Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nic+¼phore Ni+¼pce.jpg

First Photograph
Surely the featured pictures should contain the first photograph ever. It was taken by Nicéphore Niépce in 1826.


 * Nominate and support. Janderk 09:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support high resolution version. Janderk 07:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - how could this not be a Featured Pic! - Adrian Pingstone 10:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So classic, but low-res and mostly made out of JPEG artifacts, so I will have to oppose. When those things are straightened out, I'll support it!. Jonas Olson 10:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a better version right from the University of Texas that owns it. Janderk 11:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Eagle 12:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose until copyright status is clarified (see Image talk:FirstPicture.jpg). If a work was created long ago, but never published until recent years, can that publication be copyrighted? If so, that may be the situation with this image. I will change my vote to support if/when it can be demonstrated that this is public domain. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -How could I not support?!! As for inquiries of copyright, I sincerely hope this is a joke. The image is 180 years old!!! The creator died less than a decade later. There is simply no way it isn't PD.--Deglr6328 19:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not joking. Are you saying that if someone discovers something old that was never published or copyrighted in the past, it is inelligable to be copyrighted? If that is so under law, I am very eager to have the point clarified. People sticking copyright notices on the first publication of newly discovered works from before 1923 is not uncommon; if this is bogus it would help to be able to show this point, thanks. -- Infrogmation 19:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's in the public domain, it can't be copyrighted. The original creators died long ago; it doesn't matter when it was first published.  -- brian0918  &#153;  22:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Firstly I believe the statement that this is the first photograph is de-batable, it is often said the first photograph was taken by William Fox Talbot. Secondly I do not believe this should be a featured picture because although it is the first photograph taken, it is not that great a picture. --Electricmoose 19:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, perhaps not the first photograph as DigiCamHistory gives a supposedly earlier example. Furthermore, Fotoart has a more complete picture of the history. Jonas Olson 13:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely support if copyright is not an issue. (And if it is, what a joke!) Not that great a picture? Damn rights it is, if it's the first image ever captured! Denni &#9775; 23:47, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
 * Support. I've contacted the University of Texas, and am trying to get a much higher resolution version.  They have a link to a large TIFF on their site, but the link is broken.  -- brian0918  &#153;  01:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. No question of this photograph's import&mdash;it deserves its own Wikipedia entry. The condition and quality of the image is irrelevant. Apart from the rubes who think it should be in clearer focus (how can you make technical demands of the very first permanent image made by man?), I think the people who are critical of this image haven't really taken the time to enter it with their imaginations.  Imagine the experience of having invented this.  And then look out on these buildings, and those fields, and take in the subtle modulations of shadow and light.  Look at that bold shadow on the diagonal in the context of the whole, and remember&mdash;from its beginnings, this brave new art form, photography, contained both abstraction and literalness. It's a terrific start, and it should be honored. Sandover 06:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless a higher resolution version is submitted; you can hardly see anything. Matthewcieplak 09:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How could there be a "higher resolution" version, it's the first photo ever so what came out was what came out! - Adrian Pingstone 17:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply digitized in a higher resolution. Jonas Olson 10:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support either new version. I appreciate your clarity, Jonas. Does anyone know where the photo was taken, and what of? It'd be absurdly awesome if we could get a modern photograph of the same location, though it's probably much different now if it's anywhere urban. Matthewcieplak 19:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe, nice idea! I guess this could be done for any old picture, but it's, naturally, especially interesting for this one. Jonas Olson 18:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - it has a surreal and impresionist feel to it.Brookie 14:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Suppport, even more support for a bigger version. Spangineer &#8734; 17:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support 2nd first picture (high-res version). Spangineer &#8734; 17:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support The first picture definatly deserves to be a featured picture. TomStar81 03:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTICE:I support the Hi-res photo. TomStar81 23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support unless proof is provided this wasn't the first. I never liked technical demands on featured pics, but having them on such an early photograph is ridiculous. Mgm|(talk) 09:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note:I support the hi-res version too. Mgm|(talk) 17:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, agree with above, unless evidence is shown that this isn't the first. Enochlau 10:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I will support either the original or the hi-res version. I will note however that the hi-res version seems much more washed out than the original, but not so much that it is objectionable. Enochlau 07:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the first, low-res image that's washed out. It's been drastically cleaned up in something like Photoshop to make it look like a normal photo.  The high-res version is lossless (the PNG, at least; the JPG is slightly compressed) and from the original source, so it's correct, despite being less aesthetically pleasing. -- brian0918  &#153;  08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The University of Texas has unexpectedly denied allowing a high-res photo to be made available, despite the fact that a couple years ago they had a link for one to be downloaded freely on their site. They don't have a copyright on the image, they are just unwilling to let it be made available.  I guess I'm just too used to the selfless likes of David Rumsey.
