Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Trumpet Calls

The Trumpet Calls

 * Reason:Australian history is underrepresented in Wikipedia's featured pictures. Taking a step toward remedying that with this World War I recruitment poster: 2,213 × 3,000 pixels, a good example of its type.  Restored version of Image:Trumpetcalls.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Military history of Australia, History of the Australian Army
 * Creator:Norman Lindsay, government printer


 * Support as nominator Durova Charge! 18:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditionally weak support The recruiting posters we tend to select for FP are the iconic ones. How iconic is this in Australia? Weak support barring some statement on that issue, change to full support if it is Iconic. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Being Australian, I can't say I remember seeing this one specifically before. Thats not to say it isn't iconic, I just don't know. But I do think that it is of a very high technical standard, well restored, historically important and contributes to the articles. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like some nice image processing.--Filll (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality and high EV.  crassic ![ talk ] 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality image, should be a featured picture. -- Chetblong ( talk ) 05:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not entirely happy with the reduction in resolution during the restoration (3,172 × 4,301 reduced to 2,213 × 3,000). I assume this was done to increase sharpness, but greater sharpness at the cost of resolution does not seem worthwhile to me.  That said, I'm otherwise impressed with the restoration.  Time3000 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The original LoC file was 75 megs. After cropping away irrelevant background (the original poster had been photographed for archival purposes), I usually resize to 3000 pixels on the long axis, which is small enough that size doesn't interfere with uploading.  I've never received this complaint before (1000px is the standard minimum for Wikipedia's FPs), but if there are serious concerns I could consider going larger.  Bear in mind that I restore these images at 300%-700% resolution, so a 40% increase on the long axis represents a lot of labor.  Durova Charge! 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make it a support then. I admit that if I came across this image while browsing I'd be surprised that it wasn't FP and probably nom it myself, so it seems silly not to support it just because a higher res is available.  Time3000 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure theres any more real detail available anyway, as you can already see that it isn't pixel-sharp in this version. A larger image would likely just appear softer and not contribute anything except a larger file size. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support High quality image. Spencer  T♦C 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)