Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Niels Bohr

Niels Bohr
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019  at 02:18:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality image of a very notable scientist, high EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Niels Bohr, Introduction to quantum mechanics
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
 * Creator:Library of Congress, G. G. Bain Collection, restoration by Bammesk


 * Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support JJ Harrison (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support : DreamSparrow  Chat   09:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support & Comment Could something be done about the grain? --Janke | Talk 09:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried gaussian denoising as well as a high-pass grain removal tool, but it wasn't an improvement, first because of softening of facial details, and second because of the softening of the tonal contrast conveyed by the grain. If you notice closely I have preserved the original's grain. On a sidenote: this is a glass negative and the grain is on the emulsion, so in that sense it is part of the artwork. Bammesk (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. MER-C 10:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Question How are we supposed to judge historical photos for FP? Has anyone got standards or benchmarks? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Charles, this is a process question, a good place for it is WT:FPC. In short, the FP criteria has some cues, it also links to here for examples. My personal take is in this nom in small print marked "sidenote". In it you see the words "integral", "purposeful-and-material", "historic integrity", which are somewhat subjective. Also looking at existing FPs is informative and shows some precedence. Bammesk (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC).
 * See WT:FPC Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of uncomfortable with the lack of grain in the lower left, and the contrast seems a little off. Can this be tweaked a bit more? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Adam, I touched up that corner and did an upload. The original doesn't have a lot of range there. What do you think? Bammesk (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit better! Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now when you say that, I note that the grain is softer in all corners - therefore, it must be either due to the reproduction of the glass negative, or from a print made from that negative. To me, the "grain" looks more like the texture of a matte photo paper than photographic grain. My weak support (above) still stands. --Janke | Talk 10:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Janke, this is a direct scan of the glass negative (there is no paper), see these links, , see the fields: Medium, Reproduction Number, Digital ID. Bammesk (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC) . . . I found other examples. Here is one , where original is print, reproduction is film negative, digital image is a scan of film negative. Here is another ,  where original is glass negative, there are two reproductions (a direct digital scan, and a film negative), digital image on LOC website is the direct digital scan (not derived from the film negative).
 * People tend to touch glass negatives by their corners and edges. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --Yann (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 03:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)