Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/WWII U.S. Infantryman

WWII U.S. Infantryman
Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 21:57:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:Already a featured image on Commons, very high quality colour image from 1942 with significant EV, very rare to find for such an old photo.
 * Articles in which this image appears: M1 Garand, United States Army uniforms in World War II, M3 Half-track, Brodie helmet and Fort Knox.
 * FP category for this image:People/Military
 * Creator:Alfred T. Palmer, restored by Scewing.


 * Support as nominator --  Fallschirmjäger   &#9993; 21:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the “Original” (restored) has too much contrast. Greg L (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Question/s. The reason says "... significant EV" - could you elaborate on this? I'm not seeing so much; it's claimed highest EV article is Fort Knox, but the only link to that seems to me that it was apparently taken there (all we see of Fort Knox is a bit of dirt and grass). For the other articles, it's not that good for the truck (too cut off), the other ones maybe a bit better, probably strongest in the uniform article though the body position means we don't see it all. I'm also wondering about the reasoning behind cropping the Palmer original and how people feel about that? Actually strike that, on a closer look, the "Unrestored Original" is not the original at all, it's a different photo... --jjron (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the link to the LOC record on the image page is not for this image at all but the slightly different angle... — raeky ( talk 21:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'Unrestored original' is the angle from LOC, its just appears to have its frame trimmed off and cropped down a bit. The 'original' is a restored version of a slightly different angle yes. The articles weren't listed in order of EV, just in order of which the image appeared. I appreciate that some usage of it is questionable, but I think that its usage in M1 Garand and uniform articles is the most valuable, don't forget this isn't a staged photo, it's an actual colour photograph from 1942 of an U.S. infantryman illustrating how the rifle is held and sighted. Such a colour image of this detail from the WWII era is extremely hard to come by which is why I believe it has significant value. Try and find another colour image of a U.S. infantryman or the rifle and you'll see just how rare this photo is, most of the colour images today are of replica, reproduced guns like the image on in the M1 Garand infobox, there is no way it would be that clean from 70 years ago! The angle and composition of the shot isn't ideal but it's not like the photo could be taken again.  Fallschirmjäger   &#9993; 08:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination template says to list highest EV articles first, thus my assumption... BTW it is a staged photo (as have been the other Palmer WWII images we've had through here), but perhaps you mean it's not a modern day re-enactment or something, which is a fair call. Not sure I'm overly happy with the restoration though, and we don't have an actual original to compare it to (which I believe is considered poor form in restoration terms). --jjron (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I mean, although its a staged pose at Fort Knox, not from an actual WWII theatre, it is from 1942 as you can confirm here. Apologies for the order of articles, I was in a rush at the time but I've sorted them now. I wasn't too sure about the restoration either, hence why I included the 'Unrestored Originial' which I believe is a better candidate and agree with Greg that the contrast of the 'Original' is too high. But even so to have any sort of colour image dating from 1942 is rare.  Fallschirmjäger   &#9993; 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support restored version. Unbelievable, looks like a recent photo. Night bolt  t   21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original I oppose the un-restored original because detail is lost. --Iankap99 (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. In other words your saying the image has had detail added in the restoration...? --jjron (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand how ridiculous that sounds but perhaps the clarity in the restored version brings out the detail. --Iankap99 (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose the "original" needs work and the restored version appears to be overly restored and lost detail. —  raeky  ( talk 13:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  T · C 03:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)