Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

George Washington Carver[edit]

Original - Botanist George Washington Carver, March 1942.
Probably the most distinguished African-American scientist of the first half of the twentieth century. Insightful portrait from the end of George Washington Carver's life by Arthur Rothstein. The eyes speak volumes. Restored version of File:George Washington Carver unrestored.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
George Washington Carver
Arthur Rothstein
  • Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Good EV and flowers add to the composition. Muhammad(talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems fitting for a botanist. :) DurovaCharge! 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Noisy at high res, particularly in the face. The suit, by comparison is (sadly?) captured exceptionally well. There are also several spots on the subject's face (especially one on the LHS, on the side of his head) whose providence is doubtful. They could be skin blemishes, but could easily be spots on the photograph as well. Shadows are lacking in contrast in spite of not being lifted much against the original. Also, I'm not a fan of this notion that glowing or otherwise remarkable eyes help in winning academic accolades, but that's irrelevant to the assessment of the picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support His skin pores are fairly visible - typical of a man as old as he is - but I don't see overt "noise" beyond that necessary within a photograph of this era. George Washington Carver is, of course, highly important and encyclopedic - his research revolutionised agriculture, and pretty much directly led to all the peanut products that we now eat - in addition to all his other discoveries. A true genius, and a highly notable person. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This is as much a question of how to view photos optimally on this page as a comment on the photo.First try as I might I can’t adjust my monitor and video card so that I can see 3 black blobs as apparently I should (though I remember I could do this on my old computer).Despite this I have spent the day fiddling with photos and the print out mostly as they look on the screen.This photo looks poor on my monitor with no shadow detail.Downloaded at full res and viewed in paint shop pro it immediately looks better without doing anything.The histogram shows there is a good range of tones.Take the gamma up to 1.15 and it probably looks as the photographer intended. The pin stripes in the jacket are just visible but the skin tones are still dramatic. Take the gamma any higher and it gets blander.How your monitor is set up obviously makes a big difference to this picture. Viewed as it should be it is a fine photo. I can see no grain at all. I agree the face is slightly pock marked but this adds character.So firstly I would vote for this as a featured picture my only doubt being a lot of people won’t be able to see it properly and secondly I would like to ask what I can do about my monitor (short of buying a more expensive one.)Dave59 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Hi, thanks very much for the comments. The grain is most visible on the brick wall at right. Try viewing at 200-300%. And I thought the jacket was a tweed. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 22:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like an interesting, encyclopedic, high quality portrait. I don't think it's excessively grainy. Fletcher (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • weak support - i really don't like the composition. It seems too tightly cropped on both sides. de Bivort 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I agree with deBivort about the crop being too tight. Also, I find the flower in the foreground very distracting. If this is such a great portrait, why isn't it the lead image in George Washington Carver? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Because technical quality isn't the only factor when choosing a lead image. The lead image from the article shows Carver during a more active part of his career. This is the end of his life. DurovaCharge! 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:George Washington Carver2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)