Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:RedCrossNursen.jpg

Australian Red Cross poster, WWI

Original - Recruitment poster for the Australian Red Cross, 1914-1918.

Unedited version - provided for comparison.

Reason

A period poster from the Australian Red Cross in its earliest days during World War I. A good representation of women's participation in warfare during the early twentieth century, of Australian culture, and of period poster art. Restored version of Image:RedCrossNurse.jpg

Articles this image appears in

Australian Red Cross, David Henry Souter

Creator

David Henry Souter

• Support as conominator (conominating with Steve Crossin; collaborative restoration).--Durova^Charge! 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as conominator Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This is a really nice image, although I feel like the caption should do a little more to unpack the image; there's a lot to it for something so simple at first glance.--ragesoss (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comment/Question The caption should include the artist's name and link to the artist's article, David Henry Souter. He's a respected Australian cartoonist/journalist, including some renown for his WWI poster illustrations and other cartoons. This information probably isn't on-line (a quick search comes up blank). --Blechnic (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed link. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, thanks, it wasn't obvious without the link. --Blechnic (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Large, nice-looking image with clear encyclopedic value. faithless (^speak) 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support/Comment Support wholeheartedly, although I must say that I like the unedited version more, with the frayed borders. Gives it the historic feel, but I think I may be alone on that opinion. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The unedited version is available through a link from the restored image. Durova^Charge! 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No, you're not alone, I like the unedited version much better. But WP:FP makes all the pictures look like stage-screened modern day mock ups. This is one of the least offensive clean ups I've seen. Still, this poster is almost 100 years old, looking its age enhances the encyclopedic nature, it doesn't detract. Plus, it's actually a top quality scan, and well framed capture of an historic poster, again, enhancing the unedited version. But sterility and artifice is required for the front page. --Blechnic (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question I'm wondering about the colors. I don't know much about inks from this era, but from looking at posters in museums, it seems the red is too removed from the orange of the edited version. I'm not using a color-adjusted monitor today, and this may be why I didn't notice it earlier, or I just didn't notice. Is this color accurate to the printing processes? --Blechnic (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's more likely the red is accurate than the greenish brown. Inexpensive colorfast greens and yellows were a late development. The color balance hasn't been altered in this restoration. The shade of red in the restored version is the result of histogram adjustment, which corrects for fade. Durova^Charge! 06:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that what it said on the outside of the histogram box? I am just curious what histogram adjustment is guarrenteed to 'correct for fade'? -- carol (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Monitor issue. --Blechnic (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"The shade of red in the restored version is the result of histogram adjustment, which corrects for fade." I would like to think that the Russian general can explain the software used and where the expectations of use come from -- especially for those of us who have to carefully and thoughtfully use software that comes with no such guarrentees, and legally needing to have the no guarrentee included. This had nothing to do with the monitor, but thank you for trying. -- carol (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been lurking around FPC lately, but I had to respond to this rather bizarre statement. What does software and lack of guarantees have to do with anything? From my reading, I take this to mean that you are questioning why Durova thinks this is the correct shade of red (please correct me if I'm wrong). As someone who has experience in color-correcting photographs, it's simple experience that teaches you how to read a histogram, and Durova is certainly someone who has had enough experience in doing this sort of work that I trust her judgement as to how it should look. howcheng {chat} 04:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well excuse me for being curious about this magical histogram thing and relying on experience is in my opinion a good way to go, but also having the experience of not being able to rely on the software is a way to make a person be very careful about their statements like this. At this point, even pointing to a web page which verifies this magical histogram capability because the way I understand it, that is what the contributors previous experience was with -- making web pages for profit. So, I really would like to know what histogram adjustment is it that corrects for fade, as the contributor has claimed. No hidden motive, and there is nothing that I am selling, just a question which is being evaded instead of answered. -- carol (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I like them both, so count this toward the version with the most supports. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I like both versions, actually. The browned and crumpled one that "shows its age", and the restored version that (hopefully) looks like it would have done when new. For a further discussion of where the line should be drawn when restoring a picture or poster like this, see here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:RedCrossNursen.jpg --NauticaShades 14:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)