Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tuterei Karewa

Tuterei Karewa[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2014 at 03:57:09 (UTC)

Reason: High res image from the Google Art Project. High EV for own bio and example of these Maori face markings in a photographic setting.
Articles in which this image appears: Tuterei Karewa, Tā moko
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Traditional_dress, Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle
Creator: Arthur James Iles (1870—1943), photographer. Scan provided by Google Cultural Institute.

Support as nominator – I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could use restoration. What are the Maori views on photographs of deceased ancestors? I understand that the Australian Aborigines are highly against it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Good question. I've checked a couple of sources that might have discussed issues regarding deceased ancestors such as this law commission paper on Maori custom and law, and this guide on funerals from the Maori Language Commission, but they do not mention any prohibitions. I do know that this particular photo is on display at the Museum Victoria. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Restoration would still be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: I don't have any experience in photo restoration, but I agree with you, and so I decided to learn the basics and apply them here. It's not perfect, but I figured it's a start. I tried to remove some of the most prominent scratches, stray marks, and some folding marks on the photograph. I also considered cropping a bit off the top, but I was on the fence about it. Is there too much space at the top? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ -- Marinka van Dam (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose since the image has been altered by the original photographer how can we be sure his touch up work is accurate? Seems less than encyclopedic. Nice image though. I gave a weak oppose as I could be talked into it if another had a good argument.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: The description on this source says:

The moko appears to have been enhanced by the photographer for aesthetic emphasis, a common practice in studio portraiture of this type.

So, whatever process he used appears to have been fairly standard. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I have a number of these old images myself (not of Maori) and am also an old school photographer, taught how to use film cameras, develop the film, print the photos using light processing in a dark room and how to touch up the photos. From my experience with these touch up products, the image can be altered drastically. In looking closely at the touch up work here, it becomes difficult to tell where the originating line of the tattoos end and the touch up begins....but you can clearly see the brush strokes. I suppose if there were at least one other image of the subject without the touch up work to see that tattoos that might help. --Mark Miller (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking at other images and looking closer at this one, it appears the tattoos on the chin have been altered ~~and simplified~~.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller:What other images did you look at? This is another photograph of the subject, taken from the front. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the photographer of the FPC altered the chin tattoo drastically from the additional image you provided. The original image is large enough to see a good portion of the tattoo in the photo nominated has indeed been touched up a great deal and is no longer an accurate depiction of the subject. Sad, because the photo is excellent.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: Curses, I didn't notice the chin while cleaning it up. I'll let others decide on whether this kind of manipulation is acceptable or not; that said, it's very frustrating to me that Iles would change the markings on the chin in this manner. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the photographer developed the photograph itself once he returned to his lab and was nowhere near the subject and just did what he thought would be good enough. And yeah...curses indeed! It is truly frustrating to see such fantastic and historic images manipulated in this manner today. it takes away so much.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]