Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Refugees of Hamidian massacre

Refugees of the Hamidian massacre
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2013  at 07:12:25 (UTC)
 * Reason:Very good EV. They are refugees from the Hamidian massacres. The photograph is from the 19th century and is very rare and valuable. I am renominating it because it has gone through a series of touch ups that have significantly improved the quality of the photograph from its last version.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Hamidian massacre
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/History/Others
 * Creator:Bain News Service, publisher


 * Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Restoration was not very good. Look at her eyes. They're still... gone. Very noticeable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Indeed, a very valuable photo. -- Ե րևանցի talk  16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support We cannot judge more then 100-years old photo by today's techical quality standards. And the photo is valuable and illustrative. --Вых Пыхманн (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very great resolution by today standards, even more impressive it's 100 years old. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are y'all serious? I'm not judging by today's standards. I'm judging by the quality of restoration, which is something we can change. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Crisco: the restoration process has excessively smoothed this image. For instance, the details of the woman's face and dress lack contrast (especially when compared to earlier versions of the image), and this has reduced the quality of the photo. I also question the EV here: this appears to be a staged shot (note the wall hanging in the background, and the technology of the time would have made shooting in the field difficult) with the subjects striking as miserable a pose as possible. While the actual situation for these refugees was doubtlessly awful, given its setting this seems to have been an image composed to create an emotional response, and needs to be presented as such rather than as a documentary picture. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I too have concerns about the restoration. There are some strange patches on the clothes (e.g. a little below the young girl's hand). --99of9 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Those "strange patches on the clothes (e.g. a little below the young girl's hand) (as per user 99of9) actually are the hand retouching of the original glass negative (see ) of 1899, (as hand retouching of negative at left–bottom part), and definitely shouldn't be edited out at restoration. In general, quite powerful photograph for the 19th century photo.  --  Victor  • talk   02:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Ok, I see that they were also present in the original unrestored upload. I will strike my oppose for now and have a think about it.  But you can't seriously support *because* of those??  The photo is not used in any article related to hand retouching of photos, and nor is this even described on the image page. --99of9 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not *because* of those, I support because it is powerful and moving image, especially for 114 years old photograph. --  Victor  • talk   07:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC).


 * Oppose This restoration completely undermines the restoration process, either by over-smoothing or (it appears) adding grain. This isn't a request to change great-grandma's portrait into a glamour shot. I'm not a fan of the work done on this one. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 03:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose restoration job was not very good. Especially noticeable on the older lady's face (and eyes). Mattximus (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is a case where the so-called restoration of the image has done nothing to "restore" quality, and has in fact greatly diminished it. The original state of the battered, thumb-printed and inscribed photo is a beautiful and moving image, and a rare and valuable historic record. This present state is a travesty.
 * NOTE:The unaltered state of the photo (with its original touchings made at the time of production) would have my support. Amandajm (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: This thread is a perfect example of the main "flaw" in the "Featured Picture" process. In every case here but one, the "oppose" votes ignore the "substance" of the image as a whole by nit picking elements of "style" that are only "visible" when only a tiny fraction of it is displayed. Why not judge the image as a whole which is the way it was intended to be viewed by its creator. By in large the so-called "flaws" in the original do not, in my view, in any way detract from its value and impact but are instead an integral part of the image. Nobody would suggest digitally repairing the surface cracks in the Mona Lisa would they? So why alter anything other than the most serious issues in this image?


