Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Percival Lowell observing Venus

Percival Lowell observing Venus
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2013 at 00:08:59 (UTC)


 * Reason:This image was previously nominated in March 2006, however I've recently uploaded a much better version of this iconic image and I believe it's now worthy of being a Featured Picture. (Please note that the subject of the image has been disputed and that I have requested that the image be moved/renamed. See image description for details.)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Alvan Clark & Sons, Great refractor, Lowell Observatory, Planets beyond Neptune
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Unknown (restored by nagualdesign)


 * Nominate and Support. nagualdesign (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral Does not meet minimum size requirements. — raeky  t  00:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I did the move request though at Commons. — raeky  t  00:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for completing the move. Please note that according to Featured picture criteria; "Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height." However, "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration." Therefore I submit that this is the highest resolution availiable for this particular historic image. After an extensive online search during the time that I recreated the image, this is now the best version of this image available online. (IMHO!) nagualdesign (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "sources being "Clarence Augustus Chant, Our wonderful universe: an easy introduction to the study of the heavens, G.G. Harrap & company ltd., 1928, page 92", "William Sheehan, A Passion for the Planets: Envisioning Other Worlds, from the Pleistocene to o the Age of the Telescope, Springer, 2010, page 35"" — (note there's a possible typo after 'Pleistocene'). These books should be available through a university library trading program. Scans of a larger size could possibly be made from these. The image description, while listing these books, actually says the image was constructed from online resources, which could hinder the image size. Just a thought. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 01:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The references are only there to show that the earliest known descriptions of this image state that Mr Lowell was observing Venus, and not Mars as later sources would have you believe. They are not the source of the image itself. The image published in A Passion for the Planets is much poorer quality and is heavily cropped. The one in Our Wonderful Universe may be better but the image isn't shown on Google Books, and given that the book was published 85 years ago it may be difficult to get hold of a copy (and I refuse to travel 400 miles to the British Library or fly to the US to visit the Library of Congress!) The original 103-year-old photograph may no longer even exist. nagualdesign (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I ought to point out to those that are unfamiliar with this image that almost all copies of the original photograph suffer from the same problem, which is that the dark areas of the image are so badly burned that the telescope appears as a black rectangle and the various bits and bobs are rendered invisible. In other incarnations there has been some effort to mitigate this by (traditional/pre-digital) dodging around his head and other areas, such that the wall behind him looks almost homogenous and the wooden panelling cannot be discerned. As you can see, in this version the telescope can be seen in all its detail, as well as the panelling, and of course Mr Lowell's head. nagualdesign (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where was this higher quality version sourced from? — raeky  t  03:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reconstructed it using various online sources. There is no single online source of this quality. ..Basically, it's been Photoshopped by me. nagualdesign (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider myself quite advanced in Photoshop, working in graphic arts for ~10 years, I'm unfamiliar of a way to take lower resolution images, and make a much higher resolution image that doesn't appear to be just re-sized. So, I'm slightly confused by what your saying. — raeky  t  04:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a hi-res image out of low-res images. Starting with the highest resolution images I could find (forgive me, but it took me a long time to find them and I can't remember where they were from), and with high-quality (well exposed) but lower-resolution images, I used various techniques to restore the high-res images. Parts of good quality images that were either cropped or damaged in other areas were used to overlay poor quality areas. So I kinda used the best bits of each image I could find, either by grafting bits or just to use as a reference when making adjustments. It's admittedly a bit of a chimera, but hopefully a good one. Sorry for being a bit vague but I worked at it for some time, changing my mind, re-doing parts of it and trying different techniques. I can't honestly remember everything I did. The only bit I wasn't entirely happy with was Mr Lowell's head and the eyepiece, but attempting to fully 'correct' those areas seemed to do more harm than good. My main goal (as always) was to leave it looking as if it had never been retouched at all. Of course, if you can find a better image I'd be happy to eat humble pie. ..This isn't an attempt at self-promotion, by the way. I've done lots of images over the years that I'm proud of or fond of. This one just struck me as the best version of this image now available - something which Wikipedia ought to be proud of. nagualdesign (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any sources to state that the original plates or prints are unknown to exist? — raeky  t  04:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. I was on the lookout for as much information as I could gather but I couldn't even tell you definitively who the original photographer was. nagualdesign (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only