Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Peter Sellers

Peter Sellers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2013 at 23:23:07 (UTC)

Original – Peter Sellers, British actor, comedian and mystery in 1973.

Edit redux – Removed eyebrow scratch, fixed missing iris piece, removed black spots, hairs, and diminished some artifacts (?) on cardigan.

Reason: High quality image, a relaxed portrait of a man who we're not going to get anymore pictures of.
Articles in which this image appears: Peter Sellers, +5
FP category for this image: People - Entertainment
Creator: Allan warren (We've featured his work before, and there's certainly more to come)

Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer alt. Cowtowner (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice iconic pic. Would still like it just a little bigger (damned infoboxes).TCO (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, increased the image size to 300px in the infobox. Bit of a shame that it's longer than the lead, but it was like that before. Cowtowner (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the size increase per WP:IMGSIZE. There's no justification for this other than that some folk like bigger pictures. TCO, if you have a problem with the default image width for thumbnails and/or infoboxes, take this up with MOS. Colin°^Talk 11:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looked better the other way, but ultimately couldn't be bothered to give enough damns one way or the other. Cowtowner (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about what looks better for one person. The current defaults for thumbnails and info boxes are a compromise set by the community for a variety of users with different needs. TCO seems to want every pic he sees to be a bit larger. But hard-coding sizes per-article is the worse possible solution. Colin°^Talk 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I see that aspect entirely. It's the sort of thing that I don't much care to quibble about; it's not why I come on to edit. To keep it simple in the future I won't indulge. Cowtowner (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit Wooowwwww how lucky are we?! I didn't know about Mr. Warren till now. From what little I know about scanning, it seems his work is pristine. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BNK(talk) 07:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Allan Warren's work, and his donation of it, is a priceless asset to Wiki(p/m)edia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support It isn't flawless but.. Colin°^Talk 11:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose left eyebrow seems weird. Needs restoration work? Tomer T (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, there's a scratch there. He has a gray streak in his left eyebrow which appears in File:Peter Sellers 22 Allan Warren.jpg and File:Peter Sellers 24 Allan Warren.jpg. The last picture is backwards (Sellers even looks weird). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that, too. It looks worse given the alignment. There's some dust on the image too, and some of the compression on his sweater (his right arm) is a bit off, too. On the whole I felt it was forgivable for the age. Restoration would obviously help, as it would for most images of age. Cowtowner (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's good enough as a Valued image on Commons and good enough for FP here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Allan Warren at his best. FP worthy. -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an edit. I should retract my original "pristine" statement, this image had hairs, black spots, and some deterioration (?) or something on the sweater, along with the eyebrow scratch. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colours are changed. Looks desaturated and overexposed now. Cowtowner (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is so frustrating, and I'm sure Colin's going to have a field day with me again lol. The original image doesn't have an sRGB profile. So what am I supposed to do? Okay, I'm going to try something and it means redoing the whole thing all over again. I'll tell Photoshop not to color manage, and when the image looks funky to me, maybe that means it's normal to everyone else. I'm on a brand new macbook pro, I don't understand why my monitor would be so different. btw, the two images looked exactly the same to me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok quick test: can you download the image from my dropbox [link redacted (file removed)] and open it in your browser and tell me how it looks? If everything's copacetic, I'll redo the edit tomorrow. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that it's happening to you on a Macbook Pro; that's what I use as well, and to my recollection haven't ever come across something similar. The image from your dropbox shows now signs of mysterious colour alterations. So sorry that you keep getting sent back to the drawing board! Cowtowner (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have my Photoshop set up incorrectly. Anyway, I really appreciate your checking. I opened the file in PS and left it "as is (don't color manage)", and resaved it. It appears this is the secret. If a file comes with a profile embedded, I don't seem to have any problems—or at least no one's spoken up. It's always been when I try to attach an sRGB profile to a no-color-profile-embedded file that problems arise. I'm almost done, will have it up in a few. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redid the edit from scratch. I added about 1/3 more spot and hair removals, plus fixed the iris—iris isn't missing a piece in File:Peter Sellers 24 Allan Warren.jpg. Overwrite, so hopefully everything purges correctly. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, I'm sure Pete appreciates the reconstructive eye surgery. Colours haven't changed, either! I guess your photoshop is trying to compensate colour profile that isn't there; at least now you've got the problem figured. Thanks for doing the restoration work. Cheers, Cowtowner (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know in the first place. I am now seriously wondering how many photos I've worked on that are completely not what I intended them on being. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit. Looks great. Kaldari (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is everyone okay with the edit? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, SchroCat, Cassianto, TCO? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with it. SchroCat is on holiday, so there maybe a delay in him answering. I can't see it being an issue though. -- Cassianto ^Talk 09:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the presumption with alts (especially relatively uncontroversial ones like this) is that if no objections are raised and other nominators support them, they are tacitly accepted? (Not that I'm at all opposed to ensuring everyone is on the same page, but if things need to be moved along) Cowtowner (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot close this one (I've voted above). I don't know why Armbrust (who's done most of the closing recently) hasn't closed this, as s/he hasn't voted, but if its because of a lack of explicit support for the alt I just want to make sure we cross that t. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Felt a little uneasy about this. BTW Armbrust=he, just for future reference. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Peter Sellers at home in Belgravia, London, 1973.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rough consensus, that the edit is better (which is also unopposed BTW). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]