Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Susan B. Anthony

Susan B. Anthony
Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 05:01:38 (UTC)
 * Reason:It is good quality for its time and was featured on Commons. It has high EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Susan B. Anthony, Susan B. Anthony Day, Activism, Template:Susan B. Anthony
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Southworth & Hawes


 * Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support P. S. Burton  (talk)  09:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, will support restored version. P. S. Burton  (talk)  22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, I'm not wild about this one, if I'm honest. The focus isn't great, the composition's a bit ordinary and it's a bit dusty. J Milburn (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It caught my eye and made me want to know who it was. I would click through her article if it were on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're starting to sound like Greg :P J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The picture does have some depth of focus issues, is that normal for daguerreotypes? What I'm getting at is whether it's the fault of the photographer or ca. 1850 technology.--RDBury (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems rather good for its time in that respect - it wasn't until a lot later that those sort of issues disappear - the photos of Mathew Brady - considered one of the best photographers of his time - have similar issues. However, I do wonder about the colours. I could buy a daguerrotype being a bit yellow from the bromide and yellowing; conversely, desaturating photographs is rarely that bad of a choice;  but this odd greenish cast? Seems a bit off. Now, my experience has not involved seeing many originals, so I may be wrong, but given the two uploads switch from red to green, colour fidelity is in question.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per J Milburn, at full resolution this clearly needs some dust sweeping. Also worth playing around with Adam's idea to get a crisper color scheme. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually dont know how to edit photos. So i dont know how to dust sweep and get a crisper color scheme. If anyone knows how to do that it would be fine with me. But personally i think its ok. Spongie555 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Scewing (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per technical concerns stated above by J Milburn. - Darwinek (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Adam Cuerden, this is one of the best old, B/W pics I've seen in a while and probably the best photo or illustration of Susan B. Anthony I've ever seen. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - The "technical concerns" need to be understood in context that this is an 1850s daguerreotype. The quality and resolution are good, and the depth of field and portrait composition are excellent. Shadowjams (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The concerns are motivated by the large number of excellent restorations of older work that have passed through FPC. It seems fair to insist upon restoration when we already have a ton of restored images. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. That seems fair. But I think notwithstanding those concerns, this image is in great shape. What specifically could we improve about it? Or is it a lost cause? Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd personally argue a lost cause. Not wild about the composition, and the depth of field is very poor. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I persoanlly dont know how to restore photos. Spongie555 (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - the artifacts and shallow DoF are very much in keeping with a daguerrotype of this era. Despite these flaws it is an excellent image with high detail and very high historical value. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * +6 -3.5 Makeemlighter (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fewer than two thirds support? I don't mind either way- it looks like the consensus is to promote, to me, but I know "two thirds" is banded around a lot. J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Brought to FPC talk. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)