Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Midnight at the glassworks

Midnight at the glassworks[edit]

Reason: Encyclopedic (not to mention poignant) image of child labour, taken by a Famous Photographer. Had quite my work cut out to restore the image, too: loads of dust & scratches, part of the image peeled off, wear & tear.
Articles this image appears in: Lewis Hine, National Child Labor Committee
Creator: Lewis Hine, photographer. Restored by mvuijlst.

~~Support as nominator~~ --Mvuijlst (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative. Chick Bowen was right. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This photograph has tremendous EV. The obvious quality issues, such as what appears to be vignetting on the left side of the photo, should be overlooked considering the photograph's age and encyclopedic value. The visage of the boy on the left is particularly engaging, making this a unique photograph. -- AJ24 (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 04:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support either. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Excellent. Maedin\^talk 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I've decided to Support alternative. Thanks for uploading this version, I think it's a small improvement. Maedin\^talk 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for encyclopedic value for child labor images. ~~Oppose~~ Support alternative. I don't think I'm too talented at examining featured pictures, but, yes, per comment below, why were the background people removed? If they are removed to make it look like there are fewer people it removes the historical value, and, therefore, the encyclopedic value, if the image was shot with the intention of social reform by a photographer noted for that. --KP Botany (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! No! Don't do this! I've really work long and hard at this with the utmost respect for both subject and image. :)

No background figures were removed at all. Everything that was in there, still is in there. This may be a monitor contrast issue. I've uploaded a non-colour corrected version for comparison, a difference mask (which shows the differences between the unrestored and restored versions -- white is more difference) and a TIFF version with restored and unrestored layers and proposed/used histogram adjustment layers so anyone can see there's no figures removed at all.

-- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered whether it was a monitor issue, but, realize, most computer users have no idea you can color-correct a monitor for greater accuracy in rendering images.

An editor below notes that the amount of detail in the background on the left is reduced signficantly. This, as this Chick Bowen points out "makes the foreground figures more prominent relative to the background." It excludes a number of the background figures, reducing one aspect of the abhorrent working conditions faced by the children of the glassworks in the image. Also the figure whose appearance is reduced could be a guard, better clothes, a light.

Hines was a sociologist, by the way, although our Wikipedia article just says he's a photographer. Photography was his tool.

Losing the background figure on the left detracts from the image. --KP Botany (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me there's a world of difference between "a background figure / detail was lost" and "on my monitor it looks as if a background figure / detail is lost" (and that's why I thought the "is my monitor calibrated correctly?" doohicky is at the top of the WP-FPC page, but still).

The "is my monitor calibrated correctly?" is no good to most of the people who will be viewing these images as featured pictures on the main page. I work in a production image lab and would never judge them on their perfected view. Still, I think the other user brought this up, and I think he was correct. I loved the image because of the looks of the two boys in the front; but I see the EV of the image more in the less contrasty version, and it makes me more interested in the photographer. --KP Botany (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the histogram. Would you support the alternative edit? -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative Great photo. -- matt3591 ^T^C 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alernative 1 Outstanding EV. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. I realize I'm chiming in a bit late here, but I think this is overrestored. The desaturation has greatly reduced the amount of visible detail, particularly in the background on the left. I think this actually distort's Hine's intentions, since it makes the foreground figures more prominent relative to the background than, I think, Hine wanted them. I would support a more conservative restoration. Chick Bowen 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above: I respectfully disagree. Alternative histograms could be applied, but none of the information was lost. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...but I'm nothing if not flexible.:)

Added an alternative edit with less contrast and more of the original colouring. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support alternative. Thank you for your flexibility. You were right that no information was lost in your original version, but contrast isn't about information, it's about prominence. So, thanks again. Chick Bowen 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very happy that wasn't me. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This has good EV, much better than the last Lewis Hine picture. But I think I see some of the loss in detail that Chick Bowen mentions. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Alternative This one looks better to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for original, weak support for alternative. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Midnight at the glassworks2b.jpg MER-C 09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]