Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/charles darwin

Charles Darwin Portrait

Reason: Amazing quality. Darwin is a hugely important historical figure, whom we have no current FPs of. Appears in 4 articles, but could also perhaps find a place in Julia Margaret Cameron.
Articles this image appears in: Shrewsbury, Bahá'í Faith and science, Charles Darwin, Clarel
Creator: Julia Margaret Cameron

Support as nominator --smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Needs clean-up. Clegs (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Needs restoration - I'll support once restored. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Great potential, though.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wait a sec. There may be a bit too much of a rush to call for restoration on some of these historical images, without sufficient attention to whether a given nomination is the right image to attempt restoring. This is a full profile of a very old Darwin, with full beard and eyes almost in complete shadow. And it's soft focus, which restoration isn't going to fix. I'd say at best, with a brilliant cleanup, it'd earn my weak support--principally because Wikipedia's Darwin biography already hosts several portraits that are technically superior as works of art. Rather than presuming that restoration of this image is the thing to work on, we really would be better off checking archives for high resolution versions of superior portraiture. And unfortuantely, I already have more than I can keep up with, so I won't be available to do more than coach if someone wants to undertake a Darwin restoration. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a valid point. I actually did a fairly cursory online search for good Darwin images some time ago and couldn't find anything of decent resolution freely available. This looks to have been scanned out of a book or something similar, and I suspect a lot of the problems come from a fairly average scan of a perhaps ordinary print, not just problems with the real original. Re choice of image, I certainly prefer an old bearded Darwin image, though this is far from my favourite - despite this I was inclined to support if quality had have been reasonable. --jjron (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to dig through some archives to see what I can find. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hunch the best solution will probably wind up being a scan of a good book reproduction (pre-halftoning). Durova^Charge! 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you find option 2 more suitable? smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should suspend the nom while restoration is underway?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the gist of the above discussion is that the original is almost beyond restoration, Alt 2 is a viable alternative. --jjron (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yes, much. Support alternate. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Whats up with his face? It looks way too bright. There are some strange looking artifacts too. I would love an FP of Darwin, I'm not sure this is it. Would change to support of someone can explain away my objections. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone verify the dates on these. The first one says 1868, the second says 1869. At a guess I would have said they were taken in the same sitting, but that could be wrong (if so, it shows just how degraded the first one is, but I'm having trouble determining if the clothing is identical). But that's all a bit peripheral, because to me they look like they are taken considerably later than this, it looks to me to be an older Darwin - if the dates given are correct then this is a man not yet 60 years old. A complication is that Cameron apparently moved back to Ceylon in 1875, so if she is indeed the photographer, then they must predate that. Hmmm.... --jjron (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in a few art books I have lying around and see if I can verify the dates. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, on second thoughts the dates could well be right. Darwin aged quite rapidly from his unidentified illness and from the stress after the publication of the Origin, and these would be almost 10 years after it was first printed. Also I've compared with some other images and these don't stand out as obviously unbelievable. Wouldn't mind a confirmation on the 68/69 question, i.e., that these are from different sittings with Cameron. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin went on holiday to the Isle of Wight on July 16 1868, and rented a cottage from the photographer Julia Margaret Cameron who took Darwin's portrait – they returned home on 21 August 1868. Browne says Cameron took three portraits of Darwin during that period, the most successful being three quarters view, so that suggests they're both from 1868. No indication I've found of any Darwin portraits by her in 1869. Sources: Browne Power of Place p. 301, Desmond & Moore, Darwin's journal 47 recto and timeline. . dave souza, talk 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option 2. Oh, what the hey. Not my favourite Darwin photo ever, and I'd personally rather a downsize, but it's good enough. Can always add or replace if we get a better one. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 2. Liking the sharpness. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I've always preferred this of all the dwarwwin pictures - it's the only one that looks three-dimensional. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 2--Avala (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original - too dark.--Avala (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor quality - even historic photos need to be held to reasonable standard --Abdominator (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify whether you are opposing both, or just the original? --jjron (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm opposing both. First one is dark, unsharp and grainy. Second one is unsharp, hands cut off, and although the beard isn't blown as in it's not pure white it is blown in that all the highlights merge into a single shade of gray and lose all detail. --Abdominator (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Abdominator. I will, however, support a not so dark, and cleaned up version of the the original. Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]