42:
34:
197:: Tom, I've actually had this image open in Photoshop for the past 2 days, unsatisfied with the edits I've made. (I've set it aside and gone back to it three times.) The original suffers from some compression artifacts around the text, which are pretty subtle in the original but get more visible as the text is enhanced, no matter what method I use to tweak it. Maybe somebody with more Photoshop expertise could do something better with it, but I suspect the real solution would be to get a higher-quality original to start with.
184:
Your objection can be forgiven due to the rarity of the photo. In this case, since the historical assessment of the image is a very large part of the vote, one can forgive some of its shortcomings. In addition, there are users (Moondigger and Fir0002, to name a few) who execel in the art of restoring
172:
Yeah, i actually downloaded (and looked at) the full version before voting. To actually see what it is you have to zoom in a lot. That and the fact that i dont find it strking were the reasons for my vote. Still i'm new here and correct me if I'm wrong, but i think my objections can be forgiven due
279:
Well, I can't address particulars as I haven't seen your friend's essay. But whatever his argument, it's not the document that's deceitful, but those charged with enforcing the ideals. Deceitful or not, it's not a valid reason to oppose FP status for the image itself. Leave the political opinions
128:
You have to view the image at full resolution, not the large thumbnail size on the image page. AND, you have to make sure your browser isn't shrinking the full resolution image to fit into the browser window. It probably is. You can turn that option off in
Firefox. In Internet Explorer I think
159:: Tobyk and Nfolz, have you looked at it in full size? We don't judge images based on the thumbnails, nor the reduced version on the image page - you need to click your mouse a couple of times to get to the maximum resolution. --
202:
In any case, my edit is now posted, more legible than before, but the artifacts still bother me. Its historical importance is significant enough for me that I won't withdraw support, but I do wish a better original could be
240:. Maybe try again with a blow-up of the opening ("We the people..") This would lead to a quicker, more visceral recognition; especially for those of us whose eyesight is starting to deteriorate :-) --
270:
My friend, student of political sciences, wrote very nice essay about this. How freedoms "ensured" in this constitution applies only to some groups of people. And that it was always like that. --
79:. Its historical significance is beyond question, but I think the scan needs just a bit of tweaking. Subtle contrast/sharpening, maybe some levels adjustment. Not too much of any of them. --
185:
or improving upon images that get cycled through here. In fact, by the time this reaches the bottom of the page a version may emerge that is both readable and historic.
332:
57:
318:
306:
288:
281:
274:
265:
256:
244:
232:
210:
189:
177:
167:
149:
133:
119:
107:
95:
83:
71:
17:
53:
41:
33:
222:. Historically significant, but not a particularly striking image. Just looks like any other old document.
302:. It's visually uninteresting. Featured picture candidates that are documents should feature...pictures.
92:
104:
303:
284:
You might well still oppose, but FPC isn't a place for political debate. Judge the image.--
228:
285:
262:
241:
207:
164:
130:
80:
206:
BTW, the differences are much more visible at 100% than in the thumbnails shown here. --
315:
186:
68:
129:
you have to click the icon in the lower right of the image to expand to full size. --
326:
271:
253:
116:
173:
to the high historical value of the image. What do you think? Still i find it ugly.
224:
174:
146:
160:
145:
It looks more like a dirty piece of paper than an historical document.
40:
32:
37:The first page of the United States Constitution.
60:, including the famous phrase "We the People".
252:per Nnfolz. Also a deceitful piece of paper. -
8:
280:out of it and judge the image based on the
115:Totaly ilegible, and I have 20/10 vision.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
28:Page 1 of the United States Constitution
7:
48:Contrast, levels and noise adjusted.
333:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
52:A photo of the first page of the
1:
58:preamble to the constitution
349:
261:How is it "deceitful?" --
54:United States Constitution
319:06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
307:20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
289:12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
275:08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
266:21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
257:21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
245:16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
233:14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
103:, per everyone above me.
56:. This page contains the
211:22:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
190:08:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
178:07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
168:07:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
150:05:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
134:13:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
120:04:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
108:17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
96:00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
84:04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
72:02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
77:Support, with a comment
49:
38:
44:
36:
50:
39:
91:, per Moondigger
340:
231:
348:
347:
343:
342:
341:
339:
338:
337:
323:
322:
223:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
346:
344:
336:
335:
325:
324:
313:Not promoted
310:
309:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
247:
235:
216:
215:
214:
213:
204:
199:
198:
182:
181:
180:
153:
152:
139:
138:
137:
136:
123:
122:
110:
105:Imaninjapirate
98:
93:Political Mind
86:
74:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
345:
334:
331:
330:
328:
321:
320:
317:
314:
308:
305:
301:
298:
290:
287:
283:
278:
277:
276:
273:
269:
268:
267:
264:
260:
259:
258:
255:
251:
248:
246:
243:
239:
236:
234:
230:
226:
221:
218:
217:
212:
209:
205:
201:
200:
196:
193:
192:
191:
188:
183:
179:
176:
171:
170:
169:
166:
162:
158:
155:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:
135:
132:
127:
126:
125:
124:
121:
118:
114:
111:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
90:
87:
85:
82:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
64:Nominate and
63:
62:
61:
59:
55:
47:
43:
35:
29:
26:
19:
312:
311:
299:
282:FP criteria.
249:
237:
219:
194:
156:
142:
112:
100:
88:
76:
65:
51:
45:
27:
304:Morganfitzp
286:moondigger
263:moondigger
242:Philopedia
208:moondigger
131:moondigger
81:moondigger
316:Raven4x4x
187:TomStar81
69:TomStar81
327:Category
272:Darwinek
254:Darwinek
117:Tobyk777
195:Comment
157:Comment
101:Support
89:Support
66:Support
300:Oppose
250:Oppose
238:Oppose
225:ed g2s
220:Oppose
203:found.
175:Nnfolz
147:Nnfolz
143:Oppose
113:Oppose
46:Edit 1
161:Janke
16:<
229:talk
165:Talk
329::
227:•
163:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
