Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henry Mayer, The Awakening, 1915 Cornell CUL PJM 1176 01.jpg

File:Henry Mayer, The Awakening, 1915 Cornell CUL PJM 1176 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 15:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Henry Mayer, The Awakening, 1915 Cornell CUL PJM 1176 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henry Mayer, The Awakening, 1915 Cornell CUL PJM 1176 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
•  Info Mayer Henry, The Awakening, 1915:

Lady Liberty, wearing a cape labeled "Votes for Women," stands astride the states (colored white) that had adopted suffrage. created by User:Washingbear - uploaded by EVDiam - nominated by User:EVDiam -- EVDiam (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Support -- EVDiam (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Interesting, significant print, good reproduction. What's your feeling about whether the photo should be retouched to eliminate the representation of damage to the paper? Is fidelity in reproduction or a closer approach to perfection in the image more important? I don't know, so I'm just throwing out the question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is a very interesting question. Personally, I don’t have only one and clear opinion. I think it depends. A first thought is that a historical document is valuable because of its content and not because of the perfection in restoration. On the other hand, a good restoration of a completely damaged document is a very serious and difficult work. However, sometimes it is important to keep some damages, because potentially could give more information about the object. EVDiam (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dingy gray with prominent fold marks. I don't see how keeping age/folding damage is considered a faithful reproduction or a restoration. The original would've been white and unfolded. I guess it's a plus that this doesn't have the oxidation damage the last one had. INeverCry 20:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support It seems to me that the original was intended to be folded (page numbers 14-15) and as that I see no problem with the folding damage. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per Ikan and Kruusamägi. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support So much else is so clear that I don't mind the damage. Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Adam's version is better, so I'm moving my !vote to it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• [[:Category:|]] ...This looks easy. I'll have a go at it after I sleep. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: Even ignoring the fold issue, a higher-resolution copy can be seen at https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:8245859 - we shouldn't promote anything so replaceable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

* Oppose for now - per Adam --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC) :* Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC) per vote for the alternative --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment A higher-resolution version is uploaded. EVDiam (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've started restoring it. Obviously, the PNG thumbnailer's problems are rather clear in that, but as you can see, the damage is readily repairable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Great job Adam Cuerden . Thanks! EVDiam (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Adam's restoration is better therefore this can't be the "finest on Commons". -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm going to change my vote to  Oppose. I think that a faithful representation of the current condition could indeed be of value, as EVDiam indicates above, but that would make it a Quality Image and perhaps (depending on how the scope is defined) a Valued Image. I'm going with the alternative for Featured Picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Info Created by Henry Mayer; restored by Adam Cuerden
•  Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• @EVDiam, Ikan Kekek, INeverCry, and Kruusamägi: @Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, and Colin: Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. Great restoration, and clearly a better representation of the intent of the illustrator. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Conditional support. Please can you save the file with an sRGB colourspace tag & embedded profile. I assume that's the colourspace of the original, but without the tag web browsers will generally not display the correct colours on a wide-gamut monitor. -- Colin (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Adam, I'm still not seeing any profile or tag. -- Colin (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Then my version of GIMP doesn't handle that properly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Adam, it definitely does, and knowing what colorspace you are working in and saving to is vital for handling artworks. See Image Mode menu and GIMP color management. You should have your GIMP set up to use sRGB as your working space, and warn/prompt you if the JPG/PNG you are loading has a different or missing one (and offer to convert/assign as appropriate). It is possible that GIMP has some wrongheaded "save for the Web" option that strips out colour profiles, and which shouldn't be used (it's a hangover from dial-up-modem days where every kb counted). Continue this on my talk if you want, though I don't use GIMP. Certainly if you don't have your GIMP set up for colour management (e.g. CM turned off) then there is a real risk you will open an AdobeRGB image and accidentally strip off this and make the image over-saturated as a result. -- Colin (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
          • It's more that it's metadataing weirdly, I think. I'm updating it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Okay. It's definitely in sRGB - GIMP is clear on that - but GIMP refuses to put that into metadata. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
          • How can GIMP be "clear" that it is "in sRGB" if it contains no metadata. That's like saying the number "20" is in Celsius: without a scale (colourspace) it is just a file containing numbers. Other people manage to save files with tags+profiles in GIMP, and the program does claim to be colour managed (if that option is enabled) so I think you are simply doing something wrong. I'll install it at home tonight if I get a chance. It is really rather important for artworks to explicitly define the colourspace. -- Colin (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
            • I've done some playing with GIMP. Out of the box, on Windows 10, GIMP doesn't seem to have a working colour profile at all. I open Preferences and select the Color Mangement tab. "Color managed display" is default mode of operation, but this is pointless unless it knows the working profile or monitor profile. So I select a RGB profile (browse to C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color and choose "sRGB Color Space Profile.icm" which will appear as "sRGB IEC61966-2.1"). I tick the box to "try to use the system monitor profile" for the Monitor Profile aspect (I have a wide-gamut monitor that has been profiled). For the "File Open behaviour" I choose "Ask what to do" which is the default. This last option does not seem to work the same as Photoshop for files with no embedded profile (vs one with a different embedded profile). With Photoshop, when I try to load your file, it says "The document "...." does not have an embedded RGB profile. What would you like to do?" and I can assign a working profile like sRGB or leave it without a profile (no colour management). GIMP seems to assume images with no profile should remain not colour managed. So I'm afraid there is no option than to go to the Image -> Mode -> Assign Color Profile..." menu. The pop-up dialog claims (for me) the Current Color Profile is "sRGB IEC61966 2.1" but I suspect that is simply because I've made that my working profile. Ensure the "Assign" field is "RGB workspace (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)" and press Assign. Then export the JPG. This magically tells GIMP that we really would like to properly colour manage this file and embed a profile. You can use Jeffrey's Exif Viewer to confirm, or download exiftool.exe and use it (exiftool -a -u -g1 "...." will display all tags/profile information). It is disappointing that GIMP does not properly handle images that have no profile, and prompt you to assign one on file-open (it manages fine if the image has AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB profiles embedded). Unless you want to move to Photoshop (£8.57 a month for Lightroom + Photoshop) then you may just have to keep remembering to use the "Assign Color Profile" menu for images that lack an embedded profile. Or raise a bug against GIMP. -- Colin (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 19:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- EVDiam (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per my comment on my !vote above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps

The chosen alternative is: File:Henry_Mayer,_The_Awakening,_1915_Cornell_CUL_PJM_1176_01_-_Restoration.jpg