Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lillian Gish

Lillian Gish (1921)

 * Reason:Superb photo of one of the major stars from the early days of cinema, taken around her heyday in 1921. Quality is not perfect, but pretty good for a photo of this resolution from that time. Unlike most of her contemporaries from the silent era, Gish's career continued into the era of the 'talkies', and she made movie and TV appearances right up until 1987, for a career spanning 75 years. From all reports, a pretty decent person as well.
 * Proposed caption: Lillian Diana Gish (October 14, 1893 – February 27, 1993), was an Oscar-nominated American actress, performing from the early days of the silent movie era until the late 1980s. The American Film Institute (AFI) named Gish 17th among the greatest female stars of all time. She was awarded an Honorary Academy Award in 1971 "For superlative artistry and for distinguished contribution to the progress of motion pictures", and in 1984 she received an AFI Life Achievement Award.
 * Articles this image appears in:Lillian Gish Silent film Academy Honorary Award AFI Life Achievement Award Movie star
 * Creator:Bain News Service; Uploaded to Wikipedia by Calliopejen


 * Support as nominator jjron 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC). Note: Support Original. --jjron 07:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Nice size, good composition and the quality problems you mentioned do not detract from it value --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  10:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Wish I had nominated it myself.  Spikebrennan 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Mbz1 14:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Support Top enc. --Janke | Talk 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Puddyglum 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support; after taking a crash-browse through the Lillian Gish article, I have determined that the encyclopedic and historical value of this image overrides all other issues. -- Altiris   Helios   Exeunt  09:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've overwritten the file with contrast-improved edit. Now uploaded my edit as a separate image and reverted the original. --antilivedT 09:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, to me the 'improved' edit is too bright, looking overexposed especially down her right side, on her cheek, hair, hat and shawl, and nearly loosing detail in places, such as on her shoulder. I have included a small comparison image for others to get an idea what I mean before comparing full versions. Would you mind reverting to the original and uploading this as an edit instead (as is usual), rather than overwriting the original? --jjron 12:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, can we get into the habit of stating exactly the nature of the transform? There are standard algorithms for this, e.g. normalise, equalise, stretch contrast; then various photo editors have automated "enhance" or "improve" functions; maybe if you're applying a curve, you could upload a picture of the curve along with your edit. Some people just label their edits "edit" and expect their reputation to travel ahead of them. That's simply not acceptable. Separa 11:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I simply upsampled the image to 200%, did levels to move the white point to 226 I think, and black point to 6 or 8. Only around 4 pixels is lost on the black part. And then I downsampled it (to fill in histogram gaps) and uploaded it. I thought a simple (near lossless) contrast enhancing does not warrant a need to upload a separate version. --antilivedT 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Antilived. Some people (such as me) may not consider the edit an enhancement, so that means a separate upload is preferred. If it was just a regular picture then you're probably right, but given this is up for FP consideration, then it's probably a little more contentious. --jjron 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Shark face  217  01:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original: Great picture of historically significant individual. (Nice coincidence too, I just watched The Birth of a Nation in class last week) -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 12:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)