Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Coldstream Guards from the Crimean War

Coldstream Guards in the Crimean War

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2019 at 22:54:32 (UTC)

Reason: Stumbled across this while checking out a new archive. I think it's a particularly nice bit of ephemera, good enough for Queen Victoria to get a personal negative of the image.
Articles in which this image appears: Coldstream Guards, Facial hair in the military
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military
Creator: Hughes & Mullins after Cundall & Howlett; restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 22:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Interesting 19th-C. military garb – outlandish to say the least – but the image is awfully muddy. Sca (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the nature of carbon prints. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 15:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about a slight gamma correction like the demo below?
Small size demo only - Suggestion for gamma correction
--Janke | Talk 17:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's quite a bit too much. Remember, these were darkish red British army uniforms, probably dark blue, red, or black trousers (they're clearly not the white trousers used in some regiments, and they're black now, but these things change - so the image shouldn't be made too light. I could see it a bit lighter, but given we know the approximate colours of the uniforms, and those hats are quite dark - dark brown or black, and given a Crimean tan, I don't think we're actually that unrealistic. Still, shall I just upload over? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 17:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I tweaked gamma a bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 18:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we go by the book, this photo hasn't been in the article(s) the required amount of time... another, a b/w cropped version, sure, but how shall the rules be read? Just saying! ;-P --Janke | Talk 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, replacing a lower-quality version is considered a stable useage: "this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image." Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 20:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a quibble, but they aren't the same photograph. They're two different photographs of the same men. TSP (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say variant photographs more than different photographs. The changes are very small. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 12:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrusd, just Withdraw, this. I'll bring it back in a week or two, with a nomination that hasn't been thoroughly derailed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 13:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed they were more bright red, as in this illustration, no? – Sca (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: There's no clear visual distinction between the darkness of trousers and jacket, and we know they had black trousers, so either chemically reds showed up darker than they were in these photos - which I'm not sure we can fix - or the jacket was darker than we think. In any case, we KNOW that hat is black. We can experiment with lifting at specific points to try and get a distinction, but making the hat and trousers light is misleading. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I wonder if that has anything to do with the use of red in night-adaption goggles and red lights as night-vision conditioning in submarines? Just a thought. – Sca (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per this request on my talk page. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]