Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nell Mercer 1910-20.jpg

File:Nell Mercer 1910-20.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2022 at 05:18:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Nell Mercer 1910-20.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nell Mercer 1910-20.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
•  Info Unknown photographer - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak support I am going forth and back on this one. On the one hand, your restauration is excellent (as always), her smile is natural and charming, and I also like how the photo just fades at the bottom. On the other hand, the face seems not as sharp as the collar, therefore I wonder whether the photographer has focussed imperfectly or if there is a tiny little bit of motion blur … Please correct me if I am missing something. --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's a very 1910s aesthetic. I don't entirely love it, but I also don't like changing past aesthetics. 23:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  The 1910s were kind of a nadir in photographic quality. You started to be able to take photos quickly. Candid shots were possible, you didn't need to find a pose that you could hold motionless for minutes on end, you could go into a random place and take a photo... But they weren't as good, as user-friendly as the old ones. The benefits outweighed what they lost, and eventually, cameras and film caught up - as did all the photographers who suddenly had to learn new techniques - but the cost of that freedom and the need to retrain was that the quality dipped for a while. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your explanantions, Adam! This photo could even be taken as a good example for the benefits and drawbacks you mention – I imagine it would have been difficult to capture her natural, spontaneous smile with the old, slower photographic technique, but on the other hand the photographer was not able to frame and focus as meticulously as before. --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose The 'fading' doesn't work for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is entirely fair. I've always been tempted to crop it, but it feels wrong to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Neutral I really can't decide for a similar reason as Aristeas. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm gonna go with my gut and  Oppose. A historic photo that illustrates a period of poor-quality photography seems to me to be a perfect COM:VIC candidate but not one of the best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Princess Rosalina 💄 452115 08:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)