Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fenton13ltdragoons.jpg

Image:Fenton13ltdragoons.jpg, not featured

Info uploaded by Old Moonraker - nominated by Old Moonraker --Old Moonraker 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This early example of the war photograph is frequently reproduced, but at a resolution which does not permit the faces of the subjects to be seen clearly. In this high-resolution version the facial expressions can be seen and they offer a valuable new insight into the photographer's work and the characters of the soldiers, veterans of the Charge of the Light Brigade and a winter of service in a punishing climate. --Old Moonraker 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bad source given. Lycaon 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please explain "bad source" and I will try to correct it. --Old Moonraker 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done External link now fixed—thanks for pointing this out. --Old Moonraker 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- still not working ;-( Lycaon 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Must be a session time-out or something. Now linked through the {{LOC-image}} tag.--Old Moonraker 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would you like me to try some cropping and cleanup? Durova 00:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, thanks. This is an historic photograph, like a "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" of its day, and IMO deserves to be seen in its original state. I submitted it in response to a comment here that specifically discussed the unimproved version.--Old Moonraker 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see why this picture should be featured, quality and compisition are really bad and I don't see that much historical value (some random officiers of the Crimean War). While the age might be a mitigating reason for the bad quality that's not an excuse for the bad composition and the lack of "wow". -- Gorgo 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only the quality of the photograph is bad, even the scan was not properly done: it's tilted. Lycaon 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one aspect of the "historic" quality that could be repaired, although the original print itself is far from square. it's a rostrum photograph, rather than a scan, BTW. --Old Moonraker 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As for the quality, yes it is abysmal. However, considering that the image illustrates veterans of the en: Charge of the Light Brigade and it is a photograph, I think it merits support due to historical value. --Thermos 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here we go again... To keep on judging photographs based solely on the "wow" factor, which is totally subjective and to expect photographs to conform to the quality of the latest technology does a disservice to the discipline of photography itself and to the larger scope of Wikipedia. The technology of photography has evolved and while we may get better rendition of subjects, color, resolution, etc., etc., it does not necessarily mean that we end up with "better" photography. On the contrary, I think that we get more "bad" photography as a result of technology, judging from a wide perpective on photography appreciation. In this particular case, yes, compared to today´s standards the image, as a rendition of subjects and technical quality, is lacking if we compare to what is obtainable with today´s photography. But that is not the case. The point is that the Crimean War was probably the first war covered photographically, and there were political considerations while doing so (read about it). Technically speaking, it is almost a miracle to even have these images, as the photographic process was extremely difficult. Therefore, the value of this photograph, and the reason it should be featured, is because of its inmense historical value. This photograph (and the series of the Crimean war) should be looked upon as a window into the past. This is the only visual record that we have of that conflict. It is an honest record, not an idealized rendition given by paintings of previous wars. Please visit this site so you get an idea of what Roger fenton and the Crimean War was all about #REDIRECT[1] The fact that one ignores the historical value of a photograph is no reason to deprive the larger scope of Wikipedia of building a knowledge base, and featuring images is a vehicle consisntent with the encyclopedic effort. We must learn to look beyond the paper (or screen) where the image appears, the paper is nothing but a window. So the glass is dirty, so what? It is the landscape that lies beyond that matters. I can imagine knocking down the Mona Lisa beacuse the paint is cracking! --Tomascastelazo 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar batteries in front of Picquet house Light Division, Crimean War.

After 20 minutes of retouching the sky only. At 300x magnification the streak in the center appears to be genuine artillery fire.

Oppose Tough choice. With due respect for Tomascastelazo's eloquent opinion, the Library of Congress website hosts 264 Roger Fenton photographs of the Crimean War. I've uploaded one of them for comparison. Compositionally it's superior, and the team in the foreground is actively loading a cannon. At 300x magnification a particular streak in the sky appears to be genuine artillery fire. This is genuine battle photography, perhaps the earliest ever done. Whether you prefer the edited version or the original, this appears to be a superior shot. It isn't necessarily the best of Fenton's work; so far I've viewed 20% of that archive. Yet if we want to feature a Roger Fenton photo from this war I think it's important to select the best available. Durova 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator I appreciate that you have provided reasoned comment to explain your "oppose" vote. May I just draw to your attention my first point about the facial expressions of the people portrayed? This is where I believe the image excels, and this is absent from the admittedly better-composed artillery picture. --Old Moonraker 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that's a good element. Fenton also shot a lot of portraits and small groups where the faces are easier to see and quite a few of those were of members of the divisions that took part in the charge of the light brigade. This nomination is part landscape, part people. I'd love to see some Fenton work get featured; we can do better than this particular example. Durova 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is only picture of Fenton's that I have seen at high resolution and I was so impressed by the faces that I made the nomination. All his pictures in Library of Congress are available at this resolution so if there's a better one that similarly shows faces in detail that should certainly be a featured image candidate if this one fails. --Old Moonraker 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Old Moonraker 07:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]