Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories (1922), Frontispiece.jpg

File:Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories (1922), Frontispiece.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 11:26:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Maud and Miska Petersham - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 16:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. I grew up reading these books. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you may have overdone the contrast and saturation boost compared to the original scan (which I presume is your own scan). The fine detail in the dot pattens on bold colours is smudged. Neither the scanned TIFF nor this JPG have any colour profile defined, which I think is essential for art reproductions. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colin: Remember that I own the original: I adjusted it to match the original, after telling the scanner not to make any automatic adjustments. The scan doesn't accurately reflect the orignal; I told it not to try to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The dots making up the colour pattern seem to have merged or become less distinct particular where the colour is strong. I agree your scan isn't a reference in itself but then neither is your monitor unless you have a pro-grade calibrated monitor, calibrated scanner, a colour checker chart, and reference lighting levels for viewing your monitor image / book. Clearly as amateurs we can't afford all that. Have you considered asking WMF for a grant to purchase a display calibrator and chart -- considering the amount of scanning/restoration you do. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - From my experience, scans often can make things look more distinct, even when they aren't in the original. Also, of course, some of the restoration involved fixing printing errors, which may, in a few cases, include bits where the dots were more visible because one of the colours was left out. For example, the green balloons at the far right, more-or-less vertically centered had some issues with that in the original, and the third flag from the left (counting the half-flag on the far left) had the reds a bit splattered. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]