Very Strong Support. The first time I've come out of the Wikiwoodwork to support something for ages, because this is an incredibly historically significant document and the image is of amazing quality. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Personally i prefer the original, it just feels much more real. I don't see anything wrong with a few scratch marks on the paper.
Chris_huhtalk12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
This is the same nonsense as the german surrender above. What is the point of this restoration. You selectively removed some signs of aging, creating a fantasy image of how the document never looked like. It is sad irony taht due to the nomination procedure this image gets labled original. Sorry, for being so harsh, but I just don't get it into my head why this receives super duper very mega strong support. --
Dschwen14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
What's odd is that photographic restorations from World War II don't generate complaints, and neither do text restorations from the nineteenth century. I wonder why the difference.
DurovaCharge!23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't have too much of an opinion on this debate, but I think
Dschwen opposes the only color balance tweaking in the images, something which usually isn't done as much in a photograph restoration. NauticaShades23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Blink. Where you you get that idea, Nauticashades? Photographic restoration involves a variety of archaic formats, some of which experience serious yellowing.
DurovaCharge!06:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)reply
That's why I said "usually". When dealing with very old photographs that have yellowed, yes, the color balance is sometimes changed. However, for the average historical photograph created from a negative (say,
this), it isn't an issue. NauticaShades20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support. The first time I've come out of the Wikiwoodwork to support something for ages, because this is an incredibly historically significant document and the image is of amazing quality. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Personally i prefer the original, it just feels much more real. I don't see anything wrong with a few scratch marks on the paper.
Chris_huhtalk12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
This is the same nonsense as the german surrender above. What is the point of this restoration. You selectively removed some signs of aging, creating a fantasy image of how the document never looked like. It is sad irony taht due to the nomination procedure this image gets labled original. Sorry, for being so harsh, but I just don't get it into my head why this receives super duper very mega strong support. --
Dschwen14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
What's odd is that photographic restorations from World War II don't generate complaints, and neither do text restorations from the nineteenth century. I wonder why the difference.
DurovaCharge!23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't have too much of an opinion on this debate, but I think
Dschwen opposes the only color balance tweaking in the images, something which usually isn't done as much in a photograph restoration. NauticaShades23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Blink. Where you you get that idea, Nauticashades? Photographic restoration involves a variety of archaic formats, some of which experience serious yellowing.
DurovaCharge!06:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)reply
That's why I said "usually". When dealing with very old photographs that have yellowed, yes, the color balance is sometimes changed. However, for the average historical photograph created from a negative (say,
this), it isn't an issue. NauticaShades20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)reply