A beautiful early baseball card that's also an interesting industrial artifact. From the Library of Congress collection at
memory.loc.gov. For the full set, see my
Commons user page. Proposed PotD caption:
Support (oppose edit, no reason to change hue) —
trialsanderrors 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support (original, oppose edit) lovely subject, great quality scan, very informative caption.
Mak(talk) 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support, per above.
Jellocube27 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Not only is it beautiful and razor sharp, it's so encyclopedic that it has a very strong contribution to three almost unrelated articles. Impressive!
Enuja 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per above, and nom.--
HereToHelp 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per all above. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support very striking image which is not technically flawed, and also has a very detailed caption.
Ahadland 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
StrongSupport - great scan, pin sharp, wonderful enc. This is a perfect example of the ideal FPC - hosted on Commons, way above the resolution guidelines, perfect description, tagged impeccably, nomination flawless - even including a PotD caption. Absolutely great. I propose we add this to the WIAFP page as a shining example to new contributors and voters. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oh, and I'm sure if I post it on Commons it'll sink without a trace... ~
trialsanderrors 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Try us ;-) --
Lycaon 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose original, Support Edit 1 Surprised no one has noticed the color cast yet. --
Fir0002 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Are you sure it's actually "color cast"? The image is of a paper object mass produced in the 1880s. A yellow discoloration from acidic paper is to be expected. I don't think it takes anything away from the image as it is in the original.
Mak(talk) 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Fwiw, the mount paper in the original photograph has a higher saturation level, almost identical to the card paper. I partially desaturated the border to create more contrast to the card, but I didn't set it all the way to zero saturation because that created an unappealing contrast. So the 60% desaturation is a compromise I found least intrusive. I've looked at pretty much the whole LoC collection since I started working on this set and I can't find any evidence that the yellowing is the result of the reproduction. The card is about as yellowed as one would expect after 120 years. ~
trialsanderrors 07:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, an excellent picture. Not certain which version would be better- I think they both look pretty good.
J Milburn 11:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Excellent. howcheng {
chat} 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A beautiful early baseball card that's also an interesting industrial artifact. From the Library of Congress collection at
memory.loc.gov. For the full set, see my
Commons user page. Proposed PotD caption:
Support (oppose edit, no reason to change hue) —
trialsanderrors 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support (original, oppose edit) lovely subject, great quality scan, very informative caption.
Mak(talk) 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support, per above.
Jellocube27 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Not only is it beautiful and razor sharp, it's so encyclopedic that it has a very strong contribution to three almost unrelated articles. Impressive!
Enuja 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per above, and nom.--
HereToHelp 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per all above. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support very striking image which is not technically flawed, and also has a very detailed caption.
Ahadland 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
StrongSupport - great scan, pin sharp, wonderful enc. This is a perfect example of the ideal FPC - hosted on Commons, way above the resolution guidelines, perfect description, tagged impeccably, nomination flawless - even including a PotD caption. Absolutely great. I propose we add this to the WIAFP page as a shining example to new contributors and voters. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oh, and I'm sure if I post it on Commons it'll sink without a trace... ~
trialsanderrors 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Try us ;-) --
Lycaon 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose original, Support Edit 1 Surprised no one has noticed the color cast yet. --
Fir0002 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Are you sure it's actually "color cast"? The image is of a paper object mass produced in the 1880s. A yellow discoloration from acidic paper is to be expected. I don't think it takes anything away from the image as it is in the original.
Mak(talk) 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Fwiw, the mount paper in the original photograph has a higher saturation level, almost identical to the card paper. I partially desaturated the border to create more contrast to the card, but I didn't set it all the way to zero saturation because that created an unappealing contrast. So the 60% desaturation is a compromise I found least intrusive. I've looked at pretty much the whole LoC collection since I started working on this set and I can't find any evidence that the yellowing is the result of the reproduction. The card is about as yellowed as one would expect after 120 years. ~
trialsanderrors 07:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, an excellent picture. Not certain which version would be better- I think they both look pretty good.
J Milburn 11:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Excellent. howcheng {
chat} 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply