Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Smallpox

Smallpox

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 02:35:16 (UTC)

Original - Young girl in Bangladesh in 1973 infected with smallpox

Edit (not for voting) - shadows lifted various changes to colour balance and curves

Reason

high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Smallpox, Infectious disease

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

(provider) CDC/James Hicks

Support . Very powerful image

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. OMG! Given that the disease is now eradicated, seems highly valuable. Twilightchill t 07:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - good God. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - when I first saw this picture I couldn't stop staring at it. Very powerful. I can barely imagine how badly that would itch. --Ephemeronium (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support OMG The poor child! Very high EV. S Masters (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Any thoughts on the ethical/privacy implications of featuring this photo? It seems unlikely that the child would have been asked for consent for this photo, much less consent to be gawked at by 10 million+ people. Just want a bit of thought/discussion put into this. I'm sure legally it's fine. Kaldari (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Worst-case scenario this could go on the no-mainpage-FPs. Even with or without the consent, this might be deemed to graphical for main page. Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Probably dead long ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.1.1 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. A stunning candidate. Horrific, but amazing. I think I agree that this does not belong on the main page; I'll leave that up to Howcheng. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support Per everyone. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to support, and I second all the comments above. However there seem to be a lot of dark blue-green spots and short lines/curves scattered over the image that don't seem to belong there. I think it could do with some restoration work, if anyone has the stomach for it. Until that happens, I'm hesitant to call this one of our best images. --Avenue (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• It also seems to me that Econt's June 2009 edit, while it improved the white balance a lot, made the shadows too dark. I've uploaded a version with the levels changed to make the shadows look more natural to me. --Avenue (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Original and Strong Oppose Edit. The edit flattens the image too much, and you have introduced a horrible blue glow around the hair. If you wanted to change the shadows it's a case of dodging and burning for this picture, not a levels adjustment. JFitch (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  You're right, my edit did suck. I've uploaded a new version over the top of my edit, which I hope is better. I still think the version originally nominated is too dark in parts, and that this obscures some of the detail from the real original (e.g. of the damaged skin on her chin). The skin tones in my latest version are probably too pale and cool, though; I'll have another look at it tomorrow. --Avenue (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  The first edit was really bad; the current edit is much better, but I don't like it more than the original because the eyes appear as holes. Nergaal (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm, to me the eyes are one of the places that the original nom is overly dark, and where I thought this edit was better. But I agree it's not as good as the original; her arm is too bright, and I now see that my edits have turned her temple blue. I'll do what I should have from the beginning and mark it as not for voting. --Avenue (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)