 * I only undertook to do this particular "restoration" as an example of why, in images of this type, they are actually largely unnecessary. I therefore agree with the position of Amandajm above that "the unaltered state of the photo (with its original touchings made at the time of production)" is the best. This is why I never nominate any images (or anything else) for such WP "merit badges" as it only brings out the nit pickers who, after they insist on unnecessary restoration, ignore the actual image itself in favor of criticizing it for being "too altered" or "not altered enough". Why not just appreciate the original image for what it is and what it depicts? I would therefore support the unaltered image for this merit badge and not my "restoration" which was largely unnecessary but which I nevertheless undertook to make a point. Centpacrr (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really struggling to follow what you're saying. Did you deliberately restore this badly so that we as a community would come to recognise the virtues of the unrestored version? Why not just restore it well? J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is saying here is that judging photographs on the basis of restoration ultimately demeans the very 'essence' of the photograph and one could argue the entire purpose of FP nominations as well. In this instance, I personally had to go back to graphics lab because some users complained about scratches. Fair enough. But when the scratches were removed, and when I now renominated the photograph, others are now complaining that the photograph was best in its original state which contained all those scratches. Having the luxury of zooming into this photograph and complaining about little flaws, whether fixed or unfixed, that are almost impossible to tell from a zoomed out position is much less important than what the essence of the photograph actually entails. I would much rather we sit here and judge the final product of the photograph rather than what it once was or what it should be. Finding the appropriate balance for this, as Centpacrr already mentioned, is practically impossible since restorations are always a subject of debate in itself. Anyhow, I believe that uploading the original as an ALT option would be a better idea. I would like to hear additional input on this proposal. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, J Milburn, I didn't "deliberately restore it badly." I used considerable care to restore it as a whole image which is what was requested. However the inevitable result of that process when done "correctly" is going to be to alter and "soften" the image's original detail in order to remove the scratches and other so-called "defects". All digital restorations are always going to be a compromise between the authenticity of the original, unretouched image, and a highly subjective "perfect" altered version of which each critic is going to have a different "mind's eye" expectation. In other words, no matter how "good" a job that I or any other editor does in "restoring" a particular image, there will always be others who will find it somehow deficient because it doesn't meet their own subjective view of "perfection" or even "acceptability".


 * The point that I am making is that the image should best be judged on how well it represents what it is intended to illustrate "as a whole", not by highly subjective nit picking the many miniscule digital alterations that can only be seen when tiny portions are inspected a great magnification without regard to the rest of the image. That is not the way the image is looked at (i.e. in tiny pieces) by viewers as an illustration to enhance the understanding of an entry on WP. This is instead a case of missing the forest for the trees, or of how a blind man judges an elephant by only touching its tail. What is important is the whole forest, the whole elephant, or in this case the whole image and what it depicts. To that end I think either version (the original or the restoration) does that. Whether or not an image gets a subjectively awarded arbitrary merit badge is really immaterial in my view as being so designated does not make an image any more valuable, nor does not being "promoted" make it any less so. Centpacrr (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note: Centpacrr's edits were good (as they usually are). It's just that the further clean-up by another editor damaged what was there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree that this 'restoration' isn't up to par. Whilst there are a few schools of thought as to what constitutes a good approach to restoration, my view (for what it's worth) is that the scratches and other blemishes should be completely and invisibly removed using cloning and healing tools and nothing more. It might take an hour or so of pecking away before you start to get diminishing returns. Unfortunately Centpacrr's first upload has also had some gamma/curves adjustment, so his tiresome efforts are for naught. Anybody else who wishes to contribute will have to start from scratch, and that would be my recommendation.
 * Whilst this image could stand a slight curves adjustment to help differentiate the lighter tones (there's a lot of data bunched-up there in the histogram) it should only be done once, and only after uploading the restored image. Performing multiple, successive gamma adjustments effectively chews the tonal range of an image into little lumps (particularly with 8-bit grayscale), and introduces many metamers or flat spots. The practical upshot being that you lose detail, which is what we have here. And I may as well add that I'd have only cropped it as far as the original photograph's edge. nagualdesign (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded a cleaned up version of the original for any who may be interested. The first upload is the cropped original. The second is just cleanup (a LOT of it). The third upload is a brightness adjust. You're welcome to do with it as you wish. – JBarta (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jbarta. Users such as Amandajm and user:Nagualdesign might be interested in this alternative rendition which is closer to the initial unaltered photograph. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of how good the scratch and dust removal might be,  (which in some circumstances might render the image more usuable)  I see no justification in removing the inscription from the top and lightening the image. Why has it been lightened? the slightly mauvish colour and the depth of tonality is integral to the image itself. As I have said already, I would fully support the untouched image, as an excellent historical document, and a moving image in itself. The cleanup reduces both the authenticity and the accuracy. Amandajm (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with Amandajm that the digital file of the unretouched original scan of this historic image is the best and most authentic choice for use on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Amandajm, while I disagree with most of what you said, I'll address the lightening comment. I was torn on this myself... I could go either way on it. The unlightened (and cleaned up) version is available in the history if most find that preferable. A simple revert would bring it to the top. – JBarta (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken JBarta's carefully restored version and tried to re-do the lightening with a bit more subtlety. Feel free to revert. I'd support either version for FP nomination (JB's restoration or my lightened edit). Nice work, JB. nagualdesign (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 08:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)