Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sophienkirche

Zwinger and Sophienkirche, Dresden, before the Dresden bombing
Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2013 at 20:52:45 (UTC)
 * Reason:A good photochrom image of now-destroyed, but significant structures. It's also a useful colour image of the Sophienkirche, although only as accurate as techniques of the time could make it, although, admittedly, the view of the church is slightly obscured. Nonetheless, it's not like we can replace it, and, of course, the other structures are a strength of the image in the other usages.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Zwinger and Sophienkirche.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Detroit Publishing Co, restored by Adam Cuerden


 * Support as nominator -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose. File view looks grainy and shows cataloging watermark.  Minor note, image is from 50 years before the bombing.TCO (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This sort of grain is pretty typical in photocroms; they date to an era before colour photography and were thus painted by hand. The watermarking is also typical of period photochroms because they were popularly sent as postcards. The marks catalogue the print for the company and stated the location for the recipient. I suggest taking a peek at the gallery to get a sense of the nature of these images and what can typically be expected of them technically. Cowtowner (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Aye. Those aspects are inherent to all images of this type from this period, and are inherently unavoidable. Photochrom technology was based around a combination of photography and lithographs, and lithographs basically boil down to using acid to create pits in limestone that hold ink, with the amount of acid changing the percentage of surface pitted. This is inherently grainy; the grain creates the artwork. Taking pictures with modern colour film didn't become particularly common until well after the bombing, so it's highly unlikely to find an image from before the bombing, of this or similar subjects, in colour but without the things you object to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Struck oppose. I wonder what a good 1944 BW photo would look like, though?TCO (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be a useful addition to the articles, if it existed and can be found. I don't think it'd ruin the EV of this image (if nothing else, there were meant-to-be-temporary changes to the church in 1933, and the copper domes and roofs would not be obvious in black and white), but multiple views of a destroyed object are better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Quality photochrom with strong EV; as adam says obviously we can't recreate this image. Cowtowner (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Good ev and nice restoration.  Spencer T♦ C 15:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per Spencer. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support! – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 03:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 05:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)