EV that this picture is contributing to articles is in Lowell Observatory which it's in a gallery which is specifically against FP criteria. The other articles I don't see much EV at all. Without some real evidence that this is the best we can do with the image, and that it's of significant importance to the understanding of Lowell Observatory or Percival Lowell, then I can't see making the exception in the size for this image. — raeky  t  05:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't really understand how the FPC system works, nor do I wish to pour my energy into heavily promoting this image. I do find it odd that if the image were better utilized it would somehow be considered a better image, but I'm not about to start editing dozens of articles in a vain attempt to boost its EV. I'll just leave it to others to vote for or against it. One thing that does strike me is that you're perhaps conflating the nomination criteria. Although it's of low-resolution it certainly is historical, and no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. (This cannot be proved, of course, only disproved!) And having higher EV doesn't affect that. Thank you for your time and effort though. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, since the image was moved/renamed on Commons I repaired all the broken links on the English Wikipedia but there were a lot of foreign Wikis that used this image that now have broken links, and the list of File usage on other wikis no longer shows them! Will the software perform the corrections automatically? If not it may require some attention. nagualdesign (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To meet the exception for a historic image, it needs to be of EXTREME importance to the articles it's in, proven that we can't reasonably expect better, that kind of stuff. If we have no idea if this is in a museum, where someday a high resolution scan can be reasonably expected, then well it's reasonable to assume at some point. Wikipedia can WP:WAIT. This is obviously a better improvement over what has been available too us, but to say it's "our best work" when we don't know for sure if there isn't the plate or negative somewhere where it will show up some day. As for what FPC is about, here Encyclopedic Value (EV) is the most important, second is image quality. I don't see strong EV in any of the article's it's in except for the observatory where the it appears to just be tacked on? The article doesn't talk about him... — raeky  t  05:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, how will we know when to stop waiting? Even if we searched every museum and found nothing the original could still be lurking in someone's attic in Arizona, right? Seems illogical to me to accept absence of evidence (that this is the best version available to us) as evidence of absence. That said, I accept your opinion about EV. The last time this image was nominated it was the size of the image that was the problem. I thought I'd solved that issue is all. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support assuming the search has been exhaustive, we have previously made exceptions for such images --Muhammad (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think so too, changing to neutral until I think about it some more. — raeky  t  10:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. We can D&R if it turns out something can be done to improve it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per Adam and Muhammad. Gorgeous photo. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Perfectly acceptable, although the nominator can try to use the LOC's website to see if they have something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's this and this (is that what you meant?) but there are so few results that I suppose I might be missing something. I'm not familiar with the site. nagualdesign (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC) ...Searched for just "lowell" too (1416 results) but found nothing. Assuming that the LoC is well catalogued I think that's all there is to see. nagualdesign (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC) ...Also searched for "telescope" (228 results) and "observatory" (883 results). No joy. I give up. nagualdesign (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave up after searching Percival Lovell. You've gone far beyond the call of duty. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the curators at the LoC made the same spelling error (easy done, really) searching for Percival Lovell isn't likely to turn up much. nagualdesign (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please Note: I mentioned earlier that I wasn't entirely happy with the subject's head. Well I'm not sure if it's the done thing during an FPC submission but I've made a minor alteration. In the interest of fair play I'd like to invite the supporters above to take another look at the image. If any one of you isn't happy with the alteration then please revert it. If everyone's happy then we'll continue with the current image, if that's agreeable. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer the older version myself—just of his face. I don't mind the darker eyepiece. But now his face is more contrasty. Doesn't affect my vote either way, but having the choice, I would go back, or do a compromise edit. My opinion only, again, doesn't affect my support. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 03:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I took your suggestion and reworked the image. You were right, it was too contrasty. The current version is more subtle, so thank you. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A week ago I sent an email to the Lowell Observatory, asking if they knew when this photo was taken, and whether he was observing Mars or Venus. Today I received a reply. He was indeed observing Venus during the daytime, and the image in their database is dated 1914. The Lowell Observatory Archives have the original glass plate negatives! I searched and read this PDF about the Lowell Observatory Archives Image Database then followed the link at the bottom to their website. Do a search for for percival lowell and you'll find images 0004, 0005 and 0007.

