Wikipedia:Picture peer review/USCGC Winnebago

USCGC Winnebago


This is a retouched version of (which currently appears in the USCGC Winnebago (WHEC-40) article). I cleaned it up, rotated it slightly, and shifted the color balance. Personally I think it's quite a good-quality photograph of the ship. I'd be glad for comments or suggestions.

Comments:
 * Nominated by: CillaИ &diams; XC 23:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good photograph, but could we get a date on it? At thumbnail, it more or less looks like a recent picture (which it can't be); I don't know if the color balance was a good idea, as the historical/age aspect of the picture is no longer immediately apparent (I'm not sure, but this might make it more difficult to claim that historical enc. compensates for technical flaws?). There are also some pretty prominent technical shortcomings (that might be avoided by claiming historical value?), including graininess, lack of sharpness, and a bit of posterization on the waves, the smoke, and parts of the black waterline of the ship. Also, looking at the horizon, the picture still seems significantly tilted; yet a ccw rotation would make the mast lean left... --Malachirality (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't find a date for the photograph: the page on the Coast Guard site says there is no official date and the photographer is unknown. I'd say it's from around 1960 but that's pure guesswork. Your concern that adjusting the color balance might ruin the historicity of it is quite valid (is it any different than the color balance issue in this successful nom, though?). I'm not sure anything can be done for the distortion... CillaИ &diams; XC 00:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I attempted to straighten it. CillaИ &diams; XC 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, better (maybe just a few degrees more), but the more pressing concerns still remain (add to that the distracting, possibly-overexposed foam in the brh corner). I'm not sure, even with the original coloration, that there is enough in this picture to justify FP, given the flaws. With the retouched color, and thus an undermined claim to historical enc., I would say chances are slim. But I could definitely be wrong, and as you know, you can nominate it whenever you'd like. Thanks for putting this up at peer review. --Malachirality (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok this is getting to be a pretty long answer, but I need to clarify myself. Looking at the above comment, I'm not trying to imply that the original coloration is good (I guess I misremembered how bad the original looked). But it's also a conundrum, because with the balanced colors, it becomes difficult to date the ship to an approx. time period (I thought it was a modern warship at first glance b/c of the color; I would expect a picture of a 50s-70s ship to be more like the original). So...I guess I would prefer the recolored alternative over the original after all, but still think that neither are FP. Sorry for being so wordy. --Malachirality (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. Thanks for your comments. :) CillaИ &diams; XC 16:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

