51:
391:
are unaltered from the
National Gallery of Art (albeit each scan is from a different part of their website), and that's at a stalemate now: we know that one of the two is more accurate than the other, but we don't know which. Then there's the Yorck project scans, which were originally taken at face
291:
My point is not that you are incorrect. My point is that you do not have a source for the changes specific to this image other than your own understanding of what the image should look like according to other, different images. My reading is that adding colour where there is none is different to
504:– In general I agree with Wolftick's point. In this particular case, the color addition is subtle, not excessive, it is based on similar images by the same photographer which is a guide or template, even though it is not a reliable source. In this particular case I don't see any harm.
414:
is very much part of
Knowledge's core content policy. However the source image in question is not "wrong". It is instead lacking information, namely colour. As far as I know there is no additional colour source for this image, so any addition of colour is against
330:
after all, which cannot store tone, greyscale has no information but lightness and darkness of each pixel, there's no tone information - is more correct of a guide than images that actually contain the information, by the same photographer.
392:
value as reliable but are now so infamously inaccurate that they have been widely replaced. If sources are known to have issues, even if they are ostensibly accurate in some cases, we have the right to exercise editorial discretion. —
148:
The original is a very light scan from a source (the LoC) known to have poor colour fidelity and contrast. Further, it's a monochrome file, meaning that the subtle shades even black and white film has are lost.
272:...Show me one non-monochrome file of Van Vechten's that isn't slightly yellow, and you have a point. Otherwise, you're basically stating this should be considered an exception. Here's the complete set!
191:
172:. That is just adding yellow to a perfectly acceptable greyscale image that is most likely and to the extent that it can be verified a fairly accurate depiction of the original. -
567:
88:
126:
I prefer the original monochrome version. It doesn't look odd to me and it seems like it is a matter of personal preference where the original should be favoured per
352:
suitable guide that doesn't require original research and lack verifiability. The original, while lacking colour information, is at least from a reliable source -
557:
195:
237:
The file is explicitly a monochrome file. It ain't a source for nothin' colour-balance-wise; It literally can't be. The information's been stripped.
219:: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.". The LoC would generally be considered a reliable source -
562:
17:
167:
322:...I think... that's... I don't even know what to say to that. I can't follow your logic here, where you seem to think that an image
543:
530:
513:
496:
479:
434:
401:
378:
361:
339:
313:
282:
263:
245:
228:
206:
181:
157:
139:
118:
215:
That may be, but unless you have a verifiable source in this specific case the monochrome version should be favoured per
166:
I am not opposed to sympathetic restoration of source where it is clearly lacking, but I cannot support going from this:
254:
Again, this may be true, but I don't think this means you can just add it back in without any additional source. -
170:
50:
492:
397:
190:
Every roughly 1950s-era photo I've looked at in full colour has had a warm colour balance. Compare:
79:
58:
430:
422:
387:
It is not unthinkable for what we'd consider to be "reliable" sources to be wrong. Both scans of
357:
309:
259:
224:
177:
135:
73:
A fine photograph, by a notable photographer, of an important
African-American classical composer
509:
373:
334:
277:
240:
201:
152:
113:
100:
273:
488:
416:
393:
216:
127:
96:
62:
526:
370:
So... you're saying almost certainly wrong is preferable to... never mind, I'm done here.
293:
475:
419:: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".
551:
540:
426:
353:
305:
255:
220:
173:
131:
505:
301:
297:
522:
471:
324:
known to have no information as to warmness or coolness of the greys
49:
410:
Using editorial discretion to weight conflicting sources per
537:
Promoted File:William Grant Still by Carl Van
Vechten.jpg
192:
File:Carl Van
Vechten - William Faulkner - Original.tif
35:
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.
