Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mulberry Street, New York City

Mulberry Street, New York City (c. 1900)

Original

edit 1 1px median filter, and downsample

Reason: Delightful street scene, even if it is colorized.
Proposed caption: Mulberry Street in Manhattan, New York City, photographed in 1900.
Articles this image appears in: Little Italy, Manhattan, History of New York City, New York City, Mulberry Street (Manhattan)
Creator: Detroit Photograph Co. (per 1900 copyright notice)

Support as nominator Spikebrennan 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in fact an excellent example of photochrom that is better than what is in the article now. Lively even with posed persons in foreground, showing the wide variety of activity on a typical urban street of the day. --Dhartung | Talk 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Throwing support to edit 1 preferentially. Caption does need revision to indicate our articles on photochrom and the DPC. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a great scene! And we could certainly use more pictures depicting ordinary life from times past in my opinion—they tend to be underrepresented, compared with the wider availability of older photos of famous people ~ Veledan • T 00:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. The image page needs better descriptive information; it doesn't even mention it's a photochrom.--ragesoss 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 (or original) - So I actually don't like the noise in the full version. I'm sympathetic to the "never downsample" argument, but looking at the full size I was totally distracted trying to make heads or tails of the image because of all the noise. Here is an alternative. Debivort 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. What a great scene, what great details. My only question was about the color process used and whether it was even contemporaneous with the picture. Agree with Ragesoss that Photochrom needs to be in the caption wherever it is used. Unschool 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit1 per above. Delightful street scene indeed. -- Chris.B 10:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Who said downsampling was a bad thing? Sure, as a current photo this may get torn apart, but fascinating insight into city life at the time and nice colour work. --jjron 16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support edit - expand caption.--Svetovid 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 but conditional as above, the caption is poor --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support edit as above. Matt Deres 15:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 if the caption is changed. --NauticaShad e s 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "Mulberry Street, depicted here in a photochrom from the year 1900, is the principal street of the Little Italy neighborhood in Manhattan, New York City." Spikebrennan 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. NauticaShad e s 12:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question So when was the colorisation done? Was it contemporary with the photo or has it been done more recently? Spebudmak 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I understand the references of the Library of Congress it seems it was published in color around 1900. As it is a colorized photograph the color was added after the shooting and before the publishing. It may have taken some time because hand painting picture was probably a slow work. This makes a bit difficult to know when the photo was shot. Photocrom was invented in 1890 but the publisher could have used a 20 years old photography. It seems to me that it is gelatin-silver process (the standard Black and White process today) and shot with a good lens so think it was shot circa 1900, but that only opinion. Ericd 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the downsampled version. And well, I think that the downsampled version is still to large it was originally shot for a postcard a size that doesn't need more than 1 Mpixel to get a nice print. What we have is probably a scan ofa photo of postcard sized-print. It doesn't make justice to the picture to oversize it. Ericd 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicistjedi (talk • contribs) 22:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Support indeed prefect scene, without a doubt should be FA. M.K. 22:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mulberry Street NYC c1900 LOC 3g04637u edit.jpg MER-C 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]