Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lewis T. Powell

Lewis Powell, conspirator
Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016  at 22:49:24 (UTC)
 * Reason:Powell was executed for his attempted assassination of William Henry Seward on the night of Lincoln's assassination. Famously photographed by Alexander Gardner while awaiting trial, the 21-year-old is best remembered for his serene calm and matinée idol good looks (the most familiar image of the series has him staring directly at the camera). From a technical standpoint, this is a very clean image given the long exposure time required. Contrary to popular belief, Powell was photographed not in his cell but in full sunlight, on deck of the USS Saugus.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Lewis Powell (conspirator), Alexander Gardner (photographer)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Alexander Gardner, 27 April 1865


 * Support as nominator – Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the one with him facing the camera, why not use that one? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because 1) Wikipedia does not have a qualifying FP high resolution version of it, and 2) it's not as well-focused or composed, with Powell's hands and head moving slightly during the exposure. Both versions were widely circulated and contributed to Powell's notoriety after his death. There are several more in the Gardner series, including Powell dressed in the clothes and hat he wore when attacking Seward. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still holding out for the more famous one. Though it may not technically be as nice, it will most certainly have the greater EV. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If a 20.2mb or 86.6mb TIFF file of that more famous portrait can be converted and uploaded to Wikipedia, it's available from the Library of Congress. I'm not technically able to do that from my computer, but would happily support that if it were nominated instead&mdash;would the damage to the glass plate disqualify it, or would EV value transcend the problem? (Also, he did move slightly during the exposure.) There's a brief, incomplete discussion of the series here; it is interesting that Alexander Gardner took more time and effort creating Powell's portrait than those of the other conspirators. By the way, Roland Barthes included the more famous Powell portrait in Camera Lucida, with the caption "he is dead and he is going to die". I would love that at least one of Gardner's portraits of Powell achieve FP. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand why one might prefer the less famous profile shot. I think I might actually agree aesthetically. However, I do think the greater EV of the more famous portrait probably trumps it from a FP pov. I've converted, uploaded and added as alt the equivalent library of congress version for consideration (@ User:Crisco 1492, User:Vesuvius Dogg ) - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . We'll see where the debate takes us. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: damage: Restoration would definitely be necessary (for both the profile and the face-on shot). The face-on shot would need a bit more work, but it is doable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The image can use a restoration, it has lots of spots. I can clean it up but not soon. If it isn't restored by Adam or others, I will clean it up on January 16/17. Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd really appreciate that! Thank you. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. Though whether it'll matter we'll have to see - January is a dead period on Wikipedia, so if it fails to get a quorum now, don't be disheartened, just wait a month and renominate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dang, at first I thought it was a photo of Charlie Sheen... ;-) Abstain from voting for the time being. --Janke | Talk 14:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Are we moving toward consensus that the more famous Alt image (above) should be considered for FP, if it can be successfully restored? It's a big ask but the effort would be appreciated. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am Ok with either image. But I prefer both as a set, like a mug shot nomination (actually the mug shot article mentions Gardner!). I can restore the profile image, unless wants to do it. Bammesk (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, if ye would. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To participants in this nom, , , , : based on your participation in this nom, I assume you are Ok with the soft (out of focus) face of the subject in these images in relation to a FP nomination. If that is not the case, please clarify. (because if the images are disqualified to start with, then there is no point in restoring them as the fine details don't show in a normal wiki article rendition). Bammesk (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm certainly OK with it, the focus is very good on both images considering the technology of the day. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dogg. We can't hold photographs from 1865 to the same standards as photographs from 150 years later. The technology has developed in leaps and bounds in that time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problems here with the image quality regarding FP status. Given it's age it is very good. Indeed personally I would support the image without restoration given the likely age of the damage, it's integrity to the plate and it's overall lack of impact on the clarity or EV of the image. However I do realise this opinion probably does not match with consensus and I would likely support a sympathetic restoration too. - Wolftick (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I uploaded a restored profile image. I tried not to deviate from the original. I don't have lots of experience in restoration. Input and critique is welcomed from everyone, particularly from who does so much quality work with images. Bammesk (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I uploaded a slightly cleaned up version of the profile image. The nom is coming to a close. This is a good time to see if this nom has any life with my restoration. If it does, cool. If it doesn't, that is cool too. Pinging the original participants:, , , , . Bammesk (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned, I much prefer the face-on shot. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand. I like both images, so I am inclined to volunteer to do the face-on shot too. But would the face-on shot pass muster if I do it? Obviously a hard answer is impossible, no one has a crystal ball. These are a lot of work, especially for my level of experience. If there is (or be) positive feedback based on where the profile restoration is (or even feedback on what needs to be improved on it), then I can repeat that level of work on the face-on shot. But if the profile restoration is a dead cat (so to speak!, I love cats, and dogs too!) then there is no point in me doing the restoring. Bammesk (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I had fun restoring the profile shot, so I am happy. I also know it is important to get the quality right (in addition to the fun part). Plus I know my experience is not in par with other contributors such as Adam. These images deserve attention, so whatever the consensus is, I am happy with that. Bammesk (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and am grateful for your work. You've done a fine job on the profile; I think a light restoration on the other image is appropriate and probably sufficient. I am still hopeful that both images can be promoted, if not in the next few days then in another month when they are re-nominated (January being very slow). The subject gets under your skin, no? Let's hope others weigh in. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 03:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)