Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coffea arabica -Köhler.jpg

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

File:Coffea arabica -Köhler.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 05:03:08
Coffea arabica from Köhler's Medizinal-Pflanzen

  •  Info Coffea arabica from Köhler's Medizinal-Pflanzen in naturgetreuen Abbildungen mit kurz erläuterndem Texte. created by Gustav Pabst - uploaded and color corrections by Adam Cuerden - nominated by carol -- carol (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Adam Cuerden here and Shoemaker's Holiday there has called the original scan of this not worth spending a lot of time with but still worthy of being hosted with the collection at the commons. I nominate it now for the example of selective editing techniques used by the voter approved administration, the improvement that one user can show in just 8 or 9 months and well, because it is kind of funny to me.... -- carol (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, image is far below size requirements Lycaon (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support And I will explain why I contest the FPX: These type of engraving were conceived and executed at their final reproduction size. In this case, the image, at 300 dpi, which is the standard for high quality printed reproduction, (and the human eye cannot resolve higher dpi anyway), measures 3x4 inches, which is about the size that were printed in the old encyclopedias. So even if you scan at 10,000 dpi, their optimal reproduction size will still be 3x4 inches because that was the intended viewing size. Granted, at higher dpi you can enlarge the image with less loss of detail, but the quality will suffer anyway due to the limitations of the quality of the the lines and drawing itself. The best viewing size will always be 3x4 inches, no matter how many dpi you cram into the digital file. As I child I would spend hours and hours looking at the engravings of the encyclopedia, of plants, animals and places, and one accepted the drawings as they came, large or small. The fact is that those artists left us what would have been the best photography of their time. A visual representation of their world. With the notable benefit that through drawings or engravings, because of their nature, they could eliminate unwanted and distracting information and concentrate (even with their artistic license) on the main characteristics of their subjects. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good botanical art is cause for celebration and an invaluable window on a pre-photography world. Rotational (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I own a reprint of one volume of Medizinal-Pflanzen (Not the one with Coffee in it). I started to scan it (File:Koeh-056.jpg), but the half-toning visible at the extremely high resolutions I was scanning at, and the slowness in getting any assistance in doing a fourier transform to descreen the half-toning made me give up in the end. However, the problems are only coming out at 12 megapixels. - I have no doubt at all that we could remain comfortably above 2 megapixels and get good quality work out of this reprint. I wish that when you asked me about Köhler you had mentioned you wanted to get an FP out of him. I would have happily sent you as many scans from this reprint as you cared to do. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unknowing of what I should apologize for: my lack of communication skills, my attempt to work with what is available here or perhaps that I am feeling a need to question the lower limits of the pixel requirement for work which is not intended for a contest. I admit, often I refuse to work on images which do not exceed 500 pixels on each side -- these images rarely appear in articles though and there is a point where there really are not enough pixels to adjust effectively. Perhaps I will take the time to gather the images that were large enough for you to practice "up to" your more agile recent skills on as an example of how to discriminate effectively if the goal is to work towards the approval of what seemingly is "those who really matter" here and at English wikipedia. You could simplify things and tell me which I should apologize for and how I can more clearly ask you about images like this -- entering it into FPC was not my first choice.... -- carol (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Coffea_arabica_-Köhler.jpg&oldid=17772720"