Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Skelton

Red Skelton
Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2014  at 21:30:56 (UTC)
 * Reason:High-res picture of a notable entertainer. Copyright seems to check out, though if there's any problems, please tell me.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Red Skelton
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment
 * Creator:Unknown photographer, restoration by Adam Cuerden


 * Support either as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Great expression — a human Daffy Duck. Sca (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fantastic image, glad to see the LOC had it. Question though: do you think this could use a bit more contrast? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've actually boosted it a bit already. I don't want to go too far, because a little tweaking is one thing, but it currently looks reasonable for the era. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support V2 - Fair enough, then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC) (edited 06:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC))
 *  Oppose  Contrast issues. If this can be corrected with a different version I could support. Loved Red Skelton as a kid and still have fond memories of lying in front of the council TV in my PJs eating TV dinners. Yeah...it was good to be a kid back then.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all convinced this should have more contrast - pictures from this period were often relatively low contrast, as far as I'm aware. Now, I could be wrong, and, if you have evidence I am, I'm happy to change it, but I'm worried it's all too easy to make everything fit modern sensibilities, particualrly when the image looks extremely good when not being seen as a tiny thumbnail against a pure white background. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support either version -  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  18:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC) edited to support either 08:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose current version per Mark. We do have an obligation to make things reasonably screen-viewable. I don't think it looks any less wonderful if you stretch the histogram out a bit. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose, if two people who know photography suggest something, you should at least try an alternative. I've uploaded one. I may be overreacting from one too many people seeing one of my restorations of sepia toned images, and immediately desaturating it and suggesting it as an alt, which makes you somewhat resistant. That may be an overreaction in this case, given photographic prints' contrast can be adjusted readily by changing development time from the negative. Armbrust, can we give this a day to get people's responses to the alt? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support v. 2. I wonder if it mightn't be possible to leave a note in the file description that the new version is optimised for screen viewing and the earlier one may better reflect the contrast in the original copy - something like that? Samsara (FA • FP) 06:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be best. Though it does look good to have white shirts fairly white, and eyes white, and so on. This is why I prefer working from my scans. If I have questions, I pick up the book, look at it in a good light, and adjust. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Happens to me all the time. First you want to be conservative, then you realise it looks just fine when optimised for contrast. Samsara (FA • FP) 06:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support v.2 - I can support this version.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — I can go with either one, but honestly I prefer the original, which looks more natural to me. In the alt., there's a sort of burned-out area on subject's left cheek. Sca (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 21:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)