Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Geirangerfjord, Norway

Seven Sisters Waterfall, Geirangerfjord, Norway

**Original** - A view of the Seven Sisters Waterfall by the Geirangerfjord in Norway. This fjord is a prominent tourist attraction, an Unesco World Heritage Site and a beautiful masterpiece of Mother Nature.

Reason: It's an historic image of one of Norway's most prominent tourist attractions. It depicts the waterfall beautifully in their context. The image has the necessary EV in my opinion. For an historic image, it possesses a good tachnical quality. The resolution is high and I've done my best to restore it to the best of my abilities.
Articles this image appears in: Geirangerfjord and Fjord
Creator: Unknown, restauration by Massimo Catarinella

Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What would a historic image of the waterfall have over a newer photograph? I think that if a new photograph would depict exactly the same scene, then it would likely be superior. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fascinating old photo, but the colors are totally unnatural (colored b/w print, hardly from an Autochrome?), and I see no real need for an imperfect old image of a subject that can be reshot today. Enc would be higher in a photo history article. --Janke | Talk 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken at sunset, so it's normal the colors are a little bit warmer. As for the old photograph versus new photographs.., Wikipedia first of all doesn't have a "new" picture which is superior to this one. Second this picture draws the most attention of all current pictures of this subject available and last but not least. Why have we featured old images in the past of structures which could currently be photographed again with modern equipment (example: Castle Neuschwanstein)? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it was taken at sunset - note shadows! It's just colored to look so - note that the very same image, with different colors, is in a galler on the G-fjord page! Also, this is most probably hand-colored, so it doesn't show the real colors. --Janke | Talk 09:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Yes, we could have a modern picture as well, but an older photo, this carefully hand-tinted, helps establish that it's been a tourist attraction a very long time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm generally sympathetic to arguments about historical significance but in this case I would think the date, the photographer, the circumstances of photography, or something else about the historical context would be needed. As for the tinting: I know that we've had hand-tinted photographs before, but usually when something stands out about the technique. In this case we actually have another, differently tinted version of the same photograph, suggesting that it was in wide circulation in the period and there's nothing all that special about this one. It definitely adds to the article and I'm glad it was uploaded, but I don't see it as a feature picture. Chick Bowen 04:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I see a lot of archival photochroms and get the same impulse. It's a beautiful medium in its own right, in spite of the technical limitations. Wikipedia has featured photochrom images of historic subjects that have changed or disappeared over time, but old landscape photography generally needs to compete against modern technology. Two examples follow. Durova^Charge! 06:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, this image was not "carefully hand-tinted". The tinting was mass produced lithography; hence the weaknesses at high resolution. Durova^Charge! 08:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A definition of terms - a photochrom has to be hand-tinted at first, right? Even if that means you'll have to make 10 litho separation originals... --Janke | Talk 09:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adding examples for comparison. Durova^Charge! 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Alexander's Church, Warsaw. Destroyed in WWII and never rebuilt on the original scale
Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. A 1904 photograph that's brilliant by any standard.
Actual hand tinting on a photograph: an 1851 daguerrotype.
An 1890s photochrom before restoration. Note the imperfect alignment of coloration for the hillside pathway in the background at far right and large areas if red dye drips beneath the cart and surrounding the boy, also the mottled and blotchy tone of overall coloration. These are common flaws to the photochrom process.
After restoration.

But the following picture is also a FP, but the building itself and its surroundings are still the same. This doesn't show much consistency in policy. But thanks for the comment Durova. In the future I will only put images like those up for FPC. As for the colors, they can be adjusted if you would like me to. --09:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I think a recent, high quality photograph would give more information to the viewer. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The people in the boat make this a historical image, and the image clearly shows the falls as a longstanding object of interest. From there the image has enough for me to support. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]