Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Apollo 15 flag, rover, LM, Irwin.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Apollo 15 flag, rover, LM, Irwin.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Visit the nomination page.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 10:18:37
Original FP Replacement

  •  Comment If you want the new photo as an FP instead you have to write {{delist and replace}}, otherwise there is no point in including the new version in this nominatrion. --Cart (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist and replace Far better, and rightly replaced, already on en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/James Irwin salute. The previous version is downsized and too contrasted -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm a little hesitant of promoting a version that is so far from the original historical photo. Uploading higher resolution and restoration is one thing, doing a radical enhancing and upgrading is another. --Cart (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment What do you consider "the original", Cart? I guess none of us has seen the original color slide, so we can only guess which version is closer to it. Do we know what film stock was used? Compared to the very milky scan from the apollo archive project, the new restoration derived from it looks more reasonable to me, but I think I'd actually expect even deeper shadows from a color reversal slide. I think the current FP (likely derived from a different scan), on the opther hand, is probably going a bit too far in terms of contrast enhancement. It seems to have more detail in the moon surface, but that comes at a price: Details on the space suit that are clearly visible in the other two versions got lost in the shadows; color got lost. The ideal version would probably be a compromise between the two candidates. --El Grafo (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we here will ever be able to tell just how the "real" original looked, we can only use the copies released by NASA as "our originals". On previous noms of historical photos some have failed because people couldn't agree what the original was. Best we can do here is to make any restoration be plausible. Always difficult to say exactly when a restoration goes overboard. Brightening too much of the shadows here has taken away that special very harsh light that are on most moon shots and other space photos. There is a clear lack of good reflector screens on the moon. Adding the Topaz AI (which turns everything to plastic) to it and you get something that looks more like a Lego setup in a sandbox than an historical photo from the moon. --Cart (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cart, that it pretty much exactly what I had in mind! Shadows are harsh and deep as you would expect under those conditions. But the half shadows on the suit still have all the detail the film originally picked up and the colors on the flag have the punch you would expect from slide film. I think this is pretty much the version we should consider as an alternative. --El Grafo (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Cart and Ikan - I have little doubt that the new version is probably more faithful to the original negatives, but this is one of those photos that gains historical value from the format in which it was released. The current FP, with the higher contrast and deeper blacks, is probably less accurate, but it's the iconic way this photo looks. Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmao20: As far as I know these were all shot on special order Kodak slide film, so no negatives involved. We are probably just looking at two different scans of the same original – both published by NASA. Depending on what hard- and software was used, those can look dramatically different. For negative film (especially black and white) I would agree: the printing process in the darkroom is an essential part of forming the final image, where things like contrast, shadows, highlights could be adjusted (like developing a RAW today). But here, the original is a slide, not a print. So yes, I think we should aim for the digital version that is likely to represent the slide best and I think in this case, that is probably Cart's version above. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth considering: do we even know if this scan represents prints that were distributed at the time well? Are there any digital versions of those prints? --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Original FP Replacement

  •  Info Scaned by NASA's Project Apollo Archive, edit by Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist and replace As indicated above, I think this one is probably the best digital representation of the original slide. Self quote: "Shadows are harsh and deep as you would expect under those conditions. But the half shadows on the suit still have all the detail the film originally picked up and the colors on the flag have the punch you would expect from slide film." --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info 'Pinging' previous voters: Houston, we have an alternative. Basile Morin, A.Savin, Ikan Kekek, Ivar, Commonists, Cmao20. --Cart (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Sorry, not convinced. I doubt the new version really has more detail, despite resolution (it's unsharp in full size), and look at the sky how noisy it now is. --A.Savin 17:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Cart, it is a bit unclear to me about the history of this replacement file. The original upload seems to suggest it is an original upload of the file from Flickr (== File:AS15-88-11866 (21648389932).jpg). But it already seems edited (by you I guess) in Lightroom, and the further two edits straighten and crop it. Given we can't now fix the upload comment, could you perhaps give more detail in the file description summary as to the editing, just to clarify that the first version is already edited. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, can do Colin. I usually only refer to the original file in the 'Source' entry when I edit a file and upload as a separate file. That is one of the ways of stating where you start with the file. In this case, I found it to be the best way since it allows for people to take a look at exactly what edits I've done via Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer. Not sure how that works if I start with the original NASA file. --Cart (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /--Cart (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:Apollo_15_flag,_rover,_LM,_Irwin.jpg&oldid=617285741"