487:- Surprised that Vechten chose such a close crop. —
89:Knowledge:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
8:
196:File:Red_Skelton_1960_-_original_scan.tiff
568:Featured picture nominations/January 2016
348:It's fairly simple. I'm saying there is
18:Knowledge:Featured picture candidates
7:
76:Articles in which this image appears
558:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
421:...However, I've since looked at
292:"colour/exposure correction" per
1:
296:#8 and so this falls foul of
563:Featured picture nominations
544:00:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
531:14:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
514:17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
497:23:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
480:20:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
435:13:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
402:05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
379:22:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
362:22:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
340:22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
314:21:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
283:20:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
264:20:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
246:20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
229:20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
207:20:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
182:20:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
158:19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
140:19:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
119:18:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
584:
425:... and, well, I'm out. -
85:FP category for this image
66:
39:Voting period ends on
53:
412:Tobias and the Angel
389:Tobias and the Angel
326:- it was reduced to
108:Support as nominator
80:William Grant Still
61:as photographed by
59:William Grant Still
28:William Grant Still
67:
198:, for instance.
47:
575:
377:
338:
304:irrespective. -
281:
244:
205:
156:
117:
97:Carl Van Vechten
63:Carl Van Vechten
38:
36:
583:
582:
578:
577:
576:
574:
573:
572:
548:
547:
371:
332:
275:
238:
199:
150:
111:
37:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
581:
579:
571:
570:
565:
560:
550:
549:
534:
533:
516:
499:
489:Chris Woodrich
482:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
420:
405:
404:
394:Chris Woodrich
382:
381:
365:
364:
343:
342:
317:
316:
286:
285:
267:
266:
249:
248:
232:
231:
210:
209:
185:
184:
161:
160:
143:
142:
121:
104:
103:
99:, restored by
94:
91:
86:
83:
77:
74:
71:
45:18:22:25 (UTC)
33:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
580:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
555:
553:
546:
545:
542:
538:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
515:
511:
507:
503:
500:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
465:
436:
432:
428:
424:
418:
413:
409:
408:
407:
406:
403:
399:
395:
390:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
375:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
337:
336:
329:
325:
321:
320:
319:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
290:
289:
288:
287:
284:
280:
279:
274:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
252:
251:
250:
247:
243:
242:
236:
235:
234:
233:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
204:
203:
197:
193:
189:
188:
187:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
155:
154:
147:
146:
145:
144:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
122:
120:
116:
115:
109:
106:
105:
102:
98:
95:
92:
90:
87:
84:
81:
78:
75:
72:
69:
68:
64:
60:
56:
52:
48:
46:
42:
29:
26:
19:
536:
535:
518:
501:
484:
467:
411:
388:
374:Adam Cuerden
372:
349:
335:Adam Cuerden
333:
327:
323:
278:Adam Cuerden
276:
241:Adam Cuerden
239:
202:Adam Cuerden
200:
153:Adam Cuerden
151:
123:
114:Adam Cuerden
112:
107:
101:Adam Cuerden
54:
44:
41:22 Jan 2016
40:
32:
27:
423:WP:GL/PHOTO
552:Categories
417:WP:VERIFY
328:greyscale
217:WP:VERIFY
169:to this:
128:WP:VERIFY
541:Armbrust
427:Wolftick
354:Wolftick
306:Wolftick
256:Wolftick
221:Wolftick
174:Wolftick
132:Wolftick
65:in 1949.
55:Original
519:Support
506:Bammesk
502:Support
485:Support
468:Support
124:Comment
93:Creator
294:WP:FP?
70:Reason
523:Jobas
302:WP:OR
16:<
527:talk
510:talk
493:talk
476:talk
472:Yann
431:talk
398:talk
358:talk
310:talk
300:and
298:WP:V
260:talk
225:talk
178:talk
136:talk
43:at
554::
539:--
529:)
521:–
512:)
495:)
478:)
470:–
433:)
400:)
360:)
350:no
312:)
262:)
227:)
194:,
180:)
138:)
130:-
110:–
82:+8
57:–
525:(
508:(
491:(
474:(
429:(
396:(
356:(
308:(
258:(
223:(
176:(
134:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
