Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obverse of a penny 16 years in circulation

Obverse of a penny 16 years in circulation



 * Articles this image appears in:Cent (United States coin)
 * Creator:User:Dschwen, Nominator: Dschwen

Well, since nominating pennies seems to be en vogue I thought I throw this one in for the fun of it (as my one cents :-) ). I just had the idea for a linear-macro-panoramic-image technique and had to try it out. This one is assembled from 16 macro shots. The camera was static and I moved the coin after each shot. The BG (white paper) and the shadow looked quite crappy, so I gimped them (sue me!). Oh yeah, it is downsized from 9 to 4 megapixels. One pixel corresponds pretty much exactly to 10µm x 10µm.


 * Support &mdash; Dschwen 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is no need to duplicate the Featured pictures. The image is not very attractive either, especially on the edges. &mdash; Arjun 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the criteria that says an image has to be attractive. This image illustrates a weathered penny, so of course it isn't going to be pretty. -- Tewy  04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * and not to get technical Arjun, but there are not two penny FPs. The other one is still a candidate as well.  Not that there's anything in the rules about having multiple FPs of the same subject! --Bridgecross 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. What the hey, it's a nice shot. I love the resolution and sharpness. There will probably be some arguments for the encyclopedic value of this, but I think this does a great job at showing what a penny goes through. -- Tewy  23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support agree with Tewy. Impressive detail, and shows an important encyclopedic aspect of coins - that they are for every day, they get thrown around, thrown in the wash, mixed in with pocket lint (you can see fibers on this coin), etc. I like this image a lot for that aspect, plus it is very well done. Mak (talk)  23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we shouldn't have 2 versions of the same thing concurrently as candidates. Also it's ugly, the other penny is much clearer and cleaner. Also I don't like the ridiculously high resolution. And the shadow on the left is clearly fake since none of the features of the coin have shadows --⁪froth T C  00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I agree that the shadow is a little strong. Edit 1? -- Tewy  00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might even remove it altogether. -- Tewy  00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The shadow looks perfectly real to me. Did you view the image at full size? It's quite easy to see the shadows on the coin itself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They're nowhere near at that angle. The kicker is that almost the entire shadow is the exact same color- try using the fill tool with 0% tolerance. I don't believe this occurs naturally.. also the border between the left side of the coin and the big shadow looks magic-wanded. --⁪froth T C  01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As you pointed out below, Dschwen stated it was fake. -- Tewy  02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't explore the left-side large shadow in detail, but I accept that it's problematic if people have done analysis on it. I would add, however, that "they're nowhere near at that angle" is a far cry from "none of the features of the coin have shadows"... which I what I was originally disputing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fake shadow coincides exactly with the real shadow the coin casted. Lighting came from the right at an angle of about 60° off the normal. Do the math, measure a pennies thickness and you will see the shadow matches. --Dschwen 07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now this is my favourite: I don't like the ridiculously high resolution. *pause* welcome to the 21st century. I mean... cooooome oooon, 1000px is the absolute minimum on this page (well yeah, you nominated a 700 px pic below, sorry, but maybe you have to adjust your standards a little) so 2000px doesn't seem like that much of leap to me. --Dschwen 07:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, lincoln's head is so damaged that it's barely distinguishable --⁪froth T C  00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with that, the head is damaged too much. &mdash; Arjun 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But isn't that exactly the point? This image serves to show what happens to a penny after the usual wear and tear, not how it looks coming out of the mint. If you want a shiny penny, scroll down to the other nomination. -- Tewy  00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the point was to show what a penny looks like. --⁪froth T C  02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if Dschwen just wanted to show what a penny looked like, he would have picked a newer penny. -- Tewy  02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that goes without saying.. I mean that FPs should demonstrate their subjects. You can't do much with a penny other than show what it looks like. "Showing how it wears down while in circulation" is kind of a lame rationale, you have to admit --⁪froth T C  03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on, please tone it down a little. Sure I could have used a newer penny, or cleaned this one. That was a deliberate choice to set the pic off from the other pennies, and avoid doubling nominations. --Dschwen 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Intriguing technique (and good results) - but would a simple scanner at 600 dpi do the trick? At any rate nice pic but I would strongly prefer a much lighter shadow (say 50% of it's current darkness) and maybe make it softer as well. --Fir0002 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the scanner, the current version has 2540 dpi, and that is scaled down from 4300 dpi. But yeah, if you have a nice scanner sure. For the shadow I oriented myself after the original, but sure, I guess I could make it lighter. --Dschwen 07:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are two things that bother me about this image. While I like the overall concept, and would like to see a "distressed" penny shot to compare to the proof penny, this shouldn't be the one. First of all, there's no evidence that this coin has been in circulation for 16 years. Just because it was minted 16 years ago does not mean that it's been in circulation that long. Secondly, I think we should use an even "worse" penny for the shot, to highlight the amount of wear that occurs over the years. I would suggest something from the 70s or 80s. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At a certain point the penny goes completely black from dirt and wear and it's not at all fit for FP. --⁪froth T C  01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But depending on the amount and type of use, a penny can last several decades longer than intended. I guess that goes along with what Dante Alighieri said about there being no proof that this coin has been in circulation. It may well have sat in a box for 15 of those years. -- Tewy  01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also doesn't anybody notice the shadow? It is very distracting. &mdash; Arjun 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit 1 seems to fix that. -- Tewy  21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't even notice but it looks like Dschwen admits to creating the shadow artificially --⁪froth T C  02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Does anyone else see the crap all over the coin? (2nd image) --⁪froth T C  02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I personally dislike the shadow (hence I opposed) makes it look thick. Also is it just me or does it look like that the penny is turned slightly to the right. &mdash; Arjun 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Certain parts may be off but look at liberty, it's perfect. Maybe stitching problems? --⁪froth T C  02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohhh epithelials and fibres, lets do a DNA test :-). Seriously I didn't bother cleaning the coin and shot it just out of my change purse. About the shadow geometry see above. --Dschwen 07:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Edit 1. Thanks for the edit, the lighter one is much better - fair enough if the shadow softening is too difficult for little gain. --Fir0002 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Like most other US coins, this nomination should be put on hold until copyright status can be cleared up. The template is certainly false. See US Mint terms of use: "You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain." ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This picture is not from the US Mint website. But you are right, there is a special tag money-US — for images of the official currency of the U.S. These are ineligible for copyright, and therefore in the public domain. as it says on Image_copyright_tags/All. --Dschwen 07:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that this is based on fact, and quite a bit of counterevidence. In my understanding, copyrights are held on the likenesses of the images used for the coins by third parties which are then assigned to the US Mint under 17 USC §105 as "work for hire", so who took the photograph doesn't matter. The tag looks more like someone assumed "US Government &rarr; public domain" and extended it to the US Mint, which is patently wrong. You're a long-time Wikipedian, you should know that statements made on Wikipedia are unreliable unless they're supported by a reliable outside source. There is no such thing on the money-US tag. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the design is by Victor David Brenner who died in 1924, which is over 80 years ago, and the work was published before 1923 . Even if he was the copyright holder to my (flaky) knowledge it wouldn't matter anymore. Plus on their website the us mint only mentions the photographers copyright on penny pics . --Dschwen 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to Fir's suggestion I lightened the shadow, and I actually prefer it. It makes the coin stick out more. Sorry about the shadow blurring, that takes a little more time (to get the match right at the top and bottom edges I'd have to apply a blur-radius gradient making the shadow sharper to the right, if you know what I mean). --Dschwen 08:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 - I wish you had brushed it off a bit, but I really like the resolution and the wear and tear. --Iriseyes 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't like that part of this image is fake, and to me the edge of the coin does not look right.. I don't think it should be difficult to take another picture of a penny, unlike some subjects. Use just any older penny and the same setup, except perhaps a different light source.say1988 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on the not difficult, it took me over two hours to produce that image. Half an hour to take the pictures (used a timer to avoid shake) and the assembling. Then 1.5 hours to get the optimum DOF by manual editing of the stitching masks. --Dschwen 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I didn't phrase that well, in fact very poorly. I did not mean to refer to the actual process, but the subject and that are not that difficult to set up. I am more critical of a photo of a common subject in normal circumstances than a shot that cannot be repeated a will (time allowing). I did not mean it as an insult, and would like to apoligise. say1988 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per say1988. Madman 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1. Quite an original take at the common penny, and I love it. This is the real 1 cent peice we know, not the flawless mint ones. And the stuff on it isn't crap, it's authentic material from the inside of a pocket. Nautica Shad e  s  11:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The pocket material is prominent and unenc --⁪froth T C  04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-sarcastic? -- Tewy  05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Love the surface of the coin, it's certainly a change from the stripper tits fake cameo crap. But I see three problems that keep this from being FP; 1. Fake shadow doesn't go with the "realism" of the coin face. 2. There seems to be some crosshatching which I assume comes from the panoramic technique. And 3. and most critically, the rim of the coin is seen from all sides. There's also some artifact sticking into the fake shadow that's just jarring. ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what zou mean bz crosshatching. The artifact is an epithelial from handling the money :-). And a tiny bit of rim is indeed seen, but it can easily be confused with the bevelled edge of the coin (so you are probably overestimating it). The overall appearance is darn close to the real thing I have lying in front of me now. --Dschwen 09:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see diagonal hatches at 45 degrees going both from bottom left to top right (they're pretty obvious) and from top left to bottom right (they're not quite as obvious, but check the area to the right of his forehead). I doubt that such a pattern can occur from natural wear and tear, so I assume it's a result of the technique. As is the perspective distortion that shows the rim from all sides. The artifact could've been photoshopped out, especially the with way you added the shadow. ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While it might be good to have a circulated coin as an example, it shouldn't be one with spots. Patina can be nice (and typical for an old coin), but a spot is a defect. &mdash;Dgiest c 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Spots and defects aren't a problem; they can make for an interesting figure.  Shadows are relistic on difference in height of coin, and in height of the relief.  But what the spots and defects do show is that it really hasn't been in circulation that much; rather, it has been hoarded somewhere, in a place that got some moisture, and it stuck to te coin(s) above it. You can see the transferred ridges from contact with another coin, most clearly around Lincoln's neck but elsewhere as well. Gene Nygaard 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 07:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)