Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prokudin-Gorskii-09-edit2.jpg

File:Prokudin-Gorskii-09-edit2.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2008 at 03:06:01

•  Info created by en:Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky - uploaded by Gorgo - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- russavia (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- The file not good quality and picture not clear. Sh1019 (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- nice composition but tilted and noise, sorry --ianaré (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You guys do realise who the photos are by and the history behind these colour photos? If Prokudin-Gorsky can't become featured on Commons, there is something seriously wrong here. --russavia (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• So you noticed? Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Ansel Adams, Durer, etc., etc., don't have a chance here at all... Their work is too old, too small or may be even cracking... ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • the scan could be denoised/tilt corrected --ianaré (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor image quality. Georgez (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Alternative An alternative would be File:Nilo-Stolobensky monastery.png. This is the image as it was originally developed using the 3 negatives. This IMO is a better image to demonstrate the work, in that the composition of the monastery is there, but the lakefront also shows the ghosting which was inevitably resulting in this revolutionary method of colour photography in the early 1900s. Remember such images were made in the 1900s using new methods for colour photography; long before the advent of digital photograhy. --russavia (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • this helps as far as understanding the process better but I still think the scan was not the best. That the original image is a little fuzzy due to a then-new process is entirely forgivable (and in fact adds to the image in a way), however the noise in the image is digital noise resulting from improper scanning equipment or settings, and as such is not so easily forgivable. I did look at the 'originals' from the source site, and they are also very noisy, especially considering it's a 28mb tiff. Maybe the guy doing the scanning was having a bad day or something. Anyway, I think what would be needed here is a little loving care and restoration, performed by someone much more talented than I, unfortunately. ianaré (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose not sharp.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per Georgez. —kallerna™ 15:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)