Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blücher-Denkmal Bebelplatz 1961.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 19:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Monument to Prussian field marshal Blücher, Berlin, Germany, 1961, with WWII damages still to be seen.
  • Ahem Peulle, the building in the background is part of the historical context of when the statue was dissembled and the building was a ruin. It's an iconic photo from the days of the Cold War in which the "de-throned" man from the statue looks at the ruined city. Please compare with more recent photos in Category:Blücher-Denkmal (Berlin) where it looks very different. --Cart (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's part of the image but it's terribly rendered. That would be fine if it was just a background feature but it's not.--Peulle (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a film photo and you can't expect the same quality for that as with digital photos, even if this was made by a large(r) format camera (negative 6 x 6 cm, imagine a sensor that size...). --Cart (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6x6cm is medium format --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! --Cart (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6x6 should have very high resolution, even if it is an old photo. High quality 6x6 films easily resolve over 100 megapixels of detail [1]. Even for 1960 film I think it's still possible to get better quality. I think the problem here is with low quality scanning and digital postprocessing. dllu (t,c) 22:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point there about the scanner. Most normal film scanners are just made for normal 35 mm film, a 60 x 60 mm would require something else. The scanning function on a printer with scanner would not be enough. --Cart (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did use a flatbed scanner with a dedicated 6x6 negative holder, but I hat no interest in getting a 100 MB file, so I chose a lower resolution than technically possible. And no, probably there wouldn‘t have been a gain in quality. --Till (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can sometimes be advisable to do the scan at maximum, post-process it like that and then downsize it for publication. We did that when we scanned old glass plates at a museum and found out that was the best way to get it as sharp as possible. --Cart (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I enhanced the descriptions. --Till (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical