Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Coffee grinding, 1905

Coffee grinding, 1905

Original - 1905 Stereoscope. Original caption reads: 'The native mode of grinding coffee, Palestine.'

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - contrast and sharpening

Reason: High quality images for non-Western subjects of this age are uncommon. This one strikes me as an interesting piece of social history. Sharp high resolution file. Unretouched version is Image:Coffeepalestine.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: History of coffee
Creator: Keystone View Company (photographer unknown) - scratches and artifacts removed, histogram adjusted by Durova.

Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 23:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice quality... only worry is that history of coffee isn't so developed and pictures might be subject to switching. gren グレン 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another sharp, encyclopedic, historical image. I saw this in the gallery on your user page, Durova, and planned on nomming it myself. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, very nicely printed, scanned and restored. --mikaul^talk 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Yes it's old (and hence historical) and the quality is reasonable, but I think that we're going too far in the direction of "BW photo + reasonable technical quality = FP" on FPC. I think we can demand more and be more selective. It's interesting enough, but do you think that same shot taken in colour (ie a recent photo) would be an FP? I don't - the composition fails it for a start (the clothes of the women are cut off). I recently bought two books - Getty Images 1900s and Getty Images 1920s and was blown away not just by the historical value in the photos, but by the lighting, composition, and subject matter - in short the same qualities which would make a modern day photo an FP. Yes history is great, but it shouldn't be an automatic FP qualifier IMO --Fir0002 23:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Fir. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Thisglad (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fir (yes, really). --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fir. It might satisfy the criteria, but the photo is dull and uninteresting. It doesn't showcase the best of wiki. Teque5 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Fir. Cat-five - talk 08:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very beautiful image with historical value. Look at the eyes of the younger lady.. hydrox (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree completely with Fir on all points- far too many images are getting featured status just for being black and white and reasonably pretty and old enough to be in the public domain. And like Teque said, this is not WP's best work. -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close call, but the opposes just have it. --jjron (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]