Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg

File:Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2023 at 22:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
•  Info created by Alexander Gardner - uploaded by Scewing - nominated by Alectricity -- Alectricity (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alectricity (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vote crossed out in view of Basile's remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment His ears are blurred. – ABAL1412 (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Taking into consideration the fact that the photo was made in 1863, shallow DoF is not a critical problem. Actually, it is also illustrative, showing the quality of photo optics of the historical period. --LexKurochkin (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral After the Basile's comment I have checked the category thoroughly and, yes, I am convinced. While DoF is not a critical problem for this photo, digital postprocessing is at least questionable. --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per LexKurochkin.  Neutral vote according to my comment below. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose The ears are blurred, it's not a perfect portrait. We evaluate the quality of work, discounting the time and technology of creation, in the here and now. JukoFF (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I don't think we do. I think most of us evaluate the quality of the work against what was possible in any given period. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  You may be right. As far as I understand, this is not specified anywhere in the evaluation guidelines. It's up to each individual to decide. JukoFF (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• @JukoFF: You can't require a quality impossible to get with the equipment available at that time. Or do you want AI-enhanced images? Yann (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well we can't just randomly give out FPs to poor quality photos because they were taken in a time of poor technological decisions. It's not a question for you, it's more of a rhetorical question :). JukoFF (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Overprocessed. Excessive clarity and contrast. There are twenty versions in the history, and all of them are retouched / modified from the original. I don't know where the last version comes from, because the main source is incorrect and the other sources numerous, but I don't trust this processing that makes the render artificial. As an historic photograph, the originality should be respected. At the most, just a decent and very subtle restoration could be accepted, but not such a strong post-treatment -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for Basile's detailed analysis, based on which I change my vote to Neutral. I hope a colleague has time and patience to take care of the retouching. I would like to give a try, but currently I have less time than usual. In any case, in the future we should give a well retouched version of this historically so important photograph the chance to become a FP. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Aside from the abovementioned processing, there appears to be plenty of dust on the image.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose - ABAL1412 🇻🇳🇷🇺 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)--Palauenc05 (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)