Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:The harbour in Kingstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland, in about 1895 - Option 2.jpg

Dunleary, Co. Dublin, Ireland

Original - The present town of Dún Laoghaire (or Dunleary) dates from the 1820. In 1807, two ships leaving Dublin crashed on the rocks between Dún Laoghaire and Blackrock, with 400 lives lost. This leant force to a movement to build a new harbour for Dublin, and in 1816, funding was procured and the construction began. The town-under-construction was renamed to Kingstown after a visit by King George IV in 1821. This harbour caused development of the area to vastly increase, railway lines were created connecting the town to Dublin, and it soon became a fashionable suburb. This image shows Dún Laoghaire, still known as Kingstown at the time, while still in its full Victorian glory.

Reason: Dunleary (then Kingstown; and also known by its Gaelic spelling, Dún Laoghaire) was hit by a bomb in WWII, which, of course, rather changes the view.; A version of this - it's had more work applied since then - ran a month ago, but - well, let's just say it was under highly confusing circumstances, and, while not opposed, it didn't reach a quorum.; Also, the colours are typical of those gotten from then-contemporary methods of tinting photographs: Not exactly natural, but making a good effort in that direction. For natural colours, you needed to use artistic methods, such as paintings and lithographs, which couldn't be done with a photograph without merely using the photograph as the springboard for art.
Articles this image appears in: Dún Laoghaire
Creator: Detroit Publishing Co.

Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support One question though, is the "12106. - KINGSTOWN, CO. DUBLIN" in the bottom left corner necessary (for credit or other reasons)? It's a tiny bit distracting, IMO, if it isn't necessary. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be misleading to edit it out, I think: it's from the original printing. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 15:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the subject matter/EV what is displayed, not the print itself? I understand why one would not edit the words out of this picture for example, as it is part of the EV of the image, but here it doesn't seem to be. I trust your judgment infinitely more than my own in these matters, just seems odd. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't like doing edits unless they either represent fixing aging and damage, or fixing a failed aspect of the clear artistic intent - e.g., if the woodblocks that make up a woodblock engraving were glued together badly, it may be reasonable to fill in the gaps, since the artistic intent was not to include those lines. In this case, though, the caption was included as part of the photocrom itself, so removing it seems a little dodgy. I'll think about it, and might do an alt. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't... it's not going to add anything in value or aesthetics and degrades historical value, which is 99% of its worth here. --mikaul^talk 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Not the best photochrom original (no quay has waters that still) and the cleanup seems a little off (spots remain, sky purple?) but squeaks along on historic value. Durova²⁹⁸ 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Colours are as accurate as I can get them from the hints in the LOC original, as for your spots, I think you're referring to what I presumed was grain and texture. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Should it not have an {{FPC|title}}? --can dle •wicke 15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably, though I've never quite seen the point for images hosted on commons. Added, though. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose it assists those who prefer to view this. --can dle •wicke 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - high encyclopedic value, strong details. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good enc., but I'm not satisfied with the water from the artwork itself. It doesn't seem realistic how it's flat and not moving (I'd mention the colour, but Shoemaker explained that above). Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar enough with 19th century photography, nor Dunleary, to say what causes that, I'm afraid. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 06:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably a combination of the very limited colour palette and lack of detail in the original photo. While adding more colours was an option, printers were limited, with respect to subtle colour gradations, to tonal gradations on the original. --mikaul^talk 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The harbour in Kingstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland, in about 1895 - Option 2.jpg --wadester 16 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]