The source link doesn't work, which happens, unfortunately. But I do suspect a bit of research will get us a higher resolution copy, for what that's worth. Compositionally, a bit of a mess, but I'm inclined to forgive that as "chaotic picture of a chaotic event" Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs22:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2022 at 05:04:39 (UTC)
Reason
For 1881, this is a damn good image, especially printed. I can certainly point at much worse from the time. Lots of shine on the head, but, well, as I said, it's from about 1881 and he died a year later, so... Mount was very plain and the border was absolutely hideous - messy background - so I didn't think it worth trying to get it in the image.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2022 at 15:59:17 (UTC)
Reason
Index to the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India (1922). The survey had great scientific and popular accomplishments, namely being one of the first accurate measurements of a section of a longitude's arc, other measurements that led to the development of the theory of isostasy, and the measurements of the height of the Everest, K2, and Kanchenjunga (3 of the highest mountains in the world). FP on Commons.
Support. High-quality scan, encyclopedic information, appropriate lead image for a notable subject. The opposition above enunciates clearly my reason for cutting back my participation in the FPC process: too many participants care only about pretty pictures of charismatic megafauna and postcard landscapes, pushing out the encyclopedic but non-photogenic images. If you want that, go to Commons; they have their own FPC whose rules don't focus as much on encyclopedic content. This sort of image is exactly the sort of thing we should be including here, to differentiate Wikipedia FPC from commons (or would, except that commons actually passed this image already). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure what "readily accessible visual information" the picture is lacking; I mean, it's obviously a map of India. Photogenicity is in the eye of the beholder (e.g., people really into cartography might like a wall poster of this); more importantly for our purposes, its encyclopedic merits are clear. XOR'easter (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine it's the choice between distortion and crop for things like this where there's a limited distance you can back up. I'm happy to Support. Not as sharp as some of his, but strong. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs16:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2022 at 01:57:20 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image. This intercept and strike aircraft has been a work horse in the UK, German and Italian air forces since 1979. This image is of the GR4 variant introduced in 1996.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2022 at 22:41:15 (UTC)
Reason
While I kind of agree with the other photo being the lead, Sojourner Truth sold photographs of herself to support her work, and this is the only one in the article that shows that. It's also really not an article we have a lot of photographs for.
Fun fact: This is the same image used on most of the extant carte-de-visites of her, but in a much more generous crop and higher quality since it's a cabinet card. Which presumably means she had the negatives, since there weren't cabinet cards in 1864. Compare commons:Category:Sojourner Truth
Support, although I'm not sure this is the ideal operation for suture as a whole, it's a compelling, visceral image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, but Janke is right. Bring this back in a month or two? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs11:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a while since I've submitted anything here, and I missed the relevant part of criterion 5. Happy to withdraw this and resubmit in a couple months. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this shows the act of suturing very well, so it has good EV (encyclopedic value), but it was shot with an iPhone and isn't very sharp at full size. It could be sharper with a stand-alone camera. Bammesk (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2022 at 22:48:04 (UTC)
Reason
I was very close to this bird, with excellent lighting, a shutter speed that was overkill, a reasonably low ISO and a focal length less than the maximum for my lens (360mm / 400mm.) As a result this image is tack sharp with low noise and captures a single hen harlequin in a natural setting with no distraction. The feather detail is, in my opinion, exquisite. This image is 7600 px wide.
Comment – The chest is a bit fuzzy, could have been better with a wider DOF (f/8), but the high resolution somewhat makes up for it though. FP criterion 5 suggests waiting 7+ days once the image is added to the article. Bammesk (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clumsily added to article 2 March, so not eligible for FP. User has inflated view of his photographic abilities. It is not exquisite and not tack sharp over much of the image due to poorly-chosen camera settings. Low EV as legs not visible. White feathers blown. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being a little unfair, Charles, there's a lot to like about this. The newness is the big issue here, but the feathers are well defined. Angle, in my opinion, is the biggest issue: too much of the duck is tucked in behind itself, but we've certainly passed worse than this. Even if we're not going to pass this one, I'd like to see more in this line, and roasting the new contributor is not going to help with that. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs23:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok. I was bragging based on comparing it to my other work. I was just beaming when I saw the end result. I appreciate the apology and I apologize for prematurely submitting it for review. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2022 at 20:36:20 (UTC)
Reason
Quite a nice image as these things go. Oval prints aren't my favourite, but with the card, it works. Plus, y'know, Mathew Brady. Fun fact: Her article dates to December 2001, which dates it to Wikipedia's first year. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs20:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nomination, but I wasn't quite done yet. This was just me getting it to a state I was happier to let it wait on for a little bit, as I haven't done the fine work, but got all the big damage. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs11:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am terrible at working to a schedule. The moment I found out I should be working on this, everything else suddenly was super tempting. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs15:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It shows the alps pretty well, technically good shot. Support, although it could be better placed in the article. --Janke | Talk12:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – it's too noisy at full size. Also the infobox image is a FP so there has to be a good reason to have another FP. Bammesk (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 07:19:28 (UTC)
Reason
This is a good photo, that shows a lot of clear detail and is composed well. One of my favorites that I've taken. Clearly shows the decrease in water level ("bathtub rings"), as well as the topography of the region.
