Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 14:46:59 (UTC)
Original - Portrait of
Alice Manfield (Guide Alice) in the early 1900s; mountain guide, naturalist, photographer, and chalet owner, based at
Mt Buffalo, Victoria, Australia
Reason
Seems to be a systemic bias against mountain guides at FPC; in particular against female mountain guides from the early 1900s. Actually, this is possibly the only such photo on Wikipedia. And, to be serious, there's a lack of FPs of females in general, especially outside of 'traditional' female roles. Great insight to not just this individual, but the type of equipment, etc, of the time (she had to custom design her own clothes because none were available). High-res, and well restored (the original 50MB tiff can be found
here if anyone's interested; given it only got to the SLV in 2003, the glass slide was a bit battered). I believe quality is easily on par with other FPs from the time, especially given the size (the exact date is unknown, but I estimate 1900–10).
I'm getting an internal server error when I try to look at the original. Do you have it? Can you upload it to Commons, or convert it without the restorations to a jpg and upload that?
Chick Bowen17:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The EV is good, quality not so good. Stilted pose, and overexposed on the face and hand. The side of her face that isn't overexposed has an peculiar bumpy texture. Compare e.g.
this photo (low res, not FP quality) from a similar era to see what could be achieved then. --
Avenue (
talk)
15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 14:46:59 (UTC)
Original - Portrait of
Alice Manfield (Guide Alice) in the early 1900s; mountain guide, naturalist, photographer, and chalet owner, based at
Mt Buffalo, Victoria, Australia
Reason
Seems to be a systemic bias against mountain guides at FPC; in particular against female mountain guides from the early 1900s. Actually, this is possibly the only such photo on Wikipedia. And, to be serious, there's a lack of FPs of females in general, especially outside of 'traditional' female roles. Great insight to not just this individual, but the type of equipment, etc, of the time (she had to custom design her own clothes because none were available). High-res, and well restored (the original 50MB tiff can be found
here if anyone's interested; given it only got to the SLV in 2003, the glass slide was a bit battered). I believe quality is easily on par with other FPs from the time, especially given the size (the exact date is unknown, but I estimate 1900–10).
I'm getting an internal server error when I try to look at the original. Do you have it? Can you upload it to Commons, or convert it without the restorations to a jpg and upload that?
Chick Bowen17:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The EV is good, quality not so good. Stilted pose, and overexposed on the face and hand. The side of her face that isn't overexposed has an peculiar bumpy texture. Compare e.g.
this photo (low res, not FP quality) from a similar era to see what could be achieved then. --
Avenue (
talk)
15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)reply