Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tristan und Isolde

Tristan und Isolde (original production)

 * Reason:One of those "I can't believe this exists" sort of images - who'd have guessed that a photo of the original production of Tristan und Isolde was floating around? There's some degredation, but it is nearly a century-and-a-half since the photo was taken. In short, a surprising and wonderful find that I really think deserves recognition.
 * Articles this image appears in:Tristan und Isolde
 * Creator:Joseph Albert


 * Support as nominator Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Good picture.  Quality is good for a daguerreotype. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 23:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great photo given the background and age. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- given the size and the heavy artifacting, should we try for some downsampling? --Malachirality (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there isn't much artefacting on the people themselves, and the main effect that the degredation had on them seems to be to cause the highlights to get overblown a bit, losing detail on exposed skin. Downsampling doesn't help with that, and since things like the beard and her hair still manage to retain plenty of detail, I think downsampling would hurt the picture, without fixing anything really worth fixing. Levels adjustment might have good effects, if done carefully so as not to lose detail in the black areas while bringing out whatever detail is salvagable from the lighter ones. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, trying darkening brings out the JPEG artefacts, and shows me what you meant. Still, it's highly unlikely we'll get anything better than this. Maybe we could ask Durova for help? I believe she does a lot of restoration. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Also remarkable poses. --Brand спойт 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've uploaded an edit - be harsh, the picture's more important than my amateur editing skills =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * N.B. Accidentally relinked the original -oops! Fixed now. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the levels adjustment is probably an improvement, but the blurring to get rid of the white line is not an improvement. This is usually done with cloning, and I certainly don't know how to do it. - Enuja (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I used cut and paste to fix the white line - the blurring was to fix the JPEG artefacting. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)