Support as nominator –
MER-C 17:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose at least for now due to muddy, uneven exposure, strange stair-stepping - some judicious editing is needed! --
Janke |
Talk 18:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I doubt it's because of uneven exposure or effects other than the actual print. Looking at the unprinted borders, it rules out any mistakes in lighting, stair-stepping, etc. I think it can very well be a combination of the age of the map, 400 years, and the printing process
Woodcuting. Also, unlikely that the library of congress would publish such a high resolution large file and let such a poor lighting go. This being a historic document, I think its best not to edit. I support editing if it retains the historic character of the prints.
Bammesk (
talk) 19:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC) . . . revised earlier objection to editing. There is s symmetry to the fading/aging of the 6 sheets.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 17:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose at least for now due to muddy, uneven exposure, strange stair-stepping - some judicious editing is needed! --
Janke |
Talk 18:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I doubt it's because of uneven exposure or effects other than the actual print. Looking at the unprinted borders, it rules out any mistakes in lighting, stair-stepping, etc. I think it can very well be a combination of the age of the map, 400 years, and the printing process
Woodcuting. Also, unlikely that the library of congress would publish such a high resolution large file and let such a poor lighting go. This being a historic document, I think its best not to edit. I support editing if it retains the historic character of the prints.
Bammesk (
talk) 19:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC) . . . revised earlier objection to editing. There is s symmetry to the fading/aging of the 6 sheets.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)reply