Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sarah Bernhardt, par Nadar/2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2019 at 14:50:37 (UTC)

Original – French actress Sarah Bernhardt (1844-1923) around 1864

Alt 1 – Sepia version

Reason: high resolution reproduction of a 150 years old picture of famous artist by a famous photographer
Articles in which this image appears: Sarah Bernhardt, Nadar, Jewish culture
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Nadar / Getty Center

Previous nominations: 1, 2, 3
Support as nominator Some more restoration was done, which I think was not taken into account during last nomination. – Yann (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support either, I prefer the original greyscale nom, I think it works better in this case. Bammesk (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~. If this was a modern photo I'd complain that it's too soft, but that's more than made up for by the historic value of the subject and photographer. We actually have quite a few photos of Bernhardt by Nadar but this one is a good choice of composition and in much better quality than the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sepia version. I think this is more true to the original than the originally-nominated grayscale version. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. MER-C 12:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support sepia version. MER-C 11:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like the picture, but it's not obvious that it's adding a huge amount to the various articles in which it is used. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the one hand, it's a brilliant restoration. On the other, I do think the original colours (File:Nadar, Sarah Bernhardt - Getty Museum.jpg) make the details pop a lot more, especially the hair/background distinction, and I'm really, really not a fan of arbitrary conversion to greyscale of images that weren't originally. I don't suppose you saved a copy of the restoration before levels and saturation? As it is, I think I'm kind of leaning neutral. I certainly do not want to oppose it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 15:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I usually correct the levels and the saturation before doing the restoration. And what make you say that the original is not greyscale? To me, the only colors there is the frame. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's sepia. There's two or three chemical processes that can be used, one gives more brownish tones, the other the more almost blue-balanced tones of modern greyscale. This appears to be one of the browner-toned ones. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 18:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily support sepia. Sorry to be a bother. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 06:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sarah Bernhardt, par Nadar, 1864, sepia.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear consensus that the sepia version should be promoted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]