Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nearly exhausted sulphur vat from which railroad cars are loaded, Freeport Sulphur Co., Hoskins Mound, Texas, 1a35438v.jpg

File:Nearly exhausted sulphur vat from which railroad cars are loaded, Freeport Sulphur Co., Hoskins Mound, Texas, 1a35438v.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 21:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Nearly exhausted sulphur vat from which railroad cars are loaded, Freeport Sulphur Co., Hoskins Mound, Texas, 1a35438v.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nearly exhausted sulphur vat from which railroad cars are loaded, Freeport Sulphur Co., Hoskins Mound, Texas, 1a35438v.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Industry
•  Info created by John Vachon / US government, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I think the composition and the colors are special here. Also high EV, we have very few pictures of industrial process (so much so that I couldn't find the right category), and high quality for a 72-years old picture. -- Yann (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment As noted on enwp, "exhausted" is probably not the right word. I could not find any explanation. Yann (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I know it's 60 years old and the yellow and blue colours are contrasting very well (which are both reasons for me not to oppose) but the sharpness is not sufficient (which is the reason not to support). Of course I don't expect a pixel-sharp picture like it could be made with a modern DSLR and a good lens but in this photo, nothing really seems to be in focus. --Code (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Code and Daniel Case: I don't think this is fair. If you look at this at a reasonable resolution (around 6 Mpx), it is quite sharp, IMO. Yann (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems to have about the same level of sharpness all over the scene from the foreground up until the people. I'd say the perceived unsharpness might be due to the aperture being stopped sown quite a bit in order to get a sufficiently large depth of field. I've read some older instructional books on photography and it seems to me that back in the days people didn't worry as much about diffraction as we do today. Stopping down to, say, f/16 seems to have been a pretty normal thing to do (is that still proper grammar?), as prints usually were not that large. My monitor is about as big as a double-page magazine print would have been, and when I view the picture at the maximum size my monitor allows for without cropping it, it looks more than sharp enough. Just as good or better than most of my recent 35mm film shots look at apertures around f/8, and with much finer grain. --El Grafo (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Weak support Nice for its age. --Tremonist (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Question sorry for german. Das Bild hat doch einen deutlichen und behebbaren Gelbstich. Siehe andere Version. --Ralf Roleček 15:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-German speakers: Ralf says this picture is too yellowish (I agree), and the one he linked show it's fixable. In fact, I would be more likely to have supported that nominee. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Case and Ralf Roletschek: Sulfur is yellow. See File:Yellow formations of sulphur crystals on White Island.jpg, File:The sulfur miner of Kawah Ijen Mountain, Indonesia.jpg, File:SULFUR PILE AT PLANT - NARA - 542540.jpg. Yann (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I know what color sulfur is, thank you very much. Do we know for sure it was this yellow in the original image? Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Maybe the film has deteriorated over time or maybe the photographer used a filter to make it appear more yellow. Personally, I'm not a fan of "fixing" something by guessing how it could have looked like. --El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW: Automatic white balance in GIMP results in something that is in-between the original and Ralf's version. Looks more credible to me because it still has quite a bit of yellow in the sulfur … --El Grafo (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have balance the neutral gray to various points into the "white(?)" clouds. --Ralf Roleček 17:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Case and Ralf Roletschek: I made a new version with a better white balance, but that doesn't change the yellow color. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)