Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mary Martin in The Sound of Music by Toni Frissell.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Mary Martin in The Sound of Music by Toni Frissell.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 00:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People - I honestly don't know where to categorize this. Suggestions?
Info created by Toni Frissell - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)- Support INeverCry 01:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good question, which one. I've been thinking about it before. Black and white for sure, its good we have that category, also that is given as type of photo, while other shots refer to what is inside of photo. So i suggest puting all black and white shots also into "about category", my cycle would be transport-objects or People, this one would be People probably also... an issue to be solved. --Mile (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - A great moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment As usual, I suggest a crop to avoid the centered composition. As for the image as such, it surely is a great moment well captured but also very, very unsharp and noisy. I’m not sure the historical value makes up for that. So, a regretful 
Oppose from my side. --Kreuzschnabel 11:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Kreuzschnabel: With things like en:Template:CSS image crop, I think it's generally better to have the more-or-less uncropped be the one promoted, unless there's major issues, e.g. the Billy Strayhorn pic a while back where the closeness of the camera made the knees look very large and odd if uncropped. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Code (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. ~ Moheen (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Analogic photogram don't work with the common standard "noise" (electronic noise) definition. --The Photographer (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make "analog" noise more tolerable than "digital" noise. We usually don’t excuse for drawbacks just because they’re impossible to handle in postprocessing. And there have been low-noise analog photographs too --Kreuzschnabel 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, basically, I find a free-licensed photograph of a highly notable musical, and it's going to get voted down over film grain? The kids are running , so it's high-speed film. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Oh, please. Oppose in FPC doesn’t mean the picture is bad, or unusable, lacks value or anything in that direction. It just means that I don’t think it’s one of the finest images there are on Commons. And I clearly stated why. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, basically, I find a free-licensed photograph of a highly notable musical, and it's going to get voted down over film grain? The kids are running , so it's high-speed film. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make "analog" noise more tolerable than "digital" noise. We usually don’t excuse for drawbacks just because they’re impossible to handle in postprocessing. And there have been low-noise analog photographs too --Kreuzschnabel 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support excellent quality in this year. --Ralf Roleček 23:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there were methods of obtaining finer grain back in the days – we can see that in the portraits that are nominated here quite regularly. But those are studio shots where you could choose slow films and large formats. For stuff like this, you need a fast shutter speed, so I'd guess something like Tri-X was used (400 ASA was considered fast at that time). A mobile camera probably doesn't hurt either, so probably 135 film (the aspect ratio seems to support this). Now keep in mind that the default print size for 135 film was 4×6 (10×15 cm or A6), which is smaller than the default preview size of our file description pages. This one still looks quite good at, say, 1280px on the long side. Based on my (admittedly very limited) personal experience with B&W 35mm film photography, I'm leaning towards supporting this as one of our finest 1950s/1960s action shots. --El Grafo (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent analisis, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
