Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marian Anderson

Marian Anderson
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2022  at 00:37:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality image; nice use of contrast. The background's one of those sorts of things that are very much of this era, which is fine; image is Carl Van Vechten, who is great here as usual.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Marian Anderson +14
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
 * Creator:Carl Van Vechten, restored by Adam Cuerden


 * Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 00:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should it be this dark? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a little hard to judge with darker skintones in black and white, especially against dark fabric. I might do a small tweak to the bottom of the range, but I'm really happy with the skintones. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 12:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have a look now. Think it brought out the dress details nicely. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 13:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as sharpness, I judge it at 50% which is still 1600+ pixels. It's a historic photo, so I am not picky with technical quality. The EV wins. Bammesk (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Struggling at Commons right now... Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Commons... I don't think gets historic photography sometimes, especially not how it relates to candidness vs quality. It took quite some time for a photo not in a studio to even come close to studio quality, especially in a dimly lit nightclub. Hell, studio photos of the 1910s are generally way worse than those of the 1870s, but you didn't need to strap yourself to a pole. This is a good candid photo, especially given photographers of the day knew fell well the maximum quality of reproduction they'd be getting: by and large, a few exceptions aside, halftoning puts a maximum sharpness that needs be cared about for the whole of the last half of the 20th century. That we can see these images and they hold up so well now says a lot about their talent, little as it might have gotten seen in full during these photographers' lifetimes.
 * FPCs at Commons can pretty readily fall to judging everything by modern standards, and encyclopedic value is explicitly not a consideration there, so things that would never pass here pass there, and vice-versa. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, it did pass on Commons. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 12:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – It is true that Commons doesn't understand historic photography, more than sometimes. Yann (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support.-- Vulp  ❯❯❯  here!  09:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. MER-C 17:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well executed photo with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 02:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)