Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pension Office interior

Pension Office interior[edit]

Reason: Nice and comprehensive shot of the Office's old interior. The right bottom corner was photoshopped a bit.
Articles this image appears in: National Building Museum
Creator: National Photo Company Collection, uploaded by Brandmeister

Support as nominator --Brand[t] 11:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some interesting damage near the top - could use a little light restoration to fix it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a glow, the restoration is welcome. Brand[t] 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support due to photoshopping of pic mentioned in description and also what i assume is motion blur on people in pic (including ghostly double man at right of pic) this is only weak support. would be oppose but obviously cannot retake pic! Gazhiley (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sharp and great EV. ceranthor 16:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Great shot and a wonderful example of late collodion work but I'd want to see the original file linked on the image page before supporting. Retouching the sort of flaws that appear on the top of the frame here isn't a good idea, as it's not damage as such but original detail. The emulsion doesn't always coat or dry on the glass perfectly and a lot of the time the edges show this weird, uneven, botchy finish. It's nearly always going to be a net loss to the image attempting to repair these flaws, IMO. Oh and figures are always going to be blurred in an interior shot with a dark lens and a very slow emulsion. I think they really add to the "story" of the shot, personally. --mikaul^talk 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The original file with watermark is here. Actually I don't think there was some motion-blur preventing technology back then. Brand[t] 09:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lacking documentation. Please upload the unrestored version to Commons, link between versions, and add detailed notes about the edits performed. "Photoshopped a bit" is not sufficient. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Brand[t] 09:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the upload. Unless I've missed it, the specific edits still aren't listed. And there's extensive uncorrected damage in the upper ten percent of the image. Looks like water or chemical stains. Durova³⁰⁶ 18:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See another version linked in the description, the watermark was removed. Brand[t] 09:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Damage near the top. If it's fixed, this would probably be a support. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended to allow editing and documentation fixes: Can also be closed and renominated later, as nominator desires, but I don't like upsetting ongoing work. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 00:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. Brand[t] 09:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, so who's editing and fixing? --jjron (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants. Brand[t] 13:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if no one wants to? Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think SMH was assuming Brand was working on it - if not, and if no one else puts their hand up to do so, I'll close it. --jjron (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked SH. If nothing ultimately happens, then yes, could be closed. Brand[t] 19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (has been suspended for over two weeks with no updates; would basically require nom to be restarted anyway, so if concerns are addressed it can be renominated). --jjron (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]