Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, 2

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2018 at 18:47:32 (UTC)

Original – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal

Retouched by Alexis Jazz, third version – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal

Retouched 2 by Bammesk, second version – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal

Reason: iconic photograph. After a long debate, it finally appears that the copyright was not renewed.
Articles in which this image appears: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
Creator: Joe Rosenthal

Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this jpeg version due to strong artifacts, either from editing or jpeg compression. The sky is heavily speckled - compare with the png or tif versions. --Janke | Talk 20:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janke: I could propose File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal.jpg, but overall, I think this one is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the jpeg artifacts. The nom image has a lot more detail than the png and tif versions. ~~Support~~ (revised my vote below) , iconic and good quality for a 1940s war photo. Bammesk (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a decent version of this iconic photograph: the EV is huge. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support this new version with less noticeable grain & artifacts. --Janke | Talk 11:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment what is the source for the copyright not being renewed?©Geni (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the arguments on Commons [1], [2], [3], [4], no one has established that copyright was renewed. The summary of Commons arguments are: copyright might have been renewed and that such renewