I tried gaussian denoising as well as a high-pass grain removal tool, but it wasn't an improvement, first because of softening of facial details, and second because of the softening of the tonal contrast conveyed by the grain. If you notice closely I have preserved the original's grain. On a sidenote: this is a glass negative and the grain is on the emulsion, so in that sense it is part of the artwork.
Bammesk (
talk)
01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Charles, this is a process question, a good place for it is
WT:FPC. In short, the FP criteria has some cues, it also links to
here for examples. My personal take is in
this nom in small print marked "sidenote". In it you see the words "integral", "purposeful-and-material", "historic integrity", which are somewhat subjective. Also looking at
existing FPs is informative and shows some precedence.
Bammesk (
talk)
01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC).reply
I'm kind of uncomfortable with the lack of grain in the lower left, and the contrast seems a little off. Can this be tweaked a bit more? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.3% of all
FPs07:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Now when you say that, I note that the grain is softer in all corners - therefore, it must be either due to the reproduction of the glass negative, or from a print made from that negative. To me, the "grain" looks more like the texture of a matte photo paper than photographic grain. My weak support (above) still stands. --
Janke |
Talk10:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Janke, this is a direct scan of the glass negative (there is no paper), see these links
[1],
[2], see the fields: Medium, Reproduction Number, Digital ID.
Bammesk (
talk)
06:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC) . . . I found other examples. Here is one
[3],
[4] where original is print, reproduction is film negative, digital image is a scan of film negative. Here is another
[5],
[6] where original is glass negative, there are two reproductions (a direct digital scan, and a film negative), digital image on LOC website is the direct digital scan (not derived from the film negative).reply
I tried gaussian denoising as well as a high-pass grain removal tool, but it wasn't an improvement, first because of softening of facial details, and second because of the softening of the tonal contrast conveyed by the grain. If you notice closely I have preserved the original's grain. On a sidenote: this is a glass negative and the grain is on the emulsion, so in that sense it is part of the artwork.
Bammesk (
talk)
01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Charles, this is a process question, a good place for it is
WT:FPC. In short, the FP criteria has some cues, it also links to
here for examples. My personal take is in
this nom in small print marked "sidenote". In it you see the words "integral", "purposeful-and-material", "historic integrity", which are somewhat subjective. Also looking at
existing FPs is informative and shows some precedence.
Bammesk (
talk)
01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC).reply
I'm kind of uncomfortable with the lack of grain in the lower left, and the contrast seems a little off. Can this be tweaked a bit more? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.3% of all
FPs07:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Now when you say that, I note that the grain is softer in all corners - therefore, it must be either due to the reproduction of the glass negative, or from a print made from that negative. To me, the "grain" looks more like the texture of a matte photo paper than photographic grain. My weak support (above) still stands. --
Janke |
Talk10:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Janke, this is a direct scan of the glass negative (there is no paper), see these links
[1],
[2], see the fields: Medium, Reproduction Number, Digital ID.
Bammesk (
talk)
06:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC) . . . I found other examples. Here is one
[3],
[4] where original is print, reproduction is film negative, digital image is a scan of film negative. Here is another
[5],
[6] where original is glass negative, there are two reproductions (a direct digital scan, and a film negative), digital image on LOC website is the direct digital scan (not derived from the film negative).reply