Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/WWII U.S. Infantryman redux

WWII U.S. Infantryman redux edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2013 at 14:40:26 (UTC)

Original – World War II American Infantryman, kneeling in front of M3 Half-track, with an M1 Garand rifle wearing HBT first pattern uniform. Fort Knox, Kentucky, June 1942.

Reason: High quality image, good restoration, used in several articles, featured on Commons. Previous nomination here
Articles in which this image appears: M1 Garand, United States Army uniforms in World War II, Haversack, Brodie helmet and Fort Knox.
FP category for this image: World War II
Creator: Alfred T. Palmer, restored by Scewing.

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have concerns about the accuracy of the colours (esp. of the uniform) after the "histogram fix". Compare with original colours which are a lot less blue: [1]. Notice that on the Nomination at Commons, most of the supports were given before the concerns about colour manipulation were raised. However, I would gladly support a version with more faithful colours. Purpy Pupple (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a few bits of obvious dirt; I could do a restoration? It shouldn't take too long. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be fine, and there are some less-edited ones you could work with as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Colors are true and accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question. In the previous nomination I raised some concerns on the EV. To save rehashing it all I won't repeat, and while the nominator at the time gave some responses, I'd like to hear your opinion on where you think the EV actually is, given you haven't commented on it in the nom, save to say that it's used in several articles? (In short, I guess I'm saying 'what's changed', esp. in terms of EV?) Some of my other criticisms still stand too, such as not linking to the unrestored version in the 'other versions' section. --jjron (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version definitely; not sure about a re-edit, at least of this particular photograph. Replying to John: Palmer was known for carefully posed, often elaborately lit "staged" photographs. No candid-style military photograph could possibly get this level of quality using color film at the time. That does diminish the EV, but to me it's a product of choosing to take it in color. For me, I'd prefer an unstaged B&W, but it's clear that people are drawn to color photographs from this period. Adam: if you're working on this, please note that there's a different photo from the same shoot with better exposure; one reason the colors are so weird on the one in this nomination is that the original is a little underexposed. Chick Bowen 14:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Highlights on fingers are badly blown, also has blue caste in dark grey areas, forehead. (Hohum ^@) 15:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]