Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2019 at 18:23:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- In good enough condition to pass Commons FPC last year without the need for restoration.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Vitascope
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment? (Could equally be technology, photographic equipment or artwork)
- Creator
- Unknown
- Support alt 1 as nominator – MER-C 18:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Conditional support– Top EV, but a little restoration of the tears & creases in the corners would be welcome. -- Janke | Talk 19:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)- Comment I checked the original image at Wiki commons and found that the first image (from 22 September 2008) had retained just a slight more of the museum's mark "29057B" at the bottom right corner than the more recent image. The closing "B", for whatever reason, went amiss in the new version. No complaint, this image would still claim my full support, would I be entitled to vote (56 edits to go). Otherwise, regarding the very moderate creases, wrinkles and stains on the paper edges I would take a different stance than Janke and I would retain all as is, as it is exactly these flaws that provide this seasoned poster (now aged 123 years) with an aura of authenticity. Regarding the printed areas, some amount of retouching will certainly be necessary in other cases, but this poster makes a very well-preserved impression which IMHO renders further retouching unnecessary. -- Franz van Duns ( talk) 20:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Curious/interesting that the projected image is shown in color. Surely would have been b&w in actuality(?)
DonFB (
talk)
06:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hand-colored films were made at that time. Don't know if Edison's were. --
Janke |
Talk
07:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @
Janke and
DonFB: The text in the box in the lower right says the Vitascope films are "full of color", so they clearly were.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs
03:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- D'uh, I oughta look closer next time.
DonFB (
talk)
04:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's pretty small, so unless you took a really good look at it at reasonably large size, it'd be easy to miss, and that's the step after you deal with inaccuracies that might make the image fail FPC in and of themselves. I was restoring it, you weren't, so...
- D'uh, I oughta look closer next time.
DonFB (
talk)
04:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @
Janke and
DonFB: The text in the box in the lower right says the Vitascope films are "full of color", so they clearly were.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs
03:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hand-colored films were made at that time. Don't know if Edison's were. --
Janke |
Talk
07:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Now, I'm not going to say the colours were necessarily as good as indicated; this is an advertisement, after all; exaggeration is a thing they do. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 04:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @ Janke, DonFB, MER-C, and Franz van Duns: New restoration uploaded. Support Alt 1 Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 03:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support restoration. It looks like (is) the original now, without creases and pencil marks. -- Janke | Talk 08:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support alt 1 --- Coffeeand crumbs 11:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support alt 1 Charlesjsharp ( talk) 12:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Alternative version "Alt 1" OK with me. This now thoroughly cleansed version is just fine, it has its merits and a fresh and renewed charm, and would also earn my full support, were I entitled to vote (40 edits to go ...). All in all, though, I personally prefer "slightly smudged" documents that, as described above, do not hide historical traces acquired over the years. But this is a personal instigation of mine. -- Franz van Duns ( talk) 17:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1. One tiny quibble - above the woman in the blue hat above the T in Vitascope, there are two white marks at men's necks, which have been removed in the restoration, presumably as damage. I don't think they are - at least the left-hand one is quite clearly-formed, and looks to me like it's the man's collar. I'd be slightly happier if these were put back; but not a huge deal.
TSP (
talk)
15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @ TSP: I've restored them. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 06:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Edison's Greatest Marvel-The Vitascope - Restoration.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 19:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2019 at 18:23:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- In good enough condition to pass Commons FPC last year without the need for restoration.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Vitascope
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment? (Could equally be technology, photographic equipment or artwork)
- Creator
- Unknown
- Support alt 1 as nominator – MER-C 18:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Conditional support– Top EV, but a little restoration of the tears & creases in the corners would be welcome. -- Janke | Talk 19:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)- Comment I checked the original image at Wiki commons and found that the first image (from 22 September 2008) had retained just a slight more of the museum's mark "29057B" at the bottom right corner than the more recent image. The closing "B", for whatever reason, went amiss in the new version. No complaint, this image would still claim my full support, would I be entitled to vote (56 edits to go). Otherwise, regarding the very moderate creases, wrinkles and stains on the paper edges I would take a different stance than Janke and I would retain all as is, as it is exactly these flaws that provide this seasoned poster (now aged 123 years) with an aura of authenticity. Regarding the printed areas, some amount of retouching will certainly be necessary in other cases, but this poster makes a very well-preserved impression which IMHO renders further retouching unnecessary. -- Franz van Duns ( talk) 20:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Curious/interesting that the projected image is shown in color. Surely would have been b&w in actuality(?)
DonFB (
talk)
06:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hand-colored films were made at that time. Don't know if Edison's were. --
Janke |
Talk
07:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @
Janke and
DonFB: The text in the box in the lower right says the Vitascope films are "full of color", so they clearly were.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs
03:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- D'uh, I oughta look closer next time.
DonFB (
talk)
04:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's pretty small, so unless you took a really good look at it at reasonably large size, it'd be easy to miss, and that's the step after you deal with inaccuracies that might make the image fail FPC in and of themselves. I was restoring it, you weren't, so...
- D'uh, I oughta look closer next time.
DonFB (
talk)
04:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @
Janke and
DonFB: The text in the box in the lower right says the Vitascope films are "full of color", so they clearly were.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs
03:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hand-colored films were made at that time. Don't know if Edison's were. --
Janke |
Talk
07:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Now, I'm not going to say the colours were necessarily as good as indicated; this is an advertisement, after all; exaggeration is a thing they do. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 04:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @ Janke, DonFB, MER-C, and Franz van Duns: New restoration uploaded. Support Alt 1 Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 03:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support restoration. It looks like (is) the original now, without creases and pencil marks. -- Janke | Talk 08:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support alt 1 --- Coffeeand crumbs 11:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support alt 1 Charlesjsharp ( talk) 12:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Alternative version "Alt 1" OK with me. This now thoroughly cleansed version is just fine, it has its merits and a fresh and renewed charm, and would also earn my full support, were I entitled to vote (40 edits to go ...). All in all, though, I personally prefer "slightly smudged" documents that, as described above, do not hide historical traces acquired over the years. But this is a personal instigation of mine. -- Franz van Duns ( talk) 17:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1. One tiny quibble - above the woman in the blue hat above the T in Vitascope, there are two white marks at men's necks, which have been removed in the restoration, presumably as damage. I don't think they are - at least the left-hand one is quite clearly-formed, and looks to me like it's the man's collar. I'd be slightly happier if these were put back; but not a huge deal.
TSP (
talk)
15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @ TSP: I've restored them. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 06:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Edison's Greatest Marvel-The Vitascope - Restoration.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 19:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)