Paulette Goddard
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2013 at 02:43:27 (UTC)
- Reason
- Large size, high resolution, two-month stable in article. This is one of the best and largest portraits we have of her. Because I cannot locate the studio, date, or film that this studio portrait was created by/during, the EV is largely based on her appearance, which I'll explain: this image replaced a previous (and, I was hoping, a potential FP candidate) studio shot that could be dated, but someone with far more knowledge than I switched it because this photograph represents Goddard in her "heyday", during the late 30s to 40s. I am assuming the hairstyle is the clue. (The current nomination is also sharper, while the above linked studio shot is a bit blurry.)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Paulette Goddard
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Unknown studio
_II.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
- Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 02:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
SupportThe lighting isn't the best, but otherwise quite good, especially at full size. Brandmeister talk 07:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right and it didn't even occur to me to fix it before the nomination (my absent-mindedness is not to be trifled with). I tried to emulate other studio photographs that have much less contrast. The original scan is extremely harsh, I agree. I support alt for what it's worth. Also for the record, I did just replace Original with Alt in the Paulette Goddard article, so if seven days are needed for stability, this nom can be put on hold. – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you have Photoshop or some other program that does the same, try midtone adjustment, shadow reduction and some levels instead of contrast adjustment. That combination looks better IMO. Brandmeister talk 08:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support alt Brandmeister talk 08:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right and it didn't even occur to me to fix it before the nomination (my absent-mindedness is not to be trifled with). I tried to emulate other studio photographs that have much less contrast. The original scan is extremely harsh, I agree. I support alt for what it's worth. Also for the record, I did just replace Original with Alt in the Paulette Goddard article, so if seven days are needed for stability, this nom can be put on hold. – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose alt 1, neutral original. The edit looks weird in part because the original is so heavily airbrushed; for example, there's a weird line running about 20 pixels parallel to the right side (her right) of her face. In any case, this is a scan of a print, not a negative, and I suspect the high contrast is deliberate--this was not an uncommon style for publicity photos. Chick Bowen 23:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! Taking Brandmeister's comments into account (and Brandmeister is welcome to make any further suggestions) any suggestions what I can do to improve the original to gain your support? Even if this image doesn't pass this round, I wouldn't mind continuing to work on it. Or do you think the image is irreparable? – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies 00:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's a style that doesn't appeal to me that much, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. A lot of dodging, burning, and airbrushing was standard practice for these stock publicity photos, and goes along with their slightly artificial look. I prefer in-character publicity shots or proper portraits of celebrities. Chick Bowen 00:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! Taking Brandmeister's comments into account (and Brandmeister is welcome to make any further suggestions) any suggestions what I can do to improve the original to gain your support? Even if this image doesn't pass this round, I wouldn't mind continuing to work on it. Or do you think the image is irreparable? – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies 00:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Paulette Goddard
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2013 at 02:43:27 (UTC)
- Reason
- Large size, high resolution, two-month stable in article. This is one of the best and largest portraits we have of her. Because I cannot locate the studio, date, or film that this studio portrait was created by/during, the EV is largely based on her appearance, which I'll explain: this image replaced a previous (and, I was hoping, a potential FP candidate) studio shot that could be dated, but someone with far more knowledge than I switched it because this photograph represents Goddard in her "heyday", during the late 30s to 40s. I am assuming the hairstyle is the clue. (The current nomination is also sharper, while the above linked studio shot is a bit blurry.)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Paulette Goddard
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Unknown studio
- Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 02:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
SupportThe lighting isn't the best, but otherwise quite good, especially at full size. Brandmeister talk 07:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right and it didn't even occur to me to fix it before the nomination (my absent-mindedness is not to be trifled with). I tried to emulate other studio photographs that have much less contrast. The original scan is extremely harsh, I agree. I support alt for what it's worth. Also for the record, I did just replace Original with Alt in the Paulette Goddard article, so if seven days are needed for stability, this nom can be put on hold. – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you have Photoshop or some other program that does the same, try midtone adjustment, shadow reduction and some levels instead of contrast adjustment. That combination looks better IMO. Brandmeister talk 08:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support alt Brandmeister talk 08:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right and it didn't even occur to me to fix it before the nomination (my absent-mindedness is not to be trifled with). I tried to emulate other studio photographs that have much less contrast. The original scan is extremely harsh, I agree. I support alt for what it's worth. Also for the record, I did just replace Original with Alt in the Paulette Goddard article, so if seven days are needed for stability, this nom can be put on hold. – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose alt 1, neutral original. The edit looks weird in part because the original is so heavily airbrushed; for example, there's a weird line running about 20 pixels parallel to the right side (her right) of her face. In any case, this is a scan of a print, not a negative, and I suspect the high contrast is deliberate--this was not an uncommon style for publicity photos. Chick Bowen 23:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! Taking Brandmeister's comments into account (and Brandmeister is welcome to make any further suggestions) any suggestions what I can do to improve the original to gain your support? Even if this image doesn't pass this round, I wouldn't mind continuing to work on it. Or do you think the image is irreparable? – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies 00:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's a style that doesn't appeal to me that much, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. A lot of dodging, burning, and airbrushing was standard practice for these stock publicity photos, and goes along with their slightly artificial look. I prefer in-character publicity shots or proper portraits of celebrities. Chick Bowen 00:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! Taking Brandmeister's comments into account (and Brandmeister is welcome to make any further suggestions) any suggestions what I can do to improve the original to gain your support? Even if this image doesn't pass this round, I wouldn't mind continuing to work on it. Or do you think the image is irreparable? – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies 00:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)