Question - Who was the original photographer for these works? Also, I think the photographer missed the focus in the Wilbur Wright image. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk)
05:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply - Fixed attribution. Added an alternate set. Wilber Wright image is soft, but a better portrait is unlikely and the encyclopedic value is high. Excluding scientists and NASA crew, we have very few engineers. These two are prominent.
Bammesk (
talk)
01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)reply
With all due respect to
Janke, looking at
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8] softness is not a sufficient criteria for opposing historic images. Wilber image is in par with many others, when viewed at the same magnification. Even if it wasn't, softness is not an overriding criteria. As far as the two images being "too different to form a set", after rethinking it, this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine or a photo book. There is no editorial luxury here to redo historic images, so I am withdrawing the "alternate set". The two images are a set in as much as the two subjects are a set. As far as any display related issues, Template CSS image crop allays that.
Bammesk (
talk)
05:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose alt - I'm not happy with the idea of changing a picture away from its natural state in such a way that kills a lot of the visibility of the detail, and crops a large part out. Adam Cuerden(
talk)06:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)reply
This will not fully address Adam's concern, but for the "alternate set" we can replace Wilber's image with one that is cropped as shown (from the "original set"), without manipulation.Bammesk (
talk)
01:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Question - Who was the original photographer for these works? Also, I think the photographer missed the focus in the Wilbur Wright image. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk)
05:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply - Fixed attribution. Added an alternate set. Wilber Wright image is soft, but a better portrait is unlikely and the encyclopedic value is high. Excluding scientists and NASA crew, we have very few engineers. These two are prominent.
Bammesk (
talk)
01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)reply
With all due respect to
Janke, looking at
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8] softness is not a sufficient criteria for opposing historic images. Wilber image is in par with many others, when viewed at the same magnification. Even if it wasn't, softness is not an overriding criteria. As far as the two images being "too different to form a set", after rethinking it, this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine or a photo book. There is no editorial luxury here to redo historic images, so I am withdrawing the "alternate set". The two images are a set in as much as the two subjects are a set. As far as any display related issues, Template CSS image crop allays that.
Bammesk (
talk)
05:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose alt - I'm not happy with the idea of changing a picture away from its natural state in such a way that kills a lot of the visibility of the detail, and crops a large part out. Adam Cuerden(
talk)06:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)reply
This will not fully address Adam's concern, but for the "alternate set" we can replace Wilber's image with one that is cropped as shown (from the "original set"), without manipulation.Bammesk (
talk)
01:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply