Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Taj Mahal in 1921

1921 color photograph of the Taj Mahal edit

Original - Color photograph of the Taj Mahal, c. a. 1921. Source:The National Geographic Magazine, March 1921

Reason: Valuable because it is an 87-year old picture and one of the oldest (probably the oldest) color photographs of the Taj Mahal
Articles this image appears in: National Geographic Magazine, Taj Mahal
Creator: ~~User:Ravichandar84 (shouldn't that be Helen Messinger Murdoch? --jjron (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC))~~ Helen Messinger Murdoch[reply]

Support as nominator --Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 13:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Frankly the Taj itself doesn't look any different to what it does today. It was taken after the 1908 repairs, and most of damage done after contrstruction mostly involved stealing the inlay on the building (not visible at this distance). The only thing that has really changed much is the gardens, and they aren't really featured much at all in this shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in addition, the image was apparently re-added to Taj Mahal on 6 January. However, it's been in National Geographic Magazine for more than a month. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but then it does satisfy VPC criteria having been for quite a long time in National Geographic Magazine article-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Oppose~~Support It's interesting to see an old photo like this, but if it is only eligible for Nat. Geo. it is not a really strong example of their photography, even allowing for the fact that we need something pre-1923 to be eligible. As for the Taj I'm inclined to agree with Noodle snacks' concerns. Fletcher (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)the taj mahal fell down in 1989.[reply]
- Does the quality of the image matter? I thought encyclopedicity of the image is the main criteria for selecting a valued picture. Besides, we cannot expect much quality from photographs of the 1920s. They did not have the technology that we have today. This is very true atleast as far as color processes of the time are concerned-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amended !vote. I was thinking it should be a great photograph to represent NG (yes, allowing for old technology), but I hadn't noticed the text of the article goes into NG's history of color photography. In that respect, it doesn't need to be a brilliant photo, just a representative example of their early color work, and this image does so just fine. It also seems like the only free content picture we have for NG, as those other pictures look like fair use. Fletcher (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Fill date, author info, appropriately. I am not sure if the pic fulfils " high encyclopedic value", the article will look good without the picture too. I agree the Taj looks the same way today as it did 87 yrs ago. Something like File:Taj mahal agra india 1942 american soldiers.jpg has higher encyclopedic value as Protective wartime scaffolding pic is rare, probably unrepeatable.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've filled in the date and author info. Thank you for reminding me :-) Well, the image that you suggested does not fulfill the VPC criteria. According to one of VPC's rules, the nomination should have graced some Wikipedia article for atleast a month. The only place where your image is present is the talk archive of an article. If we consider other aspects of your image, yeah, the image is fine and you could nominate it once it fulfills the usage criteria. But I don't think this color image of the Taj Mahal is, in anyway, of less encyclopedic value than the one you suggested. It is probably one of the oldest color photographs of the Taj Mahal made with Autochrome color process and one of the oldest color photographs to grace an issue of the National Geographic. Color photographs were a rarity and did not become a regular feature in NatGeo mags until the late 1920s and early 1930s. And yeah, it's definitely one of the earliest color photographs of any monument in India. And then, the Taj is so teeming with tourists today that I don't think it might be easier for someone to take a snap of the Taj with so few people as in the photograph above. And then, definitely, you cannot find people in traditional dress as you find those women in this picture (I guess, they are dancing women).-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: Is a higher resolution photo possible? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for a higher resolution image on the web but couldn't find one. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About File:Taj mahal agra india 1942 american soldiers.jpg (It was just an example) - a crop is present in Taj Mahal article, for a year or more.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photographs were taken by Helen Messinger Murdoch and were reproduced in a March 1921 issue of the NatGeo. On making a Google search, I found that Helen Messinger Murdoch was a pioneer of color photography. This photograph was actually taken in 1914; Natgeo purchased some rights to use this image and published it in its 1921 issue-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 14:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fletcher makes a good point about its placement in NGM, where it IMO fulfills an important encyclopedic purpose. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Intothewoods. While I have reservations about the resolution, if no better image can be found, so be it. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions/Comments. I'm a bit unclear on this. Ravichandar is listed as the uploader, but I'm unclear on where he's actually sourced it. If it's a scan from the magazine (which is what the image page seems to suggest) it should be able to be scanned higher res and quality, as a lot of the poor quality looks like it might be due to the scan itself, rather than the original image. But he then talks about searching for a higher res version on the web. I also find it hard to believe that even back then NatGeo would have been publishing tilted images. Perhaps you could clarify? --jjron (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not claim to have scanned it. It is a part of "The Complete National Geographic CD set" (See: [1]) which I have in my possession. And the resolution of the image is the same as the one in the scanned photo that is present in the soft copy-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only copy I was able to find on the web is this:[2] probably the original from Helen Murdoch's personal collection. It doesn't appear much bigger than this one. And the watermark is present in the middle of the photograph thereby rendering it unfit for usage.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarifying. We can only go from what's on the image page (and what's here) and no where did it say that you'd taken it from the NatGeo CD, so I could only guess it had been scanned. --jjron (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where in the image should I specify that it has been taken from a CD?-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would suggest on the image page under source where you have said "From London to Australia by Aeroplane by Sir Ross Smith, The National Geographic Magazine, March 1921" you should specify that it's been taken from the CDs rather than scanned from the actual magazine. FWIW you might like to check the licensing there - I'm guessing those CDs would be copyrighted quite recently and someone more informed than me may be able to clarify the legality of taking images, even old ones like this, off them. I honestly don't know as I don't deal with this sort of thing myself. --jjron (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Teething issue for VPC. Does the fact that we have a far better quality existing FP of the Taj Mahal, File:Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg, impact on this nom? (I realise that it's now being argued this illustrates the NatGeo article, but this is an issue we need to work through). --jjron (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me tell you that I do not have the necessity to cheat you over this. Still, if you feel I'm lying, I withdraw my nom. It's as simple as that.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps there's a misunderstanding. I did not read jjron as accusing you of anything, but just asking questions about the image. Fletcher (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Fletcher's assessment here is correct. And jjron has a valid point. We should consider it. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I think Ravichandar has misread my comment. Actually I probably should have put this on the talkpage, rather than in this nomination as it's a general issue, but it sprang to mind while looking at this. The same point could be made in the heron image above where we already have an FP of the bird. --jjron (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Anyway, I hope I have given a convincing explanation and cleared your doubts, haven't I? :-)-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, thanks. As I said I shouldn't necessarily have made this comment on this nom - it's probably an issue we should nut out on the talkpage. --jjron (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per discussion above. I believe it fits well for both, and while the place may not have changed much in 80 years, this is still an old photograph showing what it did look like then. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Taj Mahal 1921.JPG --Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]