Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Warriors of Lapland.jpg

File:Warriors of Lapland.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2018 at 08:50:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Warriors of Lapland.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Warriors of Lapland.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
•  Info 3rd retouched WW2 candidate (getting addicted to it). The original title of the photograph was "Warriors of Lapland" in Finnish, quite aptly. In addition to being a peculiar photo, the soldier brazenly enjoying a warm spring sun elevated it a notch for me. Healed all around as well as denoised and increased contrast a bit after playing with it. Created by Oswald Hedenström - uploaded and nominated by Manelolo -- Manelolo (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Manelolo (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Good shot, but need some exposure and contrast. --Mile (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC) p.S. I see you croped his horn on left, from original. I think you could keep that part without croping.
  • Hmmmm, I uploaded one with more contrast on 16:38, 3 March 2018, but IMHO it went a bit too far already. I also took note of how Rhododendrites amended the contrast on c:File:Soviet POWs.jpg. The left had to be cropped just that much due to the scan. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Saw, 2nd is best, but i would still increase exposure. --Mile (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Info Increased contrast and exposure with curves per Mile's comment. Actually does look better and more balanced now. Manelolo (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support now Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Good, historic, valuable. --Mile (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment - It's a good historical photo for sure, but Manelolo, please comment on his being photographed with his eyes closed. That's because he's enjoying the sun? It's an unusual choice for a portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Didn't even think about the closed eyes but surely it somehow makes him look more harmonous. You can almost hear him get ready to take a long, long sigh. There was a another photo of him with the reindeer, but that was inferior: no relaxed pose, composition not so good, lack of background. Instead of a pure portrait, I was fascinated by what the photo captured of these Lapland chaps IMHO: Even during wartime they are able to enjoy the small things of life ... plus a freaking reindeer with a mirror-class eye. Manelolo (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that the other photo is not as good. I like this photo and will live with it a little longer before voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Support A classic Scandinavian winter pose. From time to time we all turn our noses to the sun with closed eyes, just to enjoy a little bit of light and warmth during the cold dark season. --cart-Talk 09:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose I was prepared to see some film grain, but whatever was done here in post-processing (contrast-enhancement, denoise?) has introduced some very strong digital artefacts. They are visible in the first version as well, but they seem to kind of blend in with the natural grain pattern (or the part of it the scanner was able to resolve), so I wouldn't object to them. The current version (as of 16:05, 4 March 2018), however, is far away from our best digital reproductions of analog photographs. In general, I think it's not a good idea to try to remove grain from analog black and white photographs. It is an integral part of the photographic process, not a sampling error like the noise from a digital sensor. Whether you like its appearance or not, removing it would mean that the digital reproduction is not true to the analog original.

That version for my taste also goes a bit too far in terms of increasing contrast. But it's of course difficult to estimate how this would have looked like as a finalized image when all you have to work from is the negative – "the proof is in the print", as people used to say …

Concerning the photograph itself: I like it, but I think I would indeed prefer the other one. It shows a deeper connection between man and animal through both physical and eye contact. --El Grafo (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Thx for the critique, I'll be sure to take note in the future! I also noticed the artefacts being more pronounced with increased contrast and was somewhat worried by it (hence the couple of tryouts). But then again, the overall picture is IMHO a lot better and represents how it most likely was in actuality. That is, I surmise the day was cloudless and extra shiny due to the reflection from the snow (hence, enjoying the warm sun) while the original displays it as gloomy cloud cover. Manelolo (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Support per cart-Talk; plus, a beautiful portrait of the reindeer -- P999 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical