Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Golda Meir

Golda Meir edit

Golda Meir, March 1, 1973. 495 KB

1.95 MB, complete reedit. Proposed replacement.

Alternate edit

Reason: Proposing a delist/replace with a higher resolution version and a complete reedit of the photograph. The difference between the old and new version is especially noticeable at the face where the current FP overemphasizes midtone contrast but doesn't do much with the shadows. We get more of the expression in her eyes now. Better dust/scratch cleanup, etc. Compare to unedited File:Golda Meir.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Links to the article/s that use this image
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Golda Meir 03265u.jpg
Nominator: Durova³⁹⁰

Delist — Durova³⁹⁰ 00:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support (even though there doesn't seem to be much in the way of real detail gained by the higher res version, as it's very soft), but I think I prefer the contrast in the previous version. Her face in particular seems a bit washed out and lacking shadows in the proposed replacement. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 01:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the new version looks washed out. The contrast in the previous version seems to be less flat, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will give it another pass if you really think so. IMO the original version was far too contrasty for soft indoor lighting. Have a look at the original; didn't want to darken her face too much. But will do one more edit for comparison. Might need to upload it tomorrow morning (California time). Durova³⁹⁰ 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can only speculate about the lighting used in this photo, but I would imagine that it was all natural/ambient and not a 'studio' type shot. If so, notice her shadow on the sofa. The light appears to be coming in at a fairly low angle, which suggests to me that it was sunlight through a window, and sunlight isn't usually soft. I'm only guessing but I don't think I would assume it was soft lighting. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added a second edit. The lighting is coming from at least two sources; this has double shadows. The shadows on the sofa and the pilaster don't appear to be particularly harsh; it looks more like the editor on the current FP overemphasized midtone contrast. The result looks great in thumbnail but I don't think it holds up so well at full resolution. Anyway, Commons requires 2 MB and larger files for its FP consideration. So it was necessary to start from scratch to get something that would qualify there. Choose whichever you think is best. Regards, Durova³⁹⁰ 09:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, the edit improves the contrast a little. By the way, just a FYI: AFAIK, Commons doesn't require 2mb (megabytes) and larger files. It requires 2 megapixels and larger. The former is a measure of the number of digital bits which comprise the image file, and the latter is a measure of the number of pixels in the image - big difference. The original already qualified for Commons FPC with 4.37 megapixels (1822 x 2400 pixels). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Right you are; kick me for reading comprehension. ;) At any rate, it makes sense to work from the best scan available. Comparing the current FP version against the unedited original it was disappointing to see how it had been handled. Looks decent in thumbnail, but doesn't hold up very well at full resolution and was cropped too low. Durova³⁹⁴ 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support its is not in use (as a result of resent edits). The additional space from above helps to the leaning of the head. The column now is not chopped by a crop that is not that necessary. franklin 05:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist/replace Alternate Edit. Per nom and discussion above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Alt Edit per Diliff. I do agree that the new version doesn't gain much in detail due to softness, but with the alternate edited to lessen the wash-out feel, I don't see why we shouldn't replace it. upstate NYer 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Alt Edit per above. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole point of the succession of edits in the original nomination was in fact to bring out the detail in her face while keeping the overt grain of the background in check. Neither of the two proposed alternatives help in this context, in fact they mostly look like the rejected Edit 2. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose The crop and contrast of the orignial makes the image look better... Both of these could be accomplished with another edit of the larger version... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The contrast of the original remains better. I would like a larger size file, but to exchange for quantity for quality is not good, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per trialsanderrors. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late-breaking consensus makes this a keep. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]