Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Laurens Jan Brinkhorst

Laurens Jan Brinkhorst
Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 22:41:33 (UTC)
 * Reason:Unique moment of modern dutch history and Mr Brinkhorst. Bert Verhoeff took this photo for ANEFO. It is a scanned version of the original photograph in very high resolution. Removing more noise deriving from the film speed of the analogue original will result in quality/detail degradation.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Laurens Jan Brinkhorst
 * FP category for this image:People/Political
 * Creator:Photograph by: Bert Verhoeff Edit by: Peter Weis


 * Support as nominator --Peter Weis (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this picture will be presented as part of 1000 political photos that are shared on Commons by the Dutch National Archive. GerardM (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The view expressed about NR seems premature, and is almost certain to be quite wrong. The "quality" is not impressive enough as it is for me to be particularly worried about losing some in trying to recover some actual signal in this image. So the question is: what did you try that you thought didn't work? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The quality has been assessed by the conservator at the Dutch National Archive and the restoration of the original data was praised. So I am interested why you are so sure of yourself? GerardM (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I really care either way with respect to this image, but your comments are always supportive with archival releases no matter what their quality is. Commendable in one way, but you need to let others look at these image critically, just as they would any other nomination. The conservator may have given it a thumbs up, but s/he's not here right now, and not voting. The Wikipedia FPC community is. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if you supported a photo of a steaming pile dung on an Amsterdam street as long as it was associated with a museum release.  upstate NYer  00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For every picture that makes it to the featured picture candidates list, there are many many more that do not and will not make it. Your notion of quality when related to museum / archive material is problematic as it is so firmly rooted in digital imagery. Your notion of what I would support is offensive. Last but not least your bias shows clearly that encyclopaedic value of imagery is not what concerns you as it is exactly those conservators of museums and archives who understand such material. As to voting, are you telling me that I should ask GLAM people to come and vote ? GerardM (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Make a scaled down version. That's right, FPC, I said it. This has been pretty blatantly ≈doubled its normal, optimal dimensions which makes it look low quality, expands the apparent flaws and dilutes the detail, and why is an image from 1977 so b/w and old-looking? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment My credo on restorations is to preserve and recreate as much detail as possible. If comparing original and edit you can see the difference already achieved. Especially areas like the face will degrade tremendously if increasing noise reduction. Working with masks seems irrational here - for this will create different sorts of grain in one single image. The general fuzz on minimizing noise/filmspeed to a minimum is not corresponding with analogue photographs. Reducing noise works until a certain degree - it can not be reduced as easily as digital noise and must not be removed in order to get to best noisefree result. I used the neatimage plugin for noise reduction and would be curious to know better results achievable with keeping a similar amount of detail. Attributing my note as premature is not very cricket of you. Stay polite and objective next time. Let me know if you can improve the noise situation, would be glad to enlarge my wisdom on noise reduction. --Peter Weis (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to kick the image, but looking at it makes me feel like someone stretched it on an imager and then just blurred it so it wouldn't look pixelated; Idk, de-noising or sharpening might be possible.... but I could be wrong about that. Maybe someone at WP:GL has a more experienced opinion they could offer. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  14:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to nominate a decent candidate, not on us to fix its shortcomings. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Downsampling might be a good idea; the full rez view of this is awful.  upstate NYer  00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the point in sampling it down? It's resolution exceeds that of most digital cameras on the current market. That way it preserves as much information as possible. One sould not expect the technical perfecion achieved by state-of-the-art prosumer cameras from an image shot over 30 years ago. -- Any1s (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but one shouldn't expect such crap when my father's cheap camera from the time produced better images.  upstate NYer  03:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a rather irrational argument. Be aware of the fact that your father's camera and the model Mr Verhoeff used may differ. If by any chance your father took photographs of Mr Brinkhorst or other people of encyclopeadic value, I would be glad to see those on commons/wiki. The picture's "quality" and grain may not be comparable to other imagery either on fpc en:wiki or commons. The unique historical value of this image was the reason to display it here. En:wiki's fp policy cleary states exceptions in terms of quality for historical images. --Peter Weis (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What upstateNYer says is very relevant and rational - the only excuse for a lack of quality would be that the required quality wasn't possible at that point in time, and "not possible" doesn't mean "put the wrong film in his camera". While the photo shown may or may not be locally famous in the Netherlands, the event depicted is not of such historical significance as to excuse a lack of detail imo. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so PLW was a bit more gracious with his words, but that's essentially what I meant.  upstate NYer  00:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Important person caught in a special moment -> deserves FP status. -- Any1s (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that this is unecessarily huge and very low quality- the grain is visible even on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Recently failed to achieve FP at commons.  P. S. Burton  (talk)  17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose original I think that much is clear from all the comments. Let's see if anybody actually makes any progress on this - several have pointed out possible forward routes. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose While interesting, I can’t possibly imagine how this busy, black & white, rather contemporary image can be considered an example of good photography. Greg L (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Chworld (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hate to say this, but I note two newcomers- has this been advertised somewhere? J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Socks imho - look at their contribs!   Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Next time please be so kind to check my global account and find any evidence before making a false accusation. Regards -- Any1s (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have two edits before the 5th of September. Characteristically, your second edit was on the Commons FPC nom of this very image. commons contribs Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being new on wikimedia, please forgive me. So what am I to tell a paranoid mind? People like you really don't make it easy to start contributing to this project. -- Any1s (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not good quality, and what is the significance of him leaning over to the window? Not a very illuminating image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, grainy, not representative of photographic quality achievable at the time taken. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)