Oppose. It's a difficult subject because from any accessible point of view it's very flat and wide, and the selection of other images on commons is pretty dismal, but I think we can still do much better and Google image search agrees. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 13:48:19 (UTC)
Reason
I place this at 1896-1901 by the rank insignia, so this seems a decent photo for its time, although it does fall into the period where lighting effects - extreme shadows and such - became popular. This is also the period where you're starting to exchange resolution for the speed, but that's not entirely a bad thing as it does have character and expression to it that a slow photo might not have. Editing history of the article (twice in all of 2021) shows little need to worry about waiting very long for it to settle in.
That feels inaccurate to the original image, especially as it's not something fixable with a basic exposure correction without causing changes in his uniform. The chiaroscuro effect is definitely something photographers were very much trying for in this era, and the clarity of the eye in the shadowed portion shows a very effective usage of it, even if it's out of fashion now. There are two known pictures of him. This is definitely the better one. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs19:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, more succinctly, "It's a style that was popular at the time, and, because it's as dark as parts of his uniform, there's no simple, non-destructive way to change the decision of the photographer." Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs20:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that the contrast has increased during all the scanning & editing stages. Old photos from this period seldom had jet-black areas - compare with the "postcards" seen here recently... --Janke | Talk22:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke:You'd be surprised. But given the relative unpopularity of the technique nowadays, we tend not to see examples of it nowadays. It was pretty popular from about 1890 to the early 1920s. P.G. Wodehouse even has a lengthy comedic rant about how great modern photography is for dealing with ugly bastards like himself by hiding them in darkness. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs04:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I suppose that we're both making valid points here. You think the face being better lit on the left would make a better photo. And, certainly it would by any modern standard. But given that dark navy-blue uniform is basically as dark as his face except where the wrinkles catch the bright lights, it's kind of hard to change the past, and I think that the dark shadow was the photographer's intent (and I'm also a bit worried because photographic grain can look odd if you don't handle adjustments pretty subtly). On the upside, I'd say as these things go, the detail in the dark portion is impressive. I've seen worse-photographed eyes in light. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs20:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 18:39:54 (UTC)
Reason
Renominating this. I removed the handwritten inscription per discussion in previous nomination. A photo of Nicola Tesla's work, a pioneer in AC electric power generation and distribution, and co-inventor of the Induction motor. Also known for Tesla coil, Tesla (unit) and Tesla (car). This is probably the most iconic photo of his work. At the time, the photo was used to promote his work. In this photo he is sitting in his laboratory in Colorado Springs, U.S., next to his magnifying transmitter. This photo is still used in books and articles [2][3][4]. The photo was shot in multiple-exposures (i.e. the film was exposed with and without him present).
@ User:Charlesjsharp You are wrong. It's the other way around, the one with writing was "edited" at the time the print was made - the area was dodged out during printing, to leave space for a hand-written note. Proof: put both images in their own tabs, switch between them. You can see that the one with the writing has the floor lightened, but the same floor details are there in both versions. Do it and you see why I support. --Janke | Talk21:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but can we be sure that there is no version with the original floorboards? That seems unlikely. Surely more likely that we have only seen retouched images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are the original floorboards, since they are the same in both images, lightened and not. Back then, you could hardly "clone" photo details, and the one with writing is definitely from 1901 - dated by Tesla himself... ;-) --Janke | Talk19:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2022 at 00:31:12 (UTC)
Reason
Ignoring the normal requirement that an image be in an article for a while since there were no images in the article before this. Lucked out on being able to find this. Restoration is... Heh. Really not much. Maybe a dozen spots, hence I'm not listing myself in the creator field on here That said, I think it's a strong image. Decent resolution; very slightly soft focus, but that seems intentional, and, since he's most famous for being a Japanese-American who served in WWII despite the prejudice against Japanese-Americans at the time.
It's one of those things that used to be talked about, but we don't have many of the people I joined FPC with here anymore, so I guess it's one of those lost institutional history things. Also, frankly, that part of Criterion 5 used to be much more loosely applied, hence the "It is preferable" and "may be ignored in obvious cases" wording. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs16:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I bet the photographer told him to tilt his hat and rotate it toward the camera! Historic image, so taking exception to the 1500px requirement. Bammesk (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong that "caps were worn with a tilt". If you want to change your claim to: "some people tilted their cap for portrait photos", go ahead. [5][6][7] etc. etc. Bammesk (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2022 at 19:39:54 (UTC)
Reason
Currently doing well on Commons FPC. Higher resolution than existing FP File:Avocado with cross section edit.jpg which will be nominated for delisting if promoted.
Don't oppose when you are trying to be amusing. Please give a valid reason or strike your oppose vote. And please don't use small font which is difficult to read. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2022 at 19:56:35 (UTC)
Reason
Quite a nice lithograph, and from near enough the time that the colour is likely to be pretty accurate, which is nice. Thanks to Charles J. Sharp for helping fix a colour profile bug or something that was causing issues.
@Charlesjsharp: Thing is, it's not like we're seeing the edges of the photo here. Simply cropping a scan could have removed that much if it wasn't done carefully. There's often more vagueness in where a photo starts than you'd think: Text written on the negative, uneven borders, trying to crop out a rip or fading that could have been easily fixed, and so on. I tend to go for as much of the original content as possible, but scans by archives can be... surprisingly strange. This, for example is an actual scan from the University of Pennsylvania archives. Similarly, what's the correct crop on the current Billy Bowlegs image? I went with one that seemed roughly guided by the paper, but books have gutters on one side for where the paper goes into the spine, so I didn't exactly use the paper edges as a guide, as that would have uncentred the text, which is very much not the artistic intent. Now, I can't check the IWM site - it's down - so I can't say if they have a copy of a scan that shows more of the edge that was expanded here, or evidence that this is the intentional crop, but this feels well within the range of acceptable. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs16:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Right. IWM is back up. If you look at the second copy after you click through you'll see it has substantially more headroom, with what may be a crop line about where we have it here, whereas the third copy is similar to the original. So there's no one valid answer here: Different prints vary on that front. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs13:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Archive image" was not changed at all: [8]. The change was uploaded as a separate file. We can do derivative files of everything on Commons. We are not an archive site. Bammesk (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are an encyclopaedia and should not manipulate archive images. So, if it was a photo composed with a very tight crop, that is how it should stay. In this case, Adam has shown that adding the pixels is reasonable. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... Alt1 — The added pixels are visually contentless and simply improve the image slightly per standard tenets of composition. This isn't a case of manipulating or distorting the image. – Sca (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer Alt1 - good quality, distinctive image of notable figure - comparing other scans demonstrates the original crop was not quite so severe. TSP (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 02:06:51 (UTC)
Reason
There aren't many good photos of Mossell out there, as a glance at the image we were until recently using in his article will prove very quickly. While there was a fair bit of damage - the hand on the right being particularly bad - this image has a nice pose, a bit of personality, and is generally pretty good for 1882. Just over 2 inches wide originally, and still looks great zoomed in fairly far. It would, of course, be nice if we had the negative instead of a print - the paper fibres were probably the biggest problem here - but what's preserved is what's preserved in the end. Unedited image here, if you want to compare. Not sure he has the biggest firsts out there, but I'd say he's plenty interesting enough.
Oppose - I think a much better photo could be taken - better lighting (more surface relief), better sky, fewer (or no) distracting people. --Janke | Talk19:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strange perspective (overcorrected?) - the walls appear to be tilting outwards (actually so at the left side). --Janke | Talk11:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Janke, Sca is opposing the overall wide-angle perspective, not the vertical lines. I think he is conflating the two in writing his rationale. Bammesk (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image is what it is – a distorted representation of reality. Whether it's due to the lens is irrelevant to the viewer. – Sca (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, prefer Alt 1. How about this little perspective change - a little magic done with Darktable? Note that I did not tilt the edges, since as Bammesk notes, the background buildings are straight - so maybe the arena walls really tilt a little outward? --Janke | Talk13:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – it helps if the file description said something like 'with downtown Brooklyn in the background' or 'looking north'. Bammesk (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 16:32:47 (UTC)
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC six months ago where it was featured unanimously. There is a black and white photo in the article but this painting adds color. High resolution. Painting is a Treasure of Korea.