Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Donald Pleasence restored

Donald Pleasence restored

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 02:12:40 (UTC)

Reason: high resolution, restoration, unique historic item, encyclopaedic value
Articles in which this image appears: Donald Pleasence
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Allan warren

Support as nominator --Peter Weis (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Much improved, but why such a tight top crop? --Avenue (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's the framing of the original image - the space above in the original version is of pure black, which indicates this is part of the medium used for digitisation (kodachrome slide or else). regards, Peter Weis (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supporttttttt. Love it. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. Love the photo, but the new crop is too tight. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The original should have been promoted imo (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Donald Pleasence). I can see some of the fixes in the edit, nothing most people would notice without a microscope. The tightness of the crop was noted in the previous discussion and making it tighter has made it worse. Honestly though, I think people are getting too wrapped up in the technical details. Most of the actor photos we get are random snaps at a convention or award ceremony, while this is a professionally done portrait with very high EV since it conveys something of the type of roles he was known for. I would hope that we'd be trying to encourage more contributions like this rather than worrying about cropping and whether there was a barely visible bit of lint on the negative.--RDBury (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not a big fan of the crop, but this is an excellent portrait anyway. The restoration has fixed up a lot more than "a barely visible bit of lint". The flaws were pretty glaring at full size. I'm glad the original was not promoted, as I don't believe we should promote images with significant defects than we can reasonably fix. I'd hope that maintaining high technical standards will encourage useful contributions like Peter's restoration of this image. --Avenue (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per RDBury and nom. Cowtowner (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop on top. --JovianEye (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, crop notwithstanding - this is a fine, fine portrait. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support; this is a very well-done portrait; as RDB says, the technical issues are not that big a deal. If Peter is right that this is the crop of the actual negative, than OK. Chick Bowen 21:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Donald Pleasence Allan Warren edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]