Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Sharecroppers, Green County, GA - OWI
[edit]
High-quality, beautifully composed, visually illustrative, free image, semi-famous photographer
- Articles this image appears in
- Sharecropping
- Comments
- Needs looking at by User:Durova possibly wont pass as is but even a crop removing the things at the side could do. However the user I suggested fully restores these types of photos --Childzy ¤ Talk 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Left margin contains registration marks and a small amount of metadata/stock info that'd be hard to justify omitting for aesthetics. Perhaps a second version? Cadastral (Talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- No honestly check out her images, shes restored over 250 images. Basically its not illustrating metadata/stock info so that doesnt need to be in the picture. Also the scratches and lines can be removed. See this image compared to this image --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- And we've hit upon an interesting and contentious issue faced frequently by archivists; at which point is it prudent to subordinate fidelity for aesthetics (or expediency, or technological limitation, or prevailing best-practices, and on and on)? I'm inclined to believe that restraint, in this and similar cases, is a virtue. Many, many people can use a clone-stamp tool or healing brush--and by all means let them do this, if their purpose requires it--but nobody, nobody can undo a destructive edit. It is not the right call in this case, in my opinion. Prioritizing small, step-wise increases in perceived quality at the expense of preserving fidelity seems short-sighted in light of the potential benefits of a minimally-processed image. Anyone can "fix" it, nobody can "un-fix" it.Cadastral (Talk) 09:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not like the original would actually be altered. And we keep the un-edited picture around too. That's the beauty of digital restoration: you can fix things without worrying about ruining the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- And we've hit upon an interesting and contentious issue faced frequently by archivists; at which point is it prudent to subordinate fidelity for aesthetics (or expediency, or technological limitation, or prevailing best-practices, and on and on)? I'm inclined to believe that restraint, in this and similar cases, is a virtue. Many, many people can use a clone-stamp tool or healing brush--and by all means let them do this, if their purpose requires it--but nobody, nobody can undo a destructive edit. It is not the right call in this case, in my opinion. Prioritizing small, step-wise increases in perceived quality at the expense of preserving fidelity seems short-sighted in light of the potential benefits of a minimally-processed image. Anyone can "fix" it, nobody can "un-fix" it.Cadastral (Talk) 09:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- No honestly check out her images, shes restored over 250 images. Basically its not illustrating metadata/stock info so that doesnt need to be in the picture. Also the scratches and lines can be removed. See this image compared to this image --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Left margin contains registration marks and a small amount of metadata/stock info that'd be hard to justify omitting for aesthetics. Perhaps a second version? Cadastral (Talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You do what you think is right --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Seconder