Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Émile Cartailhac

Émile Cartailhac edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2012 at 13:57:17 (UTC)

Original – Émile Cartailhac was a French prehistorian, one of the founding fathers of the studies of the cave art.

Reason: High resolution and high quality portrait of an important figure.
Articles in which this image appears: Émile Cartailhac
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Daniel Chevalier (Photographed by Archaeodontosaurus)

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support.~~ I'll take the existence of his article, albeit rather on the short side, as evidence of sufficient EV. --jjron (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my support per valid concerns raised below (this is why these things are open for a week). Maybe I should have inspected it closer before my original vote, but we also have to be careful not to 'punish' images just because they're very high-res. --jjron (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question what are the white specks that are all over the image? Pine^(talk) 04:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the resolution is so high, that's a visible texture of the paper. Tomer T (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To Pine, that looks like the grain of the paper to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above, good details. Brandmeister^talk 09:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "grain" looks kind of suspect to me, are we sure this wasn't applied post-scan? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest asking Archaeodontosaurus, although I do believe we have several FPs from the editor already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Captures him well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Because the resolution is so high, that's a visible texture of the paper" - sorry, but I have to disagree. The texture is visible only outside the oval and in the dark background, not in the face, for instance. Also, the texture repeats, so it's definitely faked. Very strange compression artifacts/noise/grain in the face, too. --Janke | Talk 05:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are changes in the texture. Tomer T (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that backroung is "textured" to make the whole more coherent. The person himself is not touched by me. The negative has been retouched by the author of the picture, what is visible on the upper lip, the collar of the shirt etc. ... I opted to make no changes, including the small white dots. Thank you for your interest in this "figure" historic. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now after the explanation about the texture, I'll change to support if the faked background texture is removed. I think that the faked texture is misleading to viewers. Pine^(talk) 19:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Editing of historical photographs should be documented, with either a link to the original (if its home is stable and permanent) or the original uploaded as well. Chick Bowen 18:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why is this tagged with a CC license? What exactly is released as CC--the editing job? This needs an assertion of the copyright status of the underlying image. It would be PD in France as 70+ years post mortem auctoris, but not necessarily PD in the US. Chick Bowen 18:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]