Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg

File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 05:00:36

•  Info created by Johannes Vingboons - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova and Ynhockey. Restored from File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons.jpg by Durova. See also courtesy copy at File:Hispaniola_Vinckeboons4_courtesy_copy.jpg for viewers with slow connection speeds. -- Durova (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Nautical chart of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, circa 1639.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - There is a dramatic difference between the original and the restored version in what the colouring is concerned. I wonder if this kind of correction is the right thing to do with old manuscript maps. Is the medium paper or vellum?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Library of Congress staff have confirmed the scanner was miscalibrated; the coloration on the unrestored version is affected by the miscalibration. Durova (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Removing discolourations, stains folds and cuts is what a restoration is about. The Venus of Milo is yellow because of the varnish and as such different from how it looked when the painting was fresh. Your argument is an old one and imho a clean crisp look provides the best illustration. GerardM (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Removing dirt and varnish physically so that the original colours are restored is a common and accepted practise. Doing it digitally is a totally different thing because we only can guess what the original looked like at the time it was made. In this particular case I find the background tone too bluish even if the medium is paper, as I suppose. An old argument is not necessarily irrelevant or wrong. A clean and crisp look provides the best detail but may be considered unacceptable in historical terms. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • What you are saying, basically, is that restoration includes elements of esthetic discretion. People who do restorations have been discussing that a long time (it's graphic art after all). If you'd like to discuss that in more depth at another venue, and try your hand at it, then by all means let's take it to talk somewhere. Durova (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Manuscript old charts are often considered as works of art. And exactely as with other paintings, I don't think that aethetic discretion in the restoring process is acceptable in these cases. In some libraries and museums, when we order a high definition digital copy of an old map, it comes with a color target which was photographed together with the original so we can reproduce its exact colours. Stretching the concept of digital restoring as to consider it as a form of art is hardly acceptable when the object is an historical document. Maybe the best place to discuss the issue is here, where the images are being evaluated. In this particular case I would consider to support the image if the colours were faithfully reproduced from the original, which doesn't appear to be the case. As I have stressed before, we at FPC evaluate the merits of images not of the restoring process. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- GerardM (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't see any "wow" here. --Calibas (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Per my comments above, as the original colouring appears to have been strongly manipulated in the restoring process. That is, in my opinion, not acceptable in a historical manuscript chart. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great. Yann (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not sure some people realize the technical complexity of both making the original image, and the restoration by Durova and myself. If this doesn't have the "wow factor", then I don't know what does. —Ynhockey (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - don't find Alvesgaspar's argument convincing - during restoration, it's usual to change the aged paper back to white. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Alvesgaspar. --Estrilda (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's a reasonable choice: It's on paper, and the technology to make reasonably white paper is not a particularly recent innovation. At worst, the colours might be slightly off the original, but well within the original artistic intent. Other versions can be made to reflect other aesthetics. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Are we judging the restoration process or the result. I thought this is just FPC we look at the result as an image. I thought the discussion about Featured restorers came to the conclusion that FPC is not for judging the restorers skill or process? --Tony Wills (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Precisely. But because this is an old manuscript chart (which were usually decorated by artists), it is expected the image to reproduce faithfully the colours of original. Exactely as if it were Leonardo's Mona Lisa or Picasso's Guernica. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There isn't any point to a standard that mechanically requires reproducing the colors of a miscalibrated scanner. Durova (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)