Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:William Henry Jackson - Castle of Chapultepec, from the west, Mexico, between 1880 and 1897.jpg

File:William Henry Jackson - Castle of Chapultepec, from the west, Mexico, between 1880 and 1897.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 20:05:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:William Henry Jackson - Castle of Chapultepec, from the west, Mexico, between 1880 and 1897.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:William Henry Jackson - Castle of Chapultepec, from the west, Mexico, between 1880 and 1897.jpg

851

1157

6941

4473

8949

6983

Suggested crop.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Towns
•  Info created by William Henry Jackson - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I understand it's an old photo, but the quality is rather poor at pixel level. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Urban Versis 32: I will say, in its defense, that it's 62 megapixels, which is quite big. I think it's quite sharp at more typical FP sizes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose I'm fine with the quality, and the restoration job is fantastic as always. But we shouldn't ignore the photographic aspects just because it's an old photo by a famous photographer. The composition is uninspiring with too much empty water and sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed. I would support a crop. Yann (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Disagree Altering the format of a photograph taken by a famous photographer is like removing the hands of the Mona Lisa because one doesn't like them or because one considers Da Vinci's composition unsatisfactory. I don't know why there's so much sky and water in this picture, but probably the tastes at this period were different. Altering the composition of a famous photo is counter-encyclopedic in my view.

Personally I don't find the image interesting. Dull light and too many trees obstructing. However, if supporters' votes democratically approve the nomination, I think the only acceptable version is this one, original from the Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division, and not an arbitrary alternative. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Yann, and Basile Morin: I can give some feedback: First of all, this is a negative, and, as such, may not represent the intended final crop, though I find it a bit more likely to be in this case because standard aspect ratios, the border around it with the clear label, and the need to fit the structure onto them: The Detroit Publishing Company did a lot of postcards, and those are very strict aspect ratios. That is, however, a publishing restraint of the time, not an unconstrained artistic choice. Secondly, the Detroit Publishing Company were very big into photochroms - colourised photographs - and that would make the trees a lot more impressive, and any dull lighting could be fixed in the process. Thirdly, the geography of the area seems to make trees a necessity unless aerial photography is used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose unless there is some serious historical importance to this image (by which I mean the image itself, not its subject). Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel. This looks to be the only complete picture of the castle on Commons, so a good VI, but I'm not impressed with the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)