Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tetons and Snake River

Tetons and Snake River
Finally tracked down a good PD version of a classic photo from one of the masters. Illustrating Ansel Adams. - Solipsist 09:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. First vote here - Solipsist 09:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would support a higher resolution of that one. Jonas Olson 15:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... well I was going to say - yeah right, good luck finding one. But instead, I'll say - OK, hit, that big enough for ya'? -- Solipsist 15:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Around 6 megapixels is enough for me, also enough to notice some white spots on the image. I am surprised because  Ansel Adams was amaster in printing. Do you think it had been scanned from a not so clean negative ? And what's your advice about some dust removal ? Ericd 21:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes the dust is from their scanning and hard to avoid. I'm not a fan of automatic dust and scratch removal. Careful hand cloning over the worst hot spots is often effective. I was tempted to remove the scratch in the clouds top right, but I've already put in too much time on this one and its quite a useful identifying mark. But go ahead if you want to. -- Solipsist 23:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of automatic dust and scratch removal too. I think I have too do that by hand. But not today.... Be patient please. Ericd 21:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably unrelated to this image, but Adams was known as a poor "spotter". Supposedly a careful viewer can distinguish prints that he spotted personally from those he handed over to his assistants (with steadier hands and sharper eyes). -Willmcw 01:20, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Jonas Olson 09:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support of course. Ericd 21:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Where did you find it? Perhaps an explanation of its copyright status on the image description page is in order. --MarkSweep 22:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The image is actually on the Commons. Follow the link to the 'description page' and you will find reasonably comprehensive source information. A good starting point is the NARA press pack for the Picturing the Century exhibition. There is also good introductory information on NARA's Adams collection here. Most of this was found despite NARA's search engine's best efforts to prevent anyone from finding anything useful. -- Solipsist 23:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Got confused by the {fpc} tag and didn't even see the Commons notice. Good job tracking down that JPEG file on the NARA site, which seems to be designed to make navigation and search particularly difficult. --MarkSweep 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support: beautiful Triddle 22:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, excellent version of the photo --Fir0002 23:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A huge wow. Sango  123  00:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. It's good, but can we get it in color? (I kid, I kid.) Matthewcieplak 11:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure - if you insist. See Fir0002's suggestion on the Manzanar picture below. A non-Adams non-PD, but color version is available here and there are plenty of others around :) -- Solipsist 12:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not only can we conjure up full color Ansel Adams, we can turn them into the pictures from those cheesy motivational posters. Truly we live in the world of the future! Matthewcieplak 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I support the full tonal range version. Matthewcieplak 06:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Support. -- brian0918 &#153;  11:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Longhair | Talk 12:27, 25 Apr 2005
 * Support Great picture- good quality also. --Electricmoose 19:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This NARA scan has no real black. I had a look on the histogram show that the darkest tone is around 10/255. I'm sure Adams printed this with a full tonal scale. Thus I adjusted it to have a tone range from 0 to 255. What's your advice. Ericd 22:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I love these photos Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Sublime. Sandover 16:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. But the second version, with "full tonal range", at least on my monitor darkens to the point of losing detail.  Be careful about increasing the tonal range, maybe using (for example) photoshop curves instead of adjusting linearly. --jacobolus (t) 11:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been very carefull in adjusting contrast. I have several computers and monitors and used the old 15" monitor I trust for photographic work. On the 17" monitor I'm using now I can't see any difference between the two versions. The adjustement doesn't loose any detail on my "good" monitor, it just makes the black black, not grey. I'm sure the details are still there by looking to the histogram. Your monitor is not well calibrated or is not able to show a difference between a real black (0/255) and a very dark grey (10/255). Ericd 12:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's all very well having a proper black (and my 17" LCD monitor shows up tonal range exceptionally well) but it comes at the expense of less detail in the foliage of the trees in the foreground. --Fir0002 10:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You can find I'm conservative (I still shoot film.) but no LCD will will beat a good cathodic for photography. Ericd 22:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree with you there. I used to use a CRT, but after I got my LCD I never looked back. All CRT's I see now just look bland.--Fir0002 08:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I uploaded yet another version. This one also has full tonal range, but I used the photoshop curves to make sure that we don't lose detail in the blacks.  I also made sure to get whitest whites.  I took original image, and my control points in photoshop curves tool are (9,0), (35,31), (218,219), (251,255).  I think this one is the best ;-).  Also, your full tone range version was more than 4 times as big as original jpeg.  mine is a bit bigger than the original, but should preserve quality as photoshop level 10/12 jpeg.  --jacobolus (t) 10:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Change my support to the last version (prepared by jacobolus) --Fir0002 09:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

14 / 0 / 0 Apparent preference for third image --Spangineer &#8734; 19:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC) 