Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Billie Burke 15826u.jpg

File:Billie Burke 15826u.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2015 at 20:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Harris & Ewing, restored, uploaded, and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support American actress, famous on Broadway and in early silent film. -- Yann (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice pose, but insufficient blurry for FP IMHO. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked for no real reviewing. Yann (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, is a bit blurry, but beautiful nevertheless --· Favalli ⟡ 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Back in the early 1900s lens technology was of course less evolved, so I can live with a bit of un-sharpness caused by that. I also understand that the negative may have suffered from time, leaving scratches etc. – could probably live with that as well. But there is a considerable amount of motion blur in the hair and the black stuff on the hat (lots of double lines), which can even be observed at the default preview size of the file description page. Yes, film/shutter speeds were probably slower back then as well, but the second image from this photo session shows that it was indeed possible to get a non-shaky image in those conditions. For a studio work in a controlled environment, this seems to lag behind what was possible with the technology of that time. --El Grafo (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer El Grafo,sorry but this just not --LivioAndronico talk 19:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Comment So charming portrait to oppose :) --Laitche (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Because if I have to vote for all nominations, I would vote oppose for this. --Laitche (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's beautiful. --Abd (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, but per El Grafo.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the motion blur is too obvious. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image could be sharper. --Tremonist (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nominationYann (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't you sharpen it a bit? Then I would support it. You restored it nicely besides that. --Tremonist (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think sharpening make any sense for an old picture like this. Yann (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right, its age is surely the main problem. But please know I did not intend to discourage you by voting. Best wishes, --Tremonist (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]