Support as nominator --Durova327 19:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - I remember when this was uploaded. Not the most encyclopedic photo we have, but the best quality. ceranthor 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Object It's way too white. Also, I'm sure better pictures of her are out there. _Nezzadar_☎_ 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
During this era, white had symbolic associations of purity and innocence in connection to young unmarried women. If you find a better portrait of her, do propose it. This had the best composition of the Library of Congress material that was high enough resolution. Durova327 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support If this were a modern photo I'd have serious objections about the color and the soft focus but since it's over a hundred years old I think it's definitely historical and should be treated as such.
Cat-five -
talk 23:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Object can someone edit it to up the contrast? It seems like at a certain point, her body disappears. _Nezzadar_☎_ 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I think it was the style of that time.
Airplanemantalk 02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support A gorgeous, subtle, poignant, quality portrait, one of our very best, IMO. Can I just point out that the lighter tone around the edges would have been an intentional printing method? See
vignette. The restoration has opened up the shadows very nicely and while it might not look as "punchy" as the original, the contrast level here looks to me to be about right for this sort of work.
mikaultalk 01:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - A beautiful old photo. Also, per the other supporters.
Airplanemantalk 02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. Great image, has intrinsic value. Why not? -FASTILY(TALK) 05:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - There no denying; this is is beautiful for camera's of that day.
Secret Saturdays (
talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)reply