Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nobel Prize in Physics, three laureates

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2024 at 21:39:51 (UTC)

Original – Three Nobel laureates in physics. Front row left to right: Albert A. Michelson (1907 laureate), Albert Einstein (1921 laureate), Robert A. Millikan (1923 laureate). Back row left to right: Walter Sydney Adams, Walther Mayer, Max Farrand.

Reason: Three Nobel Prize laureates in physics photographed in 1931. In front row from left to right: Albert A. Michelson (1907 laureate), Albert Einstein (1921 laureate), Robert A. Millikan (1923 laureate). In back row from left to right: astronomer Walter Sydney Adams, mathematician Walther Mayer, historian Max Farrand.
Articles in which this image appears: Nobel Prize in Physics
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: Smithsonian Institution, Photographer: unknown, Restored by: Bammesk

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – High historical EV. Taken two years before Einstein left his native Germany, never to return. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a grayscale version. This looks yellowish. Yann (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I disagree doing it indiscriminately to each and every B&W photo. Pinging participants, if there is any objection, let me know and I will revert back to the earlier version (which was voted on). @Hamid Hassani, MER-C, Sca, Yann, and Giles Laurent:. Bammesk (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine w/me. -- Sca (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Typically of Einstein, his mind seems to be somewhere else. (Read a detailed biography of him.) -- Sca (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to me, it looks murky and lower quality now. If you're going to convert to grey scale, the levels need to change. Oppose Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I adjusted the levels and did another upload. Give it another look, thanks. Bammesk (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Giles Laurent (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Great! Yann (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – _ZZ^Z 'S 01:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee ^talk 09:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Moonreach (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did another upload yesterday, therefore this is a procedural ping of all participants, in case there is any objection (sorry for the distraction) @Hamid Hassani, MER-C, Sca, Adam Cuerden, Giles Laurent, Yann, Zzzs, Radomianin, Bruce1ee, and Moonreach:.
User:Armbrust let's not close the nom for a few days (to give some time for feedback). Bammesk (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's misleading as to the nature of the photo to go greyscale, but at least the greyscale conversion is now done well. I personally think it's a very, very bad precedent, and I might go weak oppose, but I think it needs opposed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 05:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I said above, I disagree with indiscriminately converting each and every B&W photo to grayscale. You can see some of my thoughts Here. I think distinctions can be made for notable photos, photos by notable photographers, artistic photos, strictly historic photos, versus the more ordinary B&W photos, also distinctions can be made for prints and positive transparencies (i.e. fully processed works), versus negative films (i.e. not fully processed works). I think we can make grayscale (or other tonal) judgments on a case by case basis, and vote accordingly. Bammesk (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings. I do still like the current version and support it, but I feel like it would have been better to present the edits, particularly the switch to grayscale, as alts. If doing so is still an option, I would suggest running the first version that was nominated (21:06, 5 October 2024) against the current version (16:10, 13 October 2024) as an alt and ping everybody to choose between them. I don't think we all saw the same thing when we voted, and therefore it would be misleading to say the current image has a consensus of support. Moonreach (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you follow the timeline, there were two pings, one for This version, and a second ping for This version (both grayscale versions). Even currently, everyone has the opportunity to revise, change, or keep their votes. Bammesk (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's a fair point. Moonreach (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone closure per above comment by Bammesk. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Portrait of Albert Einstein and Others (1879-1955), Physicist - Restoration1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was enough time for any participant to change their opinion, but nobody did and this is therefore promoted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Armbrust. -- Sca (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]