Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mathew Brady

Mathew Brady



 * Reason:This photo has great enciclopedic value and adds to its articles, and I mean it is Mathew Brady.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mathew Brady, 1870s in fashion, Self-portrait
 * Creator:Mathew Brady


 * Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose original Original LOC file had much higher resolution, more detail. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support Alternative no. 2 I'd vote for the alternative, if someone (I could do it) would remove all the artifacts, and defects. Is it all right for me, or anyone else to modify it, and remove the defects? diego_pmc (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. I'd use the PNG (Image:Matthew_Brady circa 1875.png) for editing, though - saving in jpg repeatedly causes artifacting. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean this? I can see it, nor download it. Wikipedia says it's too big and cannot be displayed. diego_pmc (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If one of you want to remove all of the defects, please do. I agree with Shoemakers Holiday the the 2nd photo is better than the first.--CPacker (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't scale PNGs above a certain size - You can still see and download them if you click on "Full resolution", or, for that matter, here. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the new image. It might seems a little brighter at the first look, but that's just because I didn't pay much attention to keeping the background the exact same way. Matthew Brady however didn't suffer any brightness changes. diego_pmc (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be nice if a little more repair work could be done to his face, which has a lot of degredation artefacts on it. I'd like to see the bottom of his waistcoat and his elbow left in, but how practical that is, I dunno. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's pretty hard to do it, since, it's the face, and thus it needs special attention to preserve all the details. In the meantime, I adjusted the brightness a little. The hardest parts to do on his face are the eyebrows, the eyes, and the area where the actual head ends, and the neck begins, near the ear. I don't think I'm going to be the one continuing the fix, at least not in the near future... EDIT: I gave it a try. I have no problem going the elbow, the forehead, or the nose, but he had a lot of small puckers on his cheeks, that it's almost impossible to remove the artifacts without removing all those small puckers. diego_pmc (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * support - i learned something today, and indeed it is a good shot. Prefer alternative 1: he needs his hands! Potatoswatter (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it's good-looking enough, even for it's time it's not a very accomplished capture, and someone (my guess would be the photographer) has scratched away at the emulsion around the face for some reason – reduce contrast? add detail? who knows... – leaving it thoroughly ruined as far as restoration is concerned. --mikaultalk 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Request suspension I think Alternative 1 may have more salvagable than Alternative 2 salvages, but that will take some time. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

. Just renominate later. MER-C 08:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)