Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cincinnati riverfront 1848

Cincinnati riverfront 1848

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2025 at 19:34:40 (UTC)

Original – Cincinnati riverfront from Newport, Kentucky, 1848.

Reason: Excellent addition to the article. One of the oldest panoramas of its kind, it dates to 1848. FP on Commons. High resolution 59000 x 4300 pixels. To open it you can use ZoomViewer on the file page. Description from the file page is: "Panorama of 2 miles of the riverfront of Cincinnati, Ohio, consisting of 8 full plate daguerreotypes. Taken from a rooftop in Newport, Kentucky. It is the largest daguerreotype scene of its age, and the oldest surviving example of a North American cityscape." This set is a historic artifact in its own right. I don't think a restoration is necessary or adds much to the EV. The set was edited by User:LucaLindholm who adjusted the color tone of some frames (and maybe the brightness too, I am not sure).
Articles in which this image appears: History of Cincinnati
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American
Creator: Charles H. Fontayne and William S. Porter

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very strange, staggered rectangular density variations, most notable in the sky. Are they in the original? (File page links are 404...) --Janke | Talk 10:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the rectangular grid-like-shades!! It can't be on the daguerreotypes, but it is on the scans (original scans). Check the source link, I don't get a 404, it opens fine. There are a bunch of other source links listed on the file page under "Other versions". Some of those are live links. I don't remember where but I read these were enlarged optically first and then scanned (to get the maximum details registered). Maybe the rectangular grid is an artifact of that process! Unfortunately the original uploader Here has cropped out the top part of the sky (about the top 10-15%). I missed that too! I am not sure the crop was a good idea. I am going to withdraw this nom, and look into the grid and the crop. I doubt I be re-nominating it, but I might. I will keep the nom open for a couple of days in case there is more feedback. Bammesk (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Confusing – not very accessible visually for most readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose — I love this in principle but there's just too much wrong with it, more than I think a restoration can fix. The plates aren't aligned, there are the "rectangular density variations", large portions of the individual images are out of focus, vignette effect, possible staining, and of course the usual dust and scratches. Any attempt to correct all of these would require a huge amount of guesswork from the restorer, more than I think is possible without crossing the line into inappropriate digital manipulation. I'd rather just leave this image as it is and simply accept that it's not feature-worthy. Moonreach (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you know we don't judge historic images with the same standards we use on other images. especially mid-1800s images. You are entitled to your opinion. As I wrote in the reason section "This set is a historic artifact in its own right. I don't think a restoration is necessary or adds much to the EV." Obviously we disagree on whether it's feature-worthy or not, on that count. And that's fine. However, given my reply to Janke above, this may well not be feature-worthy. Bammesk (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nom. Bammesk (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]