Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill, c.1885

Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill c.1885

Reason: A high resolution, but most importantly striking portrait of two historical figures.
Articles in which this image appears: Wild West Shows, Sitting Bull, Buffalo Bill, 19th century
FP category for this image: People/Entertainment
Creator

Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't help but think that our restorers would be able to do something with this. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to have to oppose here, it needs graphic work, I think the contrast is too harsh and that combined with the fairly low quality from LOC... — raeky t 14:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Greg L (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll admit to being tempted.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. New version uploading. I used the LOC copy because, frankly, the bigger one is so horribly JPEG artefacted that it's not actually any better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt or alt 2, oppose original Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2 I just had to make it a bit sharper, sorry! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've taken the liberty of redoing your edit: The faces had had some selective sharpening applied already, and when I checked, they looked over-sharpened to me. That, unfortunately, is very easy to do: In the Revelations image of a couple months ago, I had to completely redo some parts after accidentally over-sharpening early on. (there were some parts where I couldn't get the image to lay flat, and thus were slightly blurry at full res. I was going through sharpening those, then sharpened the whole thing - then found that part of it had gotten horribly oversharpened, and had to paste in that bit and start over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kind of boring, but still a good quality image of two pretty well-known people. --I'ḏ ♥One 04:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, SB's face is clearer here. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 17:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, if you make a dark-skinned Indian look white, his face is clearer, but that doesn't mean it's right. That's an artefact of the extremely high contrast settings. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Per Sandman. Gut Monk (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original per Adam's reply to Sandman. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Adam, I find the artifact deserving (users know that Indians aren't white?). Camera technology was lacking back then. I find Sitting Bull's facial features, liked hooked nose, useful to the picture. Gut Monk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking like alt 2, but can we get a bit more clarification? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that the alts are a bit dark; however, the original, besides having terrible technical quality, seems over-edited to highlight foreground objects using masks. That's probably not called for. Maybe we need to try again. I don't know if Adam has uploaded a lossless version of the restoration...? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:William_Notman_studios_-_Sitting_Bull_and_Buffalo_Bill_(1895).png. I don't know if we can go any lighter and not lose all the headdress detail, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do any of those versions predate the sharpening you said you applied? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just experimented a bit. Facial detail is definitely possible, but it would mean that Buffalo Bill's jacket (and probably hat) would have to be remain a little lighter in colour. The bonus is that the decorations on Sitting Bull come alive. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not bad. Hmm. Maybe we should play with this a little bit, and come back with more final versions? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That seems reasonable to me, although it might need a bit more consensus than just the two of us - perhaps it would be a reason for suspending, even at this late stage? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In the end, we want to promote the best possible image. Ignore all rules clearly applies here. One possibility might be to create a new listing to decide which option should be promoted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That seems a fair call. Do you have something that's nearly ready? Oh, and could you just reply to my question above that starts with, "Do any..."? Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support the "not for voting" version myself. I'm tweaked it in slightly in sharpness, if that's okay. I guess I'm happy to have caused so much collaboration and desire for improvement. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. I only put the NFV sign up because I thought it would be a little late in the nom, and I didn't spend that much time on it. It's still based on Adam's work btw, I just did a curves change and probably haven't filled in the retouch template yet. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLW or Adam: if you come up with a "final" version, we can either re-open this for something like 5 days or we can contact all the voters to ask for a preference among all the versions. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I've tried my hand per PLW's suggestion, but I think I'd like to do it again. Multiple goes seems to result in better results. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:William Notman studios - Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill (1895) edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Alt 2. If someone eventually does an even better edit, this can be D&R'ed. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]