File talk:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg

Changing the original print

A user continues to alter the print from the way in which it was received, by changing it to grayscale.Hoops gza (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best not to change this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with that. It would only become an issue if objects or people were removed. Enhancing an image for better clarity and removing borders is completely acceptable as its been explained to me in the past. But, I will admit, I am by no means an expert on the Wikipedia image policies. With that said, I will make no reverts to this image and let others more knowledgeable handle this. -OberRanks (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are dangers in changing important historical images, OR. For example, your changes made it look as though it was quite a sunny day. But was it? We don't know. So I'd say best to leave it as the source reproduced it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the changes I have made are:

• Changed to greyscale as the original image would not have been faded or yellowed with age, nor have a cyan coloured area at the top left.
• Possibly very slight sharpening or tone adjustment to clarify detail - I can't remember.
• Removed borders per normal wikipedia/commons preference

(Hohum ^@) 18:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have only reverted back to my version *once*, after explaining why. The other reversion was by a third party. (Hohum ^@) 18:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You can tell by the sharp shadows on the ground that it was sunny, and not overcast. (Hohum ^@) 18:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. My thinking is that Yad Vashem reproduced the image as they were given it, [1] and they did that for a reason. So personally I'd be reluctant to sharpen it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to fix it up, perhaps the place to start would be by looking for the same image in scholarly books about the Holocaust to see how they have reproduced it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have had the privilege to meet someone who was actually there around the time this photo is believed to have been taken. According to what he told me, the photograph was taken during the late spring/early summer and the weather during that time of the year was somewhat warm. -OberRanks (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

They clearly scanned a yellowed, faded copy which had colour blotches. While my understanding is that images can be used in several ways, the two main ones are to honestly depict the situation *in* the image, or to depict the image itself. There seems little point showing 60+ years of degradation in this image.

The image is used on the cover of We Wept Without Tears by Gideon Greif ISBN 978-9633689776 (Hohum ^@) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Hohum's image is the better choice here. it detracts from nothing and is easier to see. -OberRanks (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't see the changed image as an issue from the historical standpoint so long as it's made CLEAR that the image has been modified in some way (and with those changes publicly tracked and annotated). I'm not saying that this hasn't been done, but pointing out that we should always be very sure to do this if cleaned-up images are going to be posted.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change the image back then. I usually go with Yad Vashem's version for the sake of presenting the original source, since they are the authoritative source for this kind of stuff (most of the time). But these types of changes do not appear to distort anything.Hoops gza (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I do not see how cropping the border affects the historical nature on the original image. Decreasing the yellowing to restore the image to close to its original condition seems OK. That's my opinion anyway.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fnlayson for the reasons stated, and also because this nonfree image isn't being used in an article about the image itself, but rather for illustrative purposes in assorted articles to aid the reader's understanding of the subject(s) where it's used. These minor modifications just make the image a little more viewable. To be completely circumspect regarding the modified version, re the point raised by Intothatdarkness, I've added the {{retouched}} tag, noting also that the unmodified version is still here.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this discussion, and have just uploaded the original again from Yad Vashem. I did this not because of the change in colour discussed above, but because the image was smaller than on the Yad Vashem site. If anyone wants to sharpen it again, I have no objection, and apologies for not remembering that this discussion took place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Public Domain

I wonder why this isn't a Public Domain image. If you go to to commons Auschwitz Album alot of these images use Anonymous-EU (for example here) including some from the same source supplying image from the Auschwitz Album. Why don't that apply here?--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 19:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)