Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pinkerton, Lincoln, and McClernand

Image:PinkertonLincolnMcClernand.jpg

Allan Pinkerton, President Lincoln, and General John A. McClernand, Antietam, Maryland, October 3, 1862

Uncropped version.

An alternative view.

What struck me about this photo is the telling poses, expressions, and even stature and dress of these three men that seem to perfectly illustrate their relationship to each other and to the war itself. Even the way the spy (Pinkerton) is separated by the tent rope from the official, public face of the Civil War seems fitting. The major flaw of the photo is the blurring of Lincoln's face, but to me that's forgivable for an 1862 photo of historical significance -- the overall quality is otherwise high and I believe, along with the content, more than compensates for the blurr.

The photo is used to illustrate the Allan Pinkerton and American Civil War spies articles.

The photographer is ~~unknown~~ Alexander Gardner; the image was taken from [1]

Nominate and support. - Bobanny 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It just barely scraps by the size requirement. But the stuff on the edges bothers me. But if we cropped that out it would be too small. Hbdragon88 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hbdragon88. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Support. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as uploader. The image is lacking in detail, so you really can't make out much of each face, and the interpretation that Bobanny is giving seems to read a little more into it than is shown. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The photograph was originally taken by Alexander Gardner, and it's from the library of congress, under [2]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pinkerton was a under rated as a historical figure, also I've never seen a picture of Lincoln standing before, that man was skinny!--Niro5 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried cropping out the deteriorated edges, and it seemed to lose something more than just size, made the shape too square or something. In response to the other comments: I still believe it to be featured material. It's an 1862 photograph, and I think the image quality is fine for a non-studio, outdoor shot from that long ago in comparison to others I've seen. For comparison, see how much quality was forgiven in the Golden Spike featured picture from 1869. As for my interpretation, perhaps it is subjective, as interpretations tend to be, but the photo nevertheless is an excellent illustration of subject, however others wish to interpret it. A scan at a higher resolution would be nice, but as with the last spike photo, wouldn't do a lot to compensate for the technical flaws that are more to do with its age. Bobanny

Thanks for that link, Night Gyr, and for the photographer's name. I went there and found a high rez version and replaced it for the nomination. I cropped out the edges (more narrowly than my first attempt, looks fine now). I think that was the biggest problem with the original nominee.Bobanny 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you upload the original with the generic name, and add the crop as an edit? That way if someone needs to work off of the original, then it will be available to them. Thanks. --Tewy 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Comment. As the creator of the Alexander Gardner article (heh), I thought this looked familiar, yet the picture started out here unattributed. Turns out there's another version. This seems to have much less blurring. I request, if it's supported, that someone make a high-res, cropped upload of it to Commons from the source TIF (context link), for I don't have the software right now. –Outriggr § 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. So now there are three versions: 1) cropped 2)uncropped, and 3) alternative view. Bobanny 06:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like it's blurrier than I thought. (I don't investigate too deeply on this particular monitor and web connection...) –Outriggr § 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's good quality for such an old picture, and it has historical significance. Sharkface217 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good old Abe at his best. This is a fantastic picture that deserves FP status. I don't think wikipedia should have the policy of banning all images on the basis of them not having a high enough quality regardless of historical significance just because the technology didn't exist to create such images. The picture is very well done and adds to the history of one of our greatest presidents. I support the original edit. --Tobyw87 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF... we're not banning it, just saying that it's not the best we have to offer, since the quality obviously isn't all it could be. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support uncropped version Too historical to ignore. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I agree with Sharkface217. --RandomOrca2 00:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Quality isn't bad for a photo taken outside in 1869. Pity about the blur of Lincoln's face though. I wonder if Fir fancies doing one of his famous retouch jobs to get rid of the worst of the dust? --YFB ¿ 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As much as I like Lincoln I really don't find this that spectacular a picture, and I'm not as convinced of the historical significance of this as many others seem to be - maybe if it had McClellan rather than McClernand in it the significance would be a bit higher. --jjron 12:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Jjron here. This just a picture of three guys standing around, and the blurriness on one face really kills it. What are they doing? Having a chat? Planning a secret operation? Coincidentally all just standing in the same location? In other words, this image really tells me nothing except that the three men know each other. Now, I might support this if Lincoln publicly denied knowing Pinkerton or something and this served as proof that he did, but otherwise, it does't seem particularly noteworthy. howch e ng {chat} 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original cropped version. Seems like an interesting picture, but a bit blurred, but it's not like it could ever be taken again. Terri G 11:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the reason given above. Absolute historic value and signifigance outweigh slight technical issues that simply cannot be fixed without a new (and impossible to get) photo. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I can't determine which image should be promoted. If there are three images up there, just saying 'support' doesn't really help :) Raven4x4x 05:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that in lieu of a specified preference, the first cropped version is what's being voted for. Bobanny 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, but if one is going to be promoted, I prefer the "alternate view".--ragesoss 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate view, just seems to be a bit more sharp in the alternate view - Lincoln's face doesn't look as blurry. --RandomOrca2 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I'm not quite convinced that this image is of enough historic value to overcome the technical issues. If it was adding to more big-name articles (like American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, or Military intelligence) and had a better caption I could give it my support. If it gets featured, I would recomend the first image, where Lincoln is facing the front. --Arctic Gnome 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st Your not going to get much better than that of such an old picture.--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I clarified my vote above. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:PinkertonLincolnMcClernand.jpg Raven4x4x 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]