Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Paulette Goddard

Paulette Goddard

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2013 at 02:43:27 (UTC)

Reason: Large size, high resolution, two-month stable in article. This is one of the best and largest portraits we have of her. Because I cannot locate the studio, date, or film that this studio portrait was created by/during, the EV is largely based on her appearance, which I'll explain: this image replaced a previous (and, I was hoping, a potential FP candidate) studio shot that could be dated, but someone with far more knowledge than I switched it because this photograph represents Goddard in her "heyday", during the late 30s to 40s. I am assuming the hairstyle is the clue. (The current nomination is also sharper, while the above linked studio shot is a bit blurry.)
Articles in which this image appears: Paulette Goddard
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Unknown studio

Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ The lighting isn't the best, but otherwise quite good, especially at full size. Brandmeister^talk 07:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right and it didn't even occur to me to fix it before the nomination (my absent-mindedness is not to be trifled with). I tried to emulate other studio photographs that have much less contrast. The original scan is extremely harsh, I agree. I support alt for what it's worth. Also for the record, I did just replace Original with Alt in the Paulette Goddard article, so if seven days are needed for stability, this nom can be put on hold. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have Photoshop or some other program that does the same, try midtone adjustment, shadow reduction and some levels instead of contrast adjustment. That combination looks better IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt Brandmeister^talk 08:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still support alt, nice. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose alt 1, neutral original. The edit looks weird in part because the original is so heavily airbrushed; for example, there's a weird line running about 20 pixels parallel to the right side (her right) of her face. In any case, this is a scan of a print, not a negative, and I suspect the high contrast is deliberate--this was not an uncommon style for publicity photos. Chick Bowen 23:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Taking Brandmeister's comments into account (and Brandmeister is welcome to make any further suggestions) any suggestions what I can do to improve the original to gain your support? Even if this image doesn't pass this round, I wouldn't mind continuing to work on it. Or do you think the image is irreparable? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a style that doesn't appeal to me that much, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. A lot of dodging, burning, and airbrushing was standard practice for these stock publicity photos, and goes along with their slightly artificial look. I prefer in-character publicity shots or proper portraits of celebrities. Chick Bowen 00:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]