So.. we're not allowed to reproduce the low-res image(s) from their website, which we don't, and high-res copies can be bought but not necessarily published on Wikipedia. They said they'd be grateful if we put a credit for the Lowell Observatory Archives on the image page, but there's nothing (yet) to give them credit for, so I thought I'd push the boat out and offer a link to their website in return for them donating a medium-res (>1,500px wide) or high-res scan of the original glass plate to the Commons. No harm in asking, eh?

So I don't know where that leaves the FPC submission. On the one hand we do have the best image freely available, and on the other we may get a better better image for free if they're happy to help. So do we complete the FPC on the current image, then later if I do get a better one we can sort something out? (The new picture will presumably be worthy of FP. If it isn't then the new image changes nothing. Either way we have a worthy Featured Picture Candidate, right?) nagualdesign (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They may own the negatives, but there is no copyright they can assert control or prevent use for the images though. How much do they charge for the image? — raeky  t  13:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Raeky, I'm having the same problem with an Australian museum who won't release a high-res PD image unless you pay. I doubt these types of people can really be convinced they can't assert control over the plates or prints because presumably they're paying for the storage of the materials. Still, I'd love to know of a loophole here, for either my or nagualdesign's image.
 * @nagualdesign, I would just proceed as usual. By the time you get the image and have it cleaned up, this FPC will be completed. You can always, as mentioned above, do a delist/renom and in this case, I doubt anyone would really mind that the older image wasn't allowed a year or so to "breathe". Plus, since this image comprises several parts of multiple images, the higher resolution image may look somewhat different. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 19:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes places like that will require you to sign a contract before they will release the image to you stating what you can and can't do with the image. The validity of the contract is probably suspect and may or may not hold up in court. They couldn't get you for any copyright violations but for contractual breach maybe, if it's even enforceable since they wouldn't have copyright over the image anyway. As for the copyright of the image, if you can get it without signing a contract then there's nothing they can do to you for what you use it for (If you reside in the United States, don't know about laws in every other country). Per Threshold of originality and Sweat of the brow in the United States a faithful reproduction of a 2D artwork that is in the public domain can't be copyrighted the reproduction becomes public domain as well. It seems that the observatory will release an image for $10 I think provided you tell them it's for personal use, like say a student presentation or paper (they may even wave that fee if it's for educational use) and they don't state they require a contract to be signed. Other museums/libraries also may release photos without a fee for stated educational use. Although I don't advocate lying to them to get pictures. *cough*. — raeky  t  19:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, they (she) made no mention of asserting copyright control, only that they'd be "grateful" if we put "a credit for the Lowell Observatory Archives" on the image page. That's just asking for a link. I think they're probably well aware that the image is PD. And though they shouldn't be credited on this image (having had no part in it) I think they certainly ought to be given a link to the 'relevant page' of their choice (even if it were an online shop of theirs selling hi-res prints of this image) if they provided a decent scan of the original. nagualdesign (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: They've declined to donate a scan of the original. Having looked at their website again I can see that the original is 5"×7", so their hi-res (300dpi) scan is only 1500px wide anyway, and I can understand them not wanting to part with the highest resolution image. I'm tempted to ask them to give us the 300dpi scan then re-scan the original at 1200/2400dpi. They could sell poster-size (A1/A0) prints then, and even the click-through from Commons would earn them a modest return IMO. But I think I'll just leave it there. Something will turn up. *cough cough* nagualdesign (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that the voting has been closed even though the stated voting period doesn't end for almost 6 hours. (?) Not that I'm complaining! Thanks for all the support. And I'm sorry that you had to follow me around with a proverbial dustpan and brush! I'll know better next time. All the best, nagualdesign (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 07:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)