Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Francisco earthquake

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

San Francisco earthquake edit

 
Panorama of San Francisco in ruins from Lawrence Captive Airship, 2000 feet above San Francisco Bay overlooking water front. Sunset over Golden Gate. May 1906.
 
Edit 1 by Vanderdecken. I can also remove the text at the bottom left, if nobody objects.
 
Edit 2 by User:Janke
 
Edit 3 by Fir0002

Excellent view of San Francisco after the earthquake of 1906, with the sun setting over the Golden Gate. I've cleaned up some of the dust/scratches in the image, but it could use a bit more work (maybe even contrast and white level changes), which is easy to do. Consider this a first draft until specific concerns are proposed and addressed.

  • Support. Very encyclopedic. We should resist trying to correct that slight tilt, because that is a part of the historic picture. Mikeo 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Incredible detail(7000px across). Very interesting. erikD 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original is 11000x4500, but I was hesitant to force such a large file on everyone (10 or 20 MB). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 18:40
      • I understand your motivation, but I think that in this case, where the photo is of great historical interest, the added detail available would be invaluable. I think you should upload the full-sized version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think any detail is really lost, though. The full size is blurry close-up. I applied a sharpen filter to bring out the detail, so that should be enough. What's the largest FP we have? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 18:56
          • If it's true that no detail is lost (I'll trust your judgment here), then I have no objection to the reduction in file size to create a fully sharp image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If people want to get the fullsize version, it's linked right on the image page (although it's 157MB in size). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 19:14
  • Support Enormous historical significance. (And personal, too - my great-grandmother's sister was in San Francisco at that time - did she have stories to tell, back home in Finland - she lived to be 99!) BTW: If no-one else does it, I volunteer to enhance the levels & contrast a bit in a day or two. --Janke | Talk 18:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was the original version before I applied level/contrast/gamma changes, but I'm all for improvements. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 18:43
  • Support. Historical significance and encyclopedic value outweigh any flaws present here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Amazing shot. -- bcasterline • talk 23:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An awe-inspiring shot of San Francisco following the 1906 earthquake. I do have a few reservations about the image quality; however, I do believe that this is one of those rare cases where historical signifigance outwieghs most of the complaints raised over quality. TomStar81 05:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good but it looks too fake. I know it is real but the lighting and position is to hollywood for my taste.211.30.199.85 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (New user, whose only edits are on FPC, --Janke | Talk 07:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    5 edits on WP, all opposes on FPC. --BRIAN0918 19:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a slightly edited version - more contrasty, with less blown highlights (roads etc) and I managed to remove some of the smudges over the water/docks. I can also remove the text at the bottom left, if nobody objects. And give me a Very   Strong Support for any version. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text is fine; other FPs have such documentation in them. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 13:59
  • The new Janke edit is better than the original. Janderk 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original for a couple of reasons. And leave the writing there, it is interesting and quite readable at full-size, and the image has to be viewed full-size to get its real value anyway. --jjron 11:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great picture --Geoffrey Gibson 17:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I uploaded a new edit, with "curve" correction - I think this brings out more detail in the shadow areas. --Janke | Talk 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Any version except the dark one. Nice pic! --Fir0002 09:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It would be handy if you guys could describe what changes have been made in the edits, as I'm struggling to see the difference between Janke's and Fir0002's edits. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a manual adjustment of the greyscale values using the "curve" adjustment - I kept the highligts as in the original, but lightened and increased the contrast in the darker mid-tomes. This kept detail in the shadows, too - a simple contrast or level edit doesn't have as fine control as the "curve" adjustment. Fir probably did the same, but a little more strongly - his "mid-darks" are a bit lighter than mine. Hope this explains... --Janke | Talk 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jane's edit. Superb.--Zambaccian 11:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I love the angle. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support User:Janke's Edit Incredible size and historical value. —Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Either Janke's or the original. Very encyclopedic. It's actually kind of moving. Jjmontalbo 14:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Janke's edit. I'd suggest an explicit note in the caption on the article about the high resolution available. -- moondigger 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Not to be a spoiler, but is this picture really public domain? The author, Geo. R. Lawrence, died in 1938 [1]. Add 70 years to that and it means that it will be public only in 2008, which is not that far away, but wikipedia should be accurate. Hopefully somebody can proof me wrong. Janderk 08:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was made before 1923, automatically making it public domain. Also, the LOC's description page says "No known restrictions on publication." That's their official code-phrase meaning "appears to be in the public domain." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 15:48
      • Good to know. Maybe the pdold template should be tweaked to mention the 1923 year. Janderk 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Josen 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great photo with significant historical importance. I just wish we could've had it for the 100 year anniversary.--Nmajdan 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:San Francisco in ruin edit2.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 09:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably worth noting none of the images here are the Library of Congress version, which has a brown sepia tint and is also somewhat faded. George Lawrence did see a black and white photo when he developed a print (had to be a contact print, no 4 ft. wide enlargers). But then he added a sepia tint, which was fashionable at the time. And the LofC copy is also faded with time. So these black and white (grayscale) versions are actually probably closer to what Lawrence saw, even if different in appearance from the LofC copy.
  • Another point: the resolution of an original contact print is substantially greater than any of these images. For example, the Whittell building on Geary St. was under construction. The steel skeleton is blurred in these versions, but the individual girders are sharp and distinct on a contact print. These images are from the LofC 300 dpi scan, would be great to see this photo scanned at 2400 dpi when we might get all the detail it contains.

Flashpedia (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/San_Francisco_earthquake&oldid=1144809452"