Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Steerage

The Steerage

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 14:15:56 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution copy of an iconic photograph
Articles in which this image appears: The Steerage, Photography, Alfred Stieglitz, Fine-art photography, Steerage, Princeton University Art Museum
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: Alfred Stieglitz

Support as nominator It has been hailed as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism. cf. Wikipedia. – Yann (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another version of this, also from Google Art Project, that I've added as Alt 1. It's smaller and less clean, but also has detail the other version is missing; I'd suspect it's from a different original print. (It also doesn't have the skew, which I think is an improvement unless it's an intentional artistic part of the work.) I'm not sure if it's more desirable, but it seems to introduce some questions that are worthy of consideration. TSP (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pink stain is an issue here. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The overall sepia tint? That can easily be edited (if we understand it wasn't the photographer's intent); just as the skew can be fixed on the other one. The bigger question is making sure whatever we feature is as high quality a version as possible; which generally means basing it on the highest quality possible source. In this case I'm not sure there is a clear winner. TSP (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not sepia, but pink. I made a real black and white version, which can be compared: File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project, from Getty, grayscale.jpg. I don't see any reason to choose this one: smaller, more noisy, etc. If you want to look at other versions, File:The Steerage MET DP232922.jpg is better than your alternative, but still smaller than the original. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Met version may be better than either. Raw pixel count isn't everything if it just represents more grain rather than any more detail - I think the Met version may actually be the best despite being the smallest. The people along the rail all have visible expressions in the Met version, but many are blurs of grain in both the others. It would need cleaning up and probably a contrast adjustment. (Google Art has nine different versions of this photo, all with different merits.) TSP (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made a grayscale version with some contrat ajustment: File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg. Do you agree to replace your alternative with this one? I would eventually do some restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - replaced. TSP (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Alt 2 This isn't an image captured in greyscale, this was a sepia image. Two different copies are both sepia, and we're going to arbitrarily change that?! No. We shouldn't make such changes without darn good reasons, especially in the undocumented way this one was, where there's no strong indication the image was modified like that except the filename - which doesn't say "It was changed" just "It's in greyscale", and doesn't link the original.

Seriously. We're nominating this in part as a formative work of art, then are changing the colours? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 10:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much we know about the photographer's original intent in terms of colouration; Google Art Project has ten different versions of this from different prints, which show a fair range of different shades; and I don't know how much that would have changed with the age of each print?

In any case, we also have the original scan from the MET which has the same detail level without recolouration, so that could be considered another alt; though it is a lot yellower than most of the other prints. Ultimately there are dozens of possible versions of this that could be nominated. TSP (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but literally none of the versions are greyscale. I'm inclined to go with the Met version, just because I trust their colour fidelity a bit more. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 03:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Do you have any reference showing that the autthor intended to make it sepia? So far, it is only the effect of time on old prints. And none of our copies are really sepia, but rather different shades of pink. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Things don't just become sepia over time, it's down to how the print is made. See Photographic print toning Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I checked a few spots on the Metropolitan Museum image, and all are Hue 30 or higher, which is pretty solidly in orange, so I'm not sure how you're getting pink. Are you sure your monitor's calibrated? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 17:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I uploaded a real sepia version. You can see the the differences. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]