Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Randy's Donuts

Randy's Donuts

 * Reason:After scrounging the Library of Congress archives for cultural icons of Southern California, heaven help us--this turned up. Edited from the original slightly damaged scan, per upload notes.  Somewhere there's got to be a good shot of a Frank Lloyd Wright building to balance out the karma.  Until then, have a laugh.
 * Articles this image appears in:Randy's Donuts, Novelty architecture
 * Creator:Carol Highsmith


 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 21:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can the white balance/color be improved?  Zoo Fari  22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The color has been balanced v. the original. What other change would you ask?  Durova Charge! 22:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's just me, but I feel there is something missing/wrong and probably the color. Maybe the graduated tint is too strong? Or too filtered? I don't think so, but this doesn't seem normal daylight to me...  Zoo Fari  22:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Original still had the scanner profile embedded which may have been some of the problem although the color also seemed a little off even taking that into account, I uploaded Edit1 with a conversion to sRGB and a color balance adjustment. Mfield (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Now I look at it again I think somewhere in the middle is probably more correct. Mfield (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Would you like the uncompressed TIFF file?  Durova Charge! 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've redone my edit from Durova's TIF this time. I also performed some selective noise reduction on it to remove the grain, especially in the sky. I uploaded it over as its the same thing in essence but higher quality. Mfield (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit1 per nom. Mfield (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit1 Yeah, much better.  Zoo Fari  22:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 This building is better aesthetically than any Frank Lloyd Wright design. Maybe that's the practical/pragmatic structural engineer in me. :-) ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose either: I think the angle can be improved, along with the very dark shadows in the right and foreground. This building is still around and doesn't appear to give any unavoidable photographic difficulties, so I don't see a particular reason to cut it some slack.   Mae din \talk 16:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this is an old photo from the NPS.
 * I don't know what the NPS is, but the photo was (apparently) taken in 2005.  Mae din \talk 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this edit it dates from 2009-03-12 (personal grumble on continuing misinformation on image pages) . And even if it was old - so what? Maedin's point was basically that the building still exists in this same form and could easily be retaken, so we don't need an old photo of it. --jjron (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that is just the date of the derivative work as uploaded by Bilderbot. The original is a film scan and only has a digitization date. Mfield (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Original image page clearly says "Donut sign from 1954, photo taken in 2005". Given the photographer was born in 1946 according to the same image page, I doubt she took it when she was 8 (yet more grumbles about misinformation on image pages) . --jjron (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, these image pages were in rough shape. I've cleaned them up, but I don't know the source. No link on the page sent me explicitly to the source of the image. Does anybody know? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Edit1 It's a beautiful picture, but too bad a small part of the building on the right is cut off. This could have been easily corrected by the original photographer. The edit is nice, but there's still some vignetting in the upper corners. I don't find the shadows to be distracting, since they don't obscure a lot of detail and are not abundant. It comes to my attention that a lot of users on FPC are "over obsessed" with shadows... --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support edit 1 per Massimo. Would be a full support if the corner wasn't cut off. Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 08:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to oppose this, but got an edit conflict. It needs vertical perspective correction and there is a lighter band down the LHS for some reason. The photoshop-applied graduated ND effect has left banding in the sky too (fairly subtle). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)