Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Charles Darwin seated

Charles Darwin seated

Reason: Another high quality image of Charles Darwin. This one does have some jpeg artifacting (especially in the darker areas), but the high res and EV should make up for it.
Articles this image appears in: Charles Darwin
Creator: Henry Maull and John Fox (Maull & Fox)

Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not as iconic, but encyclopedic, to see him without the beard when he was younger. Wish it was better quality, but it's old, and it's Darwin. Fletcher (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this File:Charles_Darwin_01.jpg is the best Darwin image on Wikipedia. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So... you're opposing this to balance them? :/ GARDEN 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about nominating that one? It did pretty well when it was tagged onto the nomination of a different image last year. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Smooth...though there's good EV, the quality is too bad for me personally, and File:Charles Darwin 01.jpg is an example of what better quality could possibly look like. Spencer^T♦^C 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, for the odd background shading as well. Spencer^T♦^C 00:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remember your dates, people: a photo from 1860 (or earlier - the actual date given on the page is "1850s", but Kaldari says he was 51, let's presume she knows) is going to look worse than one from nearly a decade later, simply because this was a period of rapid improvement in photographic equipment. The younger Darwin probably could not be taken any more accurately. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks like a calotype (date seems about right) so is naturally "soft" looking and will always appear inferior to the definition of other processes of the time. Agree with above comment, I can't see any point in judging these as we would digital pics; there's little point in looking at them in minute detail as they were a lot smaller than your average monitor at full size. Nonetheless I also agree File:Charles Darwin 01.jpg is a much better, more erm, Darwinesque portrait of the man and one I'd support over this candidate. mikaul^talk 12:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This version is significantly cropped compared to some other versions of the same photo, and there are some weird artifacts/smudges on this one as well. Incidentally, I think File:Darwin - John G Murdoch Portrait restored.jpg is the best photo we have of Darwin, but obviously I'm a bit biased having helped restore it. As for the date, I'm not entirely sure; different places give different ones. I think the "age 51" comes from an early 20th century book, but isn't necessarily accurate.--ragesoss (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]