Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit2.jpg

File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 15:43:08

Info created by Jack Downey, corrected, restored and uploaded by Julielangford, nominated by Yann (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Restored following JovanCormac's comment. It is a great image of a historical event. Yann (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, Following JovanCormacs suggestions, I removed a total of 27 scratches that I found within the image [Great suggestions JovanCormac], reduced noise and adjusted brightness, contrast, highlights and shadows. But, this was still a wonderful image in its original form. Julielangford (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is definitely better, and a great picture indeed. All the major scratches are gone, and the colors are much more vibrant. I found a little issue, unrelated to the picture itself: This file, a version of the one nominated here, is featured on the Spanish Wikipedia. Personally I think that the one nominated here is superior, and this is just another example of the mess that results from separate Featured Picture libraries (see my comment below). -- JovanCormac 16:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Otourly (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Poor restoration and poor documentation: correcting "noise" in a pre-digital photograph? Look at the uneven tones in the sky, and the profusion of dirt and fibers which remain. Color balance remains deficient in blue, serious brightness variances persist. Leaning toward oppose despite the iconic nature of the original, due to poor execution of the attempted edits. Durova (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Noise" can be a product of scanning, just as well as it is in digital photography. Unfortunately, I do not know whether this image was scanned, or photographed, to be created as a digital file, so can't comment much about how the noise was created. As for the restoration attempt, yes you are correct about there still being many dust particles still evident. I could go back and continue to remove the thousands of them that are left, but as I am not a photo restoration professional, with all the relevant equipment to do so, it would sadly, change the image into something it isn't, and IMO ruin the original character. Thanks for your comment. Julielangford (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tintero (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luxembourg (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\^talk 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]