Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two 7 year old newsies, profane and smart, selling Sunday. Nashville, Tenn. - NARA - 523340 (Restored).tif

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Two 7 year old newsies, profane and smart, selling Sunday. Nashville, Tenn. - NARA - 523340 (Restored).tif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 17:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Child labor in the US (1910).
  •  Info created by Lewis Hine - uploaded by US National Archives bot - restored and nominated me -- Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- I've been wanting to nominate this one for a long time, but the original is rather dusty. So i've spent some time removing the dust and scratches, resisted the urge to crop it and hope you think my efforts suffice. Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful picture, well done! --Selbymay (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Definitely featured picture! Amazing quality for 1910 year! --Ximeg (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think it would be more useful an image if the restoration went further (as an alternative file). The fingerprint, the crack at the top, the crease in the bottom right, the mark in the bottom left, the overall rotation and, yes, to crop. I don't think those defects add to the image. Colin (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To each his own. I do think retouching too much damages the image, like polishing old brass to shine destroys the patina and can turn a valuable antique virtually worthless. You expect a century's worth of defects in a 1910 image that's been in the archive all the time. Compliments for noticing the fingerprint, b.t.w. I have surmised it might be that of the photographer, but there's no way to verify that. Probably just some lab or archive guy, anyway. Consider it an image of an antique photo of two newsies instead of an image of two newsies. History matters in this case, hence I tend to respect the defects incurred over the course of a century. I do not try to make it a 21st century image. Kleuske (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've got your nostalgia hat on. The photographer didn't deliberately crease and tear the photograph, or mount it at an angle in the scanner. There are two pictures here: the one the photographer took and the one in an album 100 years later. I prefer the former, and I'm sure the photographer would too. Colin (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Just remembered all those awful camera-phone apps that deliberately ruin your photos so their as bad as your big brother's polaroid from the '70s. Hmm. -- Colin (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Trying to make a 1910 image look like a fresh, modern picture is much the same as taking a modern picture and trying to make it look like a 70's polaroid image. Both are kitsch, trying to be what they are not. Trying to recruit the (deceased) photographer on anyones side is not a debating technique I find laudable or acceptable, b.t.w. Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well nostalgia may be the wrong word, but your comparison is not the one I am making. Nobody is suggesting a "modern picture" and picture restoration is not "kitsch". Your decision to do a halfway job merely reflects your taste preference for "looking a bit old and worn". There's no objective reason to prefer a damaged picture: nobody, upon finding a well archived old photograph, cries with despair at its mint condition. As for your last comment, I prefer to comment on pictures than get worked up about "debating technique" whatever that may be. I haven't voted, so if you find my thoughts on the matter unacceptable the just ignore them rather than get all grumpy. Colin (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no objective reason to prefer anything. There's no objective reason to prefer a fully restored image, there are no objective reasons to feature any picture, only subjective ones. That's fine by me. Preferences are notoriously subjective and they should be. You chose to give your opinion, to which you are entitled, i gave my reasons to have a different one. That's not "grumpy", that does not make my work "a halfway job", that's having a different opinion than you do. If you do not like people having different opinions, do not provide yours, since people are bound to disagree. Kleuske (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm. I have no problem with us having different opinions. In fact I am interested in your opinion and rather hoped you might be in mine. Why might any two people discuss their opinions? Internet debate tends to think that the discussion of opinions must always be adversarial: one side wishes to change the other person's view and this leads to folk getting defensive or to attack someone's "debating technique" or point out logical falacies. These things bore me. Avoiding conflict was why I didn't vote over something that is just my taste. I'm absolutely not debating, and there's no reason for you to be defensive as there's no vote resting on any outcome (which I don't seek anyway). The question over whether the picture as taken and developed by the photographer is "objectively" preferential is probably best left to some student essay. I find it interesting that all efforts at archival aim to maintain the original state and yet we all at times express a preference for something deteriorated. Cheers, Colin (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • If I weren't interested in your opinions, i would not have taken the time to read and digest them and motivate my decision to leave the imperfections as they are. I would have ignored you. The last sentence, again, arouses my interest, but i won't drag on. You say "deteriorated", i say "used and handled for a century". I like history. Kleuske (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apropos "looking a bit old and worn"... I have never expressed such a preference and i usually don't like my images like that. I positively loath it if it's done artificially. When, however, an image is a bit old and worn, that should be visible. Kleuske (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- VolodymyrF 07:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support tilted, just kidding, great picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Interesting image, but 1) I like more restoration, 2) the JPEG should be nominated, 3) it needs a crop. Yann (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A more sophisticated restoration would have been nice. Sadly most NARA scans, like this one, don't provide a suitable quality for sincere digital restorations. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Child labor in the US (1910).
  •  Comment Perhaps this can create some middle ground. The crop was off, so i gave the image some room to breathe and changed the format to jpeg. This is as much about photography in 1910 as it is about the two newsies. Back when it was not digital, but chemical and an archive meant rows and rows of filingcabinets instead of a database. All very much hands on. The imperfectections (crack, fold, fingerprint, somewhat shifty framing, the white border, somewhat damaged) stem from that. Removing them would lessen the value of the image, as it removes a layer of history. Kleuske (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Needs a crop and more editing. Yann (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose See my statement above. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2[edit]

Two 7 year old newsies, profane and smart, selling Sunday
Child labor in the US (1910).
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima msg 16:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Two_7_year_old_newsies,_profane_and_smart,_selling_Sunday._Nashville,_Tenn._-_NARA_-_523340_(Restored).tif&oldid=85844416"