Support as nominator --Durova279 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Question Isn't it really in PD? How so? The architect died in 1997 and drawing was published between 1979 and 1981.--
Caspian blue 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
This architect donated a portion of his papers into the public domain. Durova279 05:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Thank for the reply, then, would you state the information on the image page and in the nom with sources if possible (from book or news)?--
Caspian blue 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
It already is fully stated: the source is the Library of Congress (linked) and the PD template has a second link to the rights information on the Paul Rudolph collection. This is how such things are normally notated. Durova279 19:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I've not seen the original but the colour balance appears too magenta, and the tonal balance slightly dark and compressed, compared to other examples available online.
This one for example may be a little too far the other way colour-wise, but gives an idea what I'm on about. Very nice illustration, be good to get it right. --
mikaultalk 07:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
You've got a point. Uploaded a new color balance over the existing filename (older version still visible in image history). Durova279 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support rare catch, so encyclopedic value is very high. I wonder about the color, as it was not that old to weather so badly (the original). Perhaps the LoC just botched holding it. Details in the restoration come out nicely.
Ottava Rima (
talk) 00:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support The building is white, so I am left wondering a bit why this is magentaish, but seems to be a feature of the drawing.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 09:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --Durova279 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Question Isn't it really in PD? How so? The architect died in 1997 and drawing was published between 1979 and 1981.--
Caspian blue 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
This architect donated a portion of his papers into the public domain. Durova279 05:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Thank for the reply, then, would you state the information on the image page and in the nom with sources if possible (from book or news)?--
Caspian blue 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
It already is fully stated: the source is the Library of Congress (linked) and the PD template has a second link to the rights information on the Paul Rudolph collection. This is how such things are normally notated. Durova279 19:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I've not seen the original but the colour balance appears too magenta, and the tonal balance slightly dark and compressed, compared to other examples available online.
This one for example may be a little too far the other way colour-wise, but gives an idea what I'm on about. Very nice illustration, be good to get it right. --
mikaultalk 07:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
You've got a point. Uploaded a new color balance over the existing filename (older version still visible in image history). Durova279 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support rare catch, so encyclopedic value is very high. I wonder about the color, as it was not that old to weather so badly (the original). Perhaps the LoC just botched holding it. Details in the restoration come out nicely.
Ottava Rima (
talk) 00:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support The building is white, so I am left wondering a bit why this is magentaish, but seems to be a feature of the drawing.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 09:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply