Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Warsaw-Ghetto-Josef-Bloesche-HRedit.jpg

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

 * Reason:Nominating to delist and replace with restored version.
 * Nominator: Durova Charge!


 * Delist and replace &mdash; Durova Charge! 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Seems like we're substituting the scratched up historical photo look for the crappy grainy photo look :[ D\=&lt; (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist and replace per nom. Nice job on the restoration.  Spikebrennan (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposeper :D\=&lt;, they call me a sucker, but I like some scratches on historic photos.D-rew (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While cleaning up scratches, you repaired the front woman's stocking run, and removed two lapel pins from the coat of the woman behind her! The cosmetic cleanup and sharpening removed detail and added digital artifacts. I strongly prefer the original, scratches and all. --mglg(talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the things I consider when doing these restorations is the historic and economic background. Stockings, for instance, were in very short supply during World War II.  It was highly unlikely that a Jewish woman in the Warsaw Ghetto would have had access to a high demand luxury that caused store riots even in the United States.  At high magnification the contours of that mark are consistent with photographic decomposition rather than than a socking run.  All other details were examined with equal attention to context.  This particular discussion is taking surprising turns.  Compare to Commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg.  Durova Charge! 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that your judgment about what features are or are not likely to be real is excellent, and I'll happily assume it to be superior to mine. I hestitate, however, to take it as obvious that your judgment is infallible, or that no qualified future Wikipedia viewer would reach different conclusions. Therefore I suggest that it is prudent to leave such judgments to the viewer, by maintaining any documentary image in a maximally documentary condition, free of all but the most basic processing. As for the overwhelming support this image received at commons, that appears to pertain to the image in general – which I think most of us agree is stellar – not to the pros and cons of this particular edit compared to the original. --mglg(talk) 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accuracy and historicity certainly are legitimate concerns with image restoration. A Holocaust museum uploaded the current version at my suggestion when the previous version was up for deletion due to size issues.  It wasn't until a month afterward, when another Commons editor asked me to restore it that I undertook the task.  A lot of tough restoration decisions get made at 300% or 500% or 700% resolution and the questions you raise are the same questions I ask myself.  With restorations I always link from the restored file to an unrestored version, along with a description of the changes.  That candid approach addresses issues of fidelity.  Durova Charge! 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)