 * If anyone knows of a book that contains this image, I can get it through interlibrary loan and scan it at 9600 dpi :) -- brian0918  &#153;  20:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If you know where it used to be and the copyright is not a problem, maybe archive.org could help out. Janderk 20:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah I already tried that, and there was nothing like it on LOC Memory or OAISTER either. -- brian0918  &#153;  20:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I found a high-res source for the image at University of Minnesota. I'll send them an email.
 * I got a reply from UMN--they're going to send me their high-res TIFF. -- brian0918 &#153;  02:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the photographer was obviously very unskilled. The backrgound is barely visible and the color is washed out. I don't understand how the black and white effect improves the picture. Leonardo 04:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I do hope this Oppose is a joke. This oppose should not be counted, if it's serious! - Adrian Pingstone 11:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarifying => Support (I guess I shouldn't be sarcastic) Sorry about that. Leonardo 19:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarify again support any Leonardo 01:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This oppose vote demonstrates why some sort of entrance exam must be required before one can cast Wikivotes. (Just kidding, but this comment boggles the imagination!) What is it about the first photograph that some people seem not able to get? Denni &#9775; 02:37, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
 * Support. A higher-res version would be keen, but this one is quite sufficient. &mdash;Korath (Talk)
 * Support. Awesome photo. As well as being the first photograph this photo looks good --Fir0002 10:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. It's the first photograph ever! P.S. hi-res version rules, please put it on commons so others can use it too --Bricktop 10:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We should probably call it something else than "first picture" since we are not sure that this is the case. Perhaps we are even sure that this is not the case. Jonas Olson 19:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I got a high-res version from UMN, and they said that the image is in fact Public Domain.
 * Support high-res version. -- brian0918 &#153;  16:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support "high resolution" version :)--Deglr6328 17:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent photo. Support high-res version. Sandover 17:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I Support the high-res version. Though, does anyone have a color version? B&W photography is sooo outdated =D --Asriel86 17:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the high-res version. Agree with Asriel86, a color version would be even nicer :-))) --Bricktop 18:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support The high res version over the low res. Good work finding it Brian0918!--Fir0002 00:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, no! The new, high resolution, looks worse than the old one. My opposition stands firmly, I'm afraid. Jonas Olson 17:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Probably the new version, although I am with Jonas, that the first version has something to offer too. Arguably the Hi-Res version is scanned at a resolution that is significantly higher than any resolvable feature in the image, but that isn't much of a problem. It might be worth adjusting the contrast to bring out the features in the sky that are visible in the first version. This might be a lossless PNG, but there are few absolute standards to say that the scanning got the grey-scale transfer function 'correct'. The first version shows the picture as it is displayed on the UTexas web site, so I would have thought they had got the levels set to give a similar impression to seeing the image in real life. -- Solipsist 12:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, I should have checked more carefully. The first version is actually a 1952 silver-gelatin print from the original heliograph possibly retouched with watercolor. The 1826 Heliograph itself is shown obliquely and framed. As you would guess, it looks like it has very low contrast. But that still doesn't mean there is a definitive print. In any case, it doesn't give a strong argument to adjust the levels in the hi-res scan. -- Solipsist 12:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * +25 / -3 (I think) with a preference for 2nd hires version -- Solipsist 16:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)