Original - "Oh, don't hurt me! cried Tom. I only want to look at you; you are so handsome" A charcoal, watercolor, and oil painting by Jessie Willcox Smith. Published in The Water Babies by Charles Kingsley. New York : Dodd, Mead & Co., 1916, p. 140.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose this crop - cuts off some of her signature, and a fair bit on the left. With art it's always better to include all of the image, rather than to cut bits off. I will, of course, support a better crop, or, hell, the uncropped image as shown on the LoC page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't crop out the signature. The end of the box where the signature is written is gone, but her full name is there. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even still, it looks untidy, and there's a good percentage of the image missing on the left as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erik got all of the signature box that was available. He can't be held responsible for slightly tight framing on the original. DurovaCharge! 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, look at the original on the LoC. There's a good chunk more picture that was cropped off on the left, and the entire "H" of Smith - plus a little space right of it - appears there, unlike in this one, where part of the H is cropped on the right side. I presume Erik did his restoration before cropping it, so this should be relatively trivial to fix. If not, that is... really unfortunate, and maybe I could reconsider, though if he at least has a version prior to adjusting the levels and so on, I could probably paste what he's done into the original for him, so he'd just have to fix the edges. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above discussion, and some followup, the crop is a reasonable choice if no border of blank paper is to be allowed. That said, it worries me that, in order to crop it without a border, part of the art was lost. Even if the borderless version is preferred in Wikipedia articles, the lack of an alternate uncropped version means that anyone using the restoration in future will, by necessity, have to leave a small part of the artwork out. No vote. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. No issue about the signature. Atlantic Gateways (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is a beautiful and interesting image. However, picking up from where Shoemaker left off, I'm wondering if there's some tiny rotation or negligible stretch that could be performed on this image to put all of it in the rectangular frame. In my mind, it would hardly affect the rest of the image, but be a lot more professional. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely not. Stretches usually end up being pretty messy. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in the "off-topic discussion" (err, not really...), Shoemaker offered to upload a crop with the picture fully preserved, along with a bit of frame. This might be helpful. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm also uncomfortable supporting this excellent image because of the crop. Nothing wrong with leaving a border of blank paper when images aren't precisely rectangular. I hope it's possible to get a wider crop to vote on.--ragesoss (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}