Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Inupiat Family
Inupiat Family from Noatak, Alaska, 1929[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2013 at 02:14:52 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- I first noticed an earlier, lighter rendition of this image on our Eskimo article, and it's in fact the image the introduced me to Edward S. Curtis's photography. After replacing this faded image with a slightly larger cleaned-up version I found at the PrintCollection website and noticing no one had deleted it or reverted it, I decided to restore the full size version myself, and this is the final product. The image stands out among Curtis's photographs as one of the best family portraits (he also photographed the kid by him/herself). The Library of Congress's version is unfortunately extremely contrasty, so I tried to lessen it. The image portrays a family in their regular clothing—unfortunately I don't know exactly what it is (otter, perhaps) and until I find out, I can't mention it in the description. The parents seem relaxed, but the kid has a fierce look of strength on his face that I love. I believe the image adds significantly to each article it appears in because it is a clear, close up portrayal of a small family, and it contrasts nicely with other images of these people at work.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Inupiat people, Inuit, Eskimo
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Traditional
- Creator
- Edward S. Curtis (photograph) and Library of Congress (scan); Keraunoscopia (restoration)
- Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you say more about your process here? The facial tone looks pretty different, beyond what I'd expect from the contrast adjustment. Did you do any blurring or dodging of the skin? Chick Bowen 04:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't blur the face. I removed the white flaky crap that was all over the picture, which appears everywhere, from the background, to the fur, to their faces. I didn't consider it a part of the face because It appeared more in focus, "sharper", than the rest of the details in the face. There's still some of it on their faces, I couldn't get rid of all of it. I tried to limit my use of the healing brush tool on the faces because it was softening their faces, but it couldn't be avoided either. You can still see some of this dandruffy-looking stuff at the top of the woman's forehead, where her hair begins, for example. I tried to burn as much of it as I could, on their faces, but used the healing brush on the background. I used the burn tool to remove water stains (that's what they looked like) from their fur as well. The kid's face appears out of focus (his eyes are certainly soft), but the flaky white stuff is in focus. So I removed it. Removing the white does change the appearance of the face, almost like removing highlights. I didn't just fly through this image, I spent two weeks on it, going through it slowly every day, flipping back and forth between the original and the new, and I guarantee I was definitely concerned for the faces. But I'm convinced it's not flaking or peeling skin, especially if it appears all over the image. No dodging was done, either. Tools used were burn, regular clone, and healing brushes. Hope that helps explain a bit? Don't worry, I know exactly what you're talking about with the faces. It's the biggest change (background excluded). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know you didn't fly through it! The amount of work you've put in and the care you've taken is obvious. As you clearly recognize, there are are gains and losses involved in this kind of work (I try to avoid using the word restoration, since I think we have to acknowledge we are reconstructing something without the possibility of confidently matching the original, not restoring something that once was). The question is ultimately a philosophical one. My own instincts in this regard are extremely conservative, as I'm sure people on this page are tired of hearing about. Chick Bowen 05:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well I'm new here (sort of—new at nominating, I guess), but I greatly appreciate your comments and I'm not tired of hearing of them yet! I consider it all constructive criticism. I hope I didn't come off as defensive above, because I wasn't trying to be. I expect, and will learn from, all comments from across the board, conservative and otherwise. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know you didn't fly through it! The amount of work you've put in and the care you've taken is obvious. As you clearly recognize, there are are gains and losses involved in this kind of work (I try to avoid using the word restoration, since I think we have to acknowledge we are reconstructing something without the possibility of confidently matching the original, not restoring something that once was). The question is ultimately a philosophical one. My own instincts in this regard are extremely conservative, as I'm sure people on this page are tired of hearing about. Chick Bowen 05:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support I imagine that the original negative may have been developed under far less than optimal conditions; the crap looks like it is embedded in the original negative. In the old days, we used Spotone to remove these specks on the developed prints. This would have been days of work, and you'd have only the single print... Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photo for the articles. The image was cleaned with care -- whether others would have done that differently is possible. -- Colin°Talk 08:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support per above. --Pine✉ 19:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't blur the face. I removed the white flaky crap that was all over the picture, which appears everywhere, from the background, to the fur, to their faces. I didn't consider it a part of the face because It appeared more in focus, "sharper", than the rest of the details in the face. There's still some of it on their faces, I couldn't get rid of all of it. I tried to limit my use of the healing brush tool on the faces because it was softening their faces, but it couldn't be avoided either. You can still see some of this dandruffy-looking stuff at the top of the woman's forehead, where her hair begins, for example. I tried to burn as much of it as I could, on their faces, but used the healing brush on the background. I used the burn tool to remove water stains (that's what they looked like) from their fur as well. The kid's face appears out of focus (his eyes are certainly soft), but the flaky white stuff is in focus. So I removed it. Removing the white does change the appearance of the face, almost like removing highlights. I didn't just fly through this image, I spent two weeks on it, going through it slowly every day, flipping back and forth between the original and the new, and I guarantee I was definitely concerned for the faces. But I'm convinced it's not flaking or peeling skin, especially if it appears all over the image. No dodging was done, either. Tools used were burn, regular clone, and healing brushes. Hope that helps explain a bit? Don't worry, I know exactly what you're talking about with the faces. It's the biggest change (background excluded). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support per above. JKadavoor Jee 05:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support. It's a striking picture. -- mathwhiz29 18:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Well done/ JJ Harrison (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Inupiat Family from Noatak, Alaska, 1929, Edward S. Curtis (restored).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)