As I understand it, daguerreotypes did not look like that originally - e.g. as faded and damaged, they just experience rather nasty degradation over time. In any case, it hasnt changed that substantially, other than crop, some contrast, and expansion outwards to remove the severely damaged tarnished area surrounding it. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs11:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Daguerrotypes were typically mounted in a glass frame, sometimes with a cover, as a little book. The restorations have removed this. The above mentioned oval restoration (with faded edges) re-inserted in the original frame would satisfy me, looking like a real Daguerrotype. --
Janke |
Talk13:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Hm. It's a point. I have a suspicion this one will be preferred in articles, though, where the focus is Poe, not historic photography. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs14:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes; that's what I think too. Your version is more useful for illustrating Wikipedia articles about Poe, while the picture with a frame might be more appreciated on Commons, as a work of art in itself. Regards,
Yann (
talk)
14:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – @
Qono: when you introduce an alternate please say you did so in a comment, so the reviewers know the nominator isn't presenting two versions. Also, I think it is inappropriate to take a restoration, add more restoration to it (in this case, not in a significant time consuming way, in my opinion) and present it as an alternate while the original restorer(s) are active editors and could have done so (if they chose to) with a mere suggestion. Same for a photograph or a drawing if the creator is an active editor. Just my two cents.
Bammesk (
talk)
16:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Got it, I'll be sure to note introductions of alternatives in the future. I'm not sure why it's inappropriate to contribute an alternative. I'm used to the Wikipedia standard of "be bold", but if there are more local norms I'm violating here, please let me know. Thanks.
Qono (
talk)
16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Well... you did fail to credit Yann or me, and changed the license from our release into the public domain to one requiring reusers credit you (but not us, since we weren't listed)... that's problematic. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
In article space, contributors get no credit (or exposure) when their work is used elsewhere (inside or outside wikipedia), so being bold and taking liberty is a nonissue. For visual content (including restorations) contributors get credited when their images are used (for example on the main page), see
the archives and notice the footnotes; therefore contributing to others' work and having one's name or username be listed alongside their name would be inappropriate IMO when/if such contributions are non-significant (in creativity or timewise) and when the original contributors are active editors and could do so (if they chose) with a mere suggestion.
Bammesk (
talk)
17:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC) . . . . fixed the archive link.reply
Well, also note that
[1] - the version of the file description Qono used - and this is probably a mistake, but a rather bad one - credits Qono as sole author and mentions neither Yann nor me anywhere on the page. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I've proposed additional language to the main featured pictures candidates page to help clarify the process for newcomers who want to edit candidates. I propose we
continue this discussion there, for those who are interested. Feel free to remove my alternate here, if you would like,
Adam_Cuerden. Sorry for the trouble.
Qono (
talk)
02:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)reply
As I understand it, daguerreotypes did not look like that originally - e.g. as faded and damaged, they just experience rather nasty degradation over time. In any case, it hasnt changed that substantially, other than crop, some contrast, and expansion outwards to remove the severely damaged tarnished area surrounding it. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs11:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Daguerrotypes were typically mounted in a glass frame, sometimes with a cover, as a little book. The restorations have removed this. The above mentioned oval restoration (with faded edges) re-inserted in the original frame would satisfy me, looking like a real Daguerrotype. --
Janke |
Talk13:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Hm. It's a point. I have a suspicion this one will be preferred in articles, though, where the focus is Poe, not historic photography. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs14:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes; that's what I think too. Your version is more useful for illustrating Wikipedia articles about Poe, while the picture with a frame might be more appreciated on Commons, as a work of art in itself. Regards,
Yann (
talk)
14:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – @
Qono: when you introduce an alternate please say you did so in a comment, so the reviewers know the nominator isn't presenting two versions. Also, I think it is inappropriate to take a restoration, add more restoration to it (in this case, not in a significant time consuming way, in my opinion) and present it as an alternate while the original restorer(s) are active editors and could have done so (if they chose to) with a mere suggestion. Same for a photograph or a drawing if the creator is an active editor. Just my two cents.
Bammesk (
talk)
16:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Got it, I'll be sure to note introductions of alternatives in the future. I'm not sure why it's inappropriate to contribute an alternative. I'm used to the Wikipedia standard of "be bold", but if there are more local norms I'm violating here, please let me know. Thanks.
Qono (
talk)
16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Well... you did fail to credit Yann or me, and changed the license from our release into the public domain to one requiring reusers credit you (but not us, since we weren't listed)... that's problematic. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
In article space, contributors get no credit (or exposure) when their work is used elsewhere (inside or outside wikipedia), so being bold and taking liberty is a nonissue. For visual content (including restorations) contributors get credited when their images are used (for example on the main page), see
the archives and notice the footnotes; therefore contributing to others' work and having one's name or username be listed alongside their name would be inappropriate IMO when/if such contributions are non-significant (in creativity or timewise) and when the original contributors are active editors and could do so (if they chose) with a mere suggestion.
Bammesk (
talk)
17:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC) . . . . fixed the archive link.reply
Well, also note that
[1] - the version of the file description Qono used - and this is probably a mistake, but a rather bad one - credits Qono as sole author and mentions neither Yann nor me anywhere on the page. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I've proposed additional language to the main featured pictures candidates page to help clarify the process for newcomers who want to edit candidates. I propose we
continue this discussion there, for those who are interested. Feel free to remove my alternate here, if you would like,
Adam_Cuerden. Sorry for the trouble.
Qono (
talk)
02:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)reply