg#File%20usage%20on%20other%20wikis
 * FP category for this image:Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/World_War_II
 * Creator:Robert F. Sargent


 * Support as nominator --Peter Weis (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The one you're linking to is a radically different image from the transcluded one. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They look pretty similar to me... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the very same image. The processing was different, resulting in lighter skies and a darker foreground. Both versions were used as cover images for the TIME magazine. The link was intended to show were this image could be used. See the further reading note in the image description. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually much prefer the original. JFitch   (talk)  20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although certainly of great value, this image is not currently used in any articles. The nomination should be closed until WP:FP? #5 is met. Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close Peter, if you believe (and can argue convincingly) that the version above is an improvement over the currently featured version of the image, the proper procedure is to nominate the current featured image for delisting and replacement. The image you nominate above appears to more closely resemble the TIF file from the NARA, which I assume is the original scan. Personally I think a better edit of the photo is this version, which is featured on Commons. Fallingmasonry (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Fallingmasonry, as indicated in the file description of my restoration the TIFF is the original I used for this restoration. Here are the reasons why the current featured picture is inferior: The overall quality regarding sharpness, level of detail and contrast of this NARA sourced restoration is better than the current commons featured picture. The current featured picture was developed differently, resulting in lighter skies, and a darker foreground. Please be sure you see the heavy posterisation in the right bottom corner. An indicator for an insufficient workover of the current featured picture. However, if you are unable to identify this posterisation please try to access this image with a calibrated display. Moreover it suffers from jpg compression artifacts, a darkish veil at the left side and numerous scratches, filaments and dust. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the point of my remark. You have nominated your picture incorrectly because (1) It is not included in any articles, and (2) Another version of the image is already featured. If you would like to have your version of the image replace the one that is currently featured, you need to nominate 1944_NormandyLST.jpg for delisting and replacement. All I am talking about is the correct procedure, I do not mean to make a judgment on the photo.Fallingmasonry (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand this to mean two versions of an image cannot be a Featured Picture at the same time? Even if they are dissimilar as these are? I don't see this in the criteria. Can you point to where you're getting these procedures? JBarta (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not written explicitly in the procedures, but it's strongly implied by criterion #5. The purpose of FPs is to illustrate articles; if multiple versions of a photo exist, featured status lets us know which version is the best. If you ask yourself "In which articles would we put the above picture?", the answer is probably, "In the same articles that the featured version is located". Even though they are edited differently, they are the same photo. If we tried to make the above photo eligible for promotion by adding it to an article, we would have to remove the Featured version of the photo. Chances are this edit would be reverted quickly, since FP status is used to determine the preferred version of a photo.
 * You can see this idea in practice elsewhere on the FPC page. It's why, in nominations with alternative edits, we select only one version for promotion. It's why, for wildlife photos in particular, we occasionally vote to delist a high quality photo in favor of a slightly better photo of the same subject. Fallingmasonry (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- I think this is an inferior alteration of an iconic photo. The dark swath in the sky kills it in my opinion. I don't think it's just a development difference. I believe this version of the photo was deliberately altered to make it more foreboding. Now it's art. On the issue of its historical significance, I tend to believe that an unedited (or much less heavily edited) version of the photo has the real historical significance. I happened across a Time Magazine cover using the unedited version. Even our own Wikipedia article on the image uses the unedited version. I'm not convinced this particular version of the image is significant in any way, other than to sit in the giant shadow of the original photograph. And then there's the matter of it not being used in any articles... JBarta (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI: The TIME magazine cover you refer to is in no way "unedited". It was at least cropped and rotated in order to achieve a straight horizon. Despite blatantly ignoring the further reading notice, here you go again: another TIME magazine cover. Your use of the terms "edited" and "unedited" suggest that we have deeper knowledge about which version was first. As noted above and on the Commons, I assume that both images are based on the same negative and were proceeded with a different developer resulting in dark skies. The decision for the dark skies version has to do with the availibity amongst high resolution NARA files. Sadly neither the current en:wiki nor the current commons featured picture can deliver the quality required for a thorough digital restoration. Therefore I was using the original provided by NARA. We are not able to verify which version was first with the current state of the art. Based on the TIME magazine covers, the dark sky version is the earlier version. It's a pity to see several dozens hours of work debased as "inferior alteration". As for the article use: I did not intend to replace the current images from the articles, without community consenst in form of a successful nomination. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we assume the landings took place during daylight hours (albiet in the early morning), and we assume the sky at that time was gray or lighter, and given that other developments of this image show the expected gray sky, is it then reasonable to suggest that the black sky in this image was at some point added for effect rather than simply being an innocent result of the developing process? JBarta (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tone of either the dark or light skies version is no accurate indicator for the actual situation and therefore an invalid argument. We don't know about the image's processing, time the image was taken and actual intensity of the sky colour while the shot was taken. Unless there's any proof to this, any discussion on these issues remain mere speculation. "Adding for effect" and the "developing process" are not two different things. Both representations of the negative underwent a decision for a certain developement and therefore: yes of course, both images were developed "for effect". Based on what we can see on the image - the remains of a Sherman tank for instance - we may say that this image was taken after the first wave and therefore after 0630AM (GMT+2). Your preference for the lighter skies version has been noticed. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it may be worth to you, I'll take back the word "inferior". JBarta (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will say this, the level & quality of some detail is greater in this dark sky version than either the English language FP or the Commons FP. I would hate to think that the only version in existance with the higher quality detail is the one with the black sky. Are there no gray sky versions out there with the same level of detail as this black sky version? JBarta (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The very fact that we're in the dark over the particular manipulative history of any of these versions suggests to me that this nomination is premature. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Aside from the controversial dark sky, the actual quality of the nominated version is unarguably better. It's clean, sharp and has an impressive dynamic range. Just compare the shadow details to the currently featured version. On the other hand, this discussion should be held at the "delist and replace" section and not here. Otto Jula (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)