Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rowland Buckstone and Cissy Grahame in the revival of F. C. Burnand's The Colonel.jpg

File:Rowland Buckstone and Cissy Grahame in the revival of F. C. Burnand's The Colonel.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2023 at 18:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rowland Buckstone and Cissy Grahame in the revival of F. C. Burnand's The Colonel.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rowland Buckstone and Cissy Grahame in the revival of F. C. Burnand's The Colonel.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
•  Info created by London Stereoscopic Company -restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment If a current-day version of this were nominated to QIC, it would presumably be declined because of the cropped feet. On the other hand, the crops are kind of symmetrical, so it seems like a good composition to me. I may well vote for it, but I felt impelled to mention this issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Yes, hard to understand why the original was cropped like this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ikan Kekek and Charlesjsharp: It's probably not reversible as the negatives probably no longer exist, but I don't think cabinet cards - which this was - have the same dimensions as a negative. So it's probably one of those things where they took the photo, they wanted reproductions to hand out, the ratio's fixed for that and pretty narrow horizontally vs. the tall verticals, so... crop crop, here you go. Early photography had some odd constraints, especially when it came to how images got mass produced as opposed to just, y'know, framed as a photo. I checked two glass negatives, and both were a ratio of 4:5, and this cabinet card is almost exactly 2:3 Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Got it, thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Interesting, but the photographer would have known that was going to happen and framed the composition differently. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly, though I've seen weirder things in old photos - often get the same photo in a half-dozen different forms - oval cropped, a wide crop, a narrow crop, a stereoscopic square crop. Also, I'm not sure if cutting things off on the side was looked down on as much back then. (Also, consider [1] and [2] - clearly the same photo, but the second is far better cropped. Maybe they were just sloppy back then? Kinda rare to see a carte-de-visite or cabinet card with two people in it that I'd be entirely happy with the crop of, anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Every time I look at this I dislike the cropped feet more! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, it's a judgement call. It's a valid opinion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose With Charles, the crop of the feet spoils the historic composition. --August Geyler (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- With Ch. Dion Art (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charlesjamp. -- Karelj (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People_at_work