Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/La Belle Otero
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 15:13:59 (UTC)
- Reason
- Spanish-born dancer, actress and courtesan, "the most sought after woman in all of Europe" in her time. High resolution image with restoration
- Articles in which this image appears
- La Belle Otero
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
- Creator
- Jean Reutlinger, restored and uploaded by Yann
- Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Pic. is hazy in the 19th C. manner but typical of period portraits. Interesting story – a fin de siècle diva. Sca (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - If the original image was not B&W, we shouldn't be making it B&W. Keeping the original tone would have been much better. Also, the masking tape is distracting and not part of the original photograph (only a subsequent addition to this print). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- The negative of this picture IS B&W. I think sepia prints were done to preserve the quality of the prints. I don't see the point of doing that now. Just to show you that it doesn't make sense: File:La Belle Otero, par Jean Reutlinger, sepia.jpg. Do you like better like that? Obviously it brings absolutely no additional value. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- If our scan is of a print, then we should remain true to that print (minus later additions such as dust, scratches, tape, fingerprints, etc.). I'm against adding sepia to non-sepia images (say, scans of negatives) and removing sepia from sepia images. Aside from being a way to make the quality of the print more easily preserved, the choice of sepia could have easily been a creative choice from the photographer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- You don't answer to my question: do you like like File:La Belle Otero, par Jean Reutlinger, sepia.jpg better? i.e. would you support that alternative? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Currently, no. That tape in the corner would need to go first (as it was not originally part of the print). I've said or implied this three times already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: I removed the tape, and also tried to correct the over-exposition in the right bottom corner. OK now? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Currently, no. That tape in the corner would need to go first (as it was not originally part of the print). I've said or implied this three times already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- You don't answer to my question: do you like like File:La Belle Otero, par Jean Reutlinger, sepia.jpg better? i.e. would you support that alternative? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- If our scan is of a print, then we should remain true to that print (minus later additions such as dust, scratches, tape, fingerprints, etc.). I'm against adding sepia to non-sepia images (say, scans of negatives) and removing sepia from sepia images. Aside from being a way to make the quality of the print more easily preserved, the choice of sepia could have easily been a creative choice from the photographer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- The negative of this picture IS B&W. I think sepia prints were done to preserve the quality of the prints. I don't see the point of doing that now. Just to show you that it doesn't make sense: File:La Belle Otero, par Jean Reutlinger, sepia.jpg. Do you like better like that? Obviously it brings absolutely no additional value. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support sepia version, but still oppose the B&W image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)