Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/lincoln cent

Lincoln Cent

Reason: There was wide opposition to another coin because it featured the same cameo effect. I just wanted to revisit the issue to try to get more discussion on this.
Nominator: ⁪froth^{T C}

Delist — ⁪froth^{T C} 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic delist - the photoshopping of this example is particularly blatant, and the "light side" of the background is almost white - even the shiniest pennies don't really look like that. Debivort 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Modern U.S. proof coins are often treated with chemicals to make certain parts of the design take on a frosted appearance, and the fields taking on a mirror finish. Several other methods have been used in the past to achieve this effect, including sand blasting the dies, and matte proofs. Also see cameo. You're simply stating that it was photoshopped as if that's without question a bad thing, however the whole purpose of this nom was to establish whether in fact it is a bad thing. --⁪froth^{T C} 07:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no idea what the first part of your comment has to do with mine. I am not objecting to the "frosted" parts - I'm objecting to the background that has been simply filled using the bucket tool in photoshop. Blatant photoshopping of an image like this is bad because it makes the coin look shinier than it is in real life. Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not very familiar with coins, are you? Search google images for words like deep OR ultra cameo proof. Simply stating that something is photoshopped doesn't make it true. It may be a drawing, though, but the effect that is shown is very real. Of course pennies in circulation will not exhibit this effect very well, because they are not the best of the best and/or have not had special chemical treatment. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-02 13:58Z
  - I may not be "very familiar with coins" but I am utterly familiar with the conversations we've had about these cameo images on the FPC pages before. Go ahead and look at your google image hits from deep cameo or whatever - in none of them will you see the even half light/half dark field with the cute little gradient separating the halves. This is fake - it is done habitually by the US Mint for their publicity shots. Look at the inset. The blue parts are absolute black - this pattern only results from filling with the paint bucket in Photoshop, and therefore reflects (har har) a decrease in the encyclopedicity of the image because it makes it look much shinier than if it had simply been photographed and left unmanipulated. Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an added note to the above two comments, proof coins frequently look like this, in real life and in coinage publications. The appearance of this particular penny is not rare and many coins issued proof look like this when photographed. Proof coins are struck multiple times to create deep relief between the features and the field of the coin, after they're struck they're thoroughly polished to create the shine exhibited. It doesn't really matter to me if the coin is delisted as a featured image, but opposers should consider the overall quality of the image rather than support delisting just because it "looks fake" Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've looked through the google image hits now, and in previous nominations. Please, if there are undoctored photos that have this half light/half dark field, show me a link! Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, just look at the edges of the 2002. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist No longer up to snuff. Comment I'm trying to look ahead to future PotD's, but this slipped through the cracks. Again, this link:[[Wikipedia:POTD row/{{#time:F j, Y|+7 days}}]] gives you the PotD seven days in advance. ~ trialsanderrors 09:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I was actually considering nominating this image for delist. Per all above. — Arjun 21:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delist, fake lighting that doesn't make sense. Noclip 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I've changed my lackadaisical "delist" to a comment for the objections offered above, but I stand by my call for the following reasons: 1. I am under the impression that this image was heavily photoshopped, which alone is a reason for delisting. Even unphotoshopped images that "look photoshopped" should not be featured. 2. In particular, the blurriness of the black-white transitions smack of manual blurring. 3. Not trusting my first instincts I went to the source of the image and downloaded both proof and uncirculated of the 2006 Benjamin Franklin "Founding Father" Silver Dollar and superimposed them in Photoshop (set the top image to 50% opacity and invert it). The rims of the coins are digitally identical and with some shifting and rotating I can find other elements that are digitally identical. So I conclude that both versions are digitally created from elements of the same original photgraph. 4. While it is possible that the coin was prepared mechanically and chemically to create the photo, it's questionable that this is still done today when a similar effect can be created in 30 minutes on a computer. And finally 5. Images of this type are – literally – a dime a dozen and a penny to the pound, so I don't think that even if it is an unphotoshopped original it can be considered among the best. ~ trialsanderrors 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm putting up that other penny for FP :) --⁪froth^{T C} 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist with Severe Prejudice - In addition, I will put up the following image, which also was given FP status, also be immediately put up for immediate delisting procedures. It's the same with the other coins: photoshopped coins that don't show any natural minting processes.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delist Not a regular penny but a collecters one. We an excellent picture of a penny that is in the money circulation.--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep There's no reason a new penny in the right light couldn't look as good as this. A photographer with talent will USE lighting to make something look better. The whole industry of product photography is based on making some toy or product look wonderful so that you will buy it. Most models and movie stars have the same done with publicity shots. -- Mactographer 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My Two Cents:--P.S. Photoshop is here to stay. It's gonna be used. It's a reality we all have to live with every day. We ain't going back to using buggy whips and horses. Same for the old photo methods.Mactographer 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please. Mines better:

This user likes to give his or her two cents.

--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Very nice. Tho I like to make userbox pages so I don't have to keep all that wiki code handy. Mactographer 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cameo effect looks great and I can't see how it lowers enc --Fir0002 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Fir; delisting these simply because of the cameo effect doesn't seem necessary. I will agree that an identical image without the cameo effect is more realistic, and therefore better, but I don't see why all these otherwise good images have to be delisted. --Tewy 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cameo is not the problem per se, it's the manipulation done by the US mint on all these images. Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delisting paves the way for FPing a different penny without the cameo effect. Since Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln Penny 2 is the exact same image but without the cameo effect I don't understand why you wouldnt vote Delist on this one and Support on the other --⁪froth^{T C} 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That one doesn't meet size requirements. --Tewy 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well then neither does this one.. they're the exact same image without the cameo --⁪froth^{T C} 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - One cannot promote an image to featured status if it doesn't meet size requirements. But failing to meet current size requirements is not necessarily a reason to delist every featured picture that's below the limit. As I said below, if a nearly identical or better image of the coin without the cameo is promoted, I will vote delist on the current featured cameo coin. The current nomination for the non-cameo penny does not have a chance at becoming featured, so it will not replace this image, and I therefore see no reason to delist this otherwise exceptional image at this time. --Tewy 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Good point, however if FPs don't meet the current requirements they should be delisted --⁪froth^{T C} 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My policy on these is that I support keeping the current FPs, unless a non-cameo version is promoted as a replacement. --Tewy 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the proof coin shows the motive best due to its clarity. It is free of any individual coin features, it is an archetype. That actually helps enc. If you want to show a real coin, use one from circulation, that has its merits too. --Dschwen 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So....anyone get info on if the coin image are Public Domain or ZOMG, WE'RE GONNA BE RAIDED BY TEH FEDERALI!!!! type of deal per the issue raised here?--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are two different cases. As for the lincon cent, I had the discussion with User:trialsanderrors here, and I think (as he didn't object anymore (maybe I just wore him down :-) )) that this particulat coin is in the PD. --Dschwen 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess I should have responded there. As of now all indicators are that the Lincoln cent is PD. ~ trialsanderrors 08:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per trialsanderrors and others above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]