Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Metal movable type.jpg

Image:Metal movable type.jpg - featured edit

Note: This edit is not due for approval yet

Info created by Wilfried Heider (stock.xchng user) — uploaded by Lupin — nominated by Ss181292
Info Great illustration of a set of metal types. High encyclopedic value. Good image quality.
Support Ss181292 09:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC) - (nominator)[reply]
Support Erina 09:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would like it to be rotated 180 degrees and a little bit cropped like the one on the right norro 12:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is proper orientation (I mean not rotated). Ss181292 13:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And (IMHO) the font full of types is a main subject, so you propose to crop off the important part of the picture. This already typeset paragraph is (IMHO) only addition. Ss181292 13:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right, but for me its a matter of composition. The flat plan view on the types may be the main subject but is not very interesting for me. Kindly, norro 14:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and comment: The picture should be rotated 180 degrees, the type is upside-down, besides, the shadow is cast from the bottom to the upper part. IMO it would have been a better image if the type in the boxes were visible. To people who do not know metal type, they are just pieces of metal. --Tomascastelazo 15:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a longer while I'm sure that this image should not be rotated.:
1. font (set of types) lies on the table,
2. observer stands in front of this table,
3. light comes from left side (proper for right handed person),
4. I believe it is normal to typeset paragraph upside-down (faces of types are mirrored anyway). Ss181292 20:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically strong, and an effective illustration. You can infer a great deal of the typesetting process just from looking at this photo. K.lee 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very informative high-quality picture. It shouldn't be significatly cropped (at least one box should be left completely open to the viewer); and probably it's no reason to rotate it: Ss181292's words sound convincing. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but only the original unrotated and uncropped version --Leclerc 12:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - original version -LadyofHats 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - original version. Looks good at full resolution.--MichaelMaggs 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Prevert^(talk) 21:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of the nicest technical shots of movable type I've ever seen. --Quartermaster 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I slightly prefer the rotated version, but both are interesting and informative. QuartierLatin1968 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simonizer 09:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original -- Solipsist 20:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 07:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]