Support as nominator --
Tomer T (
talk) 11:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - Could use a bit of fly-specking, and the print was obviously damaged on the door. I could do a digital restoration, if you wish. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, come to think of it, I think a lot of this is jpg artefacting. Check out the black area in the doorframe at 300% —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Support — Two faces are better than one. (Is the black patch possibly something attached to the door?)
Sca (
talk) 15:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)reply
That it is, but I was referring to the scratches. Uploading an edit now. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I wasn't aware this image was up for nomination until the edit was promoted to featured picture. As one of the editors of the original image, I'd like to comment here for the record (belated though it may be). While the original could stand some minot cleanup, the edit is not an improvement in my opinion. The whole image has been blurred slightly causing a loss of detail and crispness. While I don't necessarily disparage the offending editor for such an amateurish hack as he simply may not know any better, it's a shame that not one single other editor here managed to bring this up. –
JBarta (
talk) 23:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I mentioned it, at the Commons nomination, and there were no issues there with the slight loss of detail. Until such time as a scan can be gotten which is saved in a lossless format before editing, I doubt there is much we can improve on. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 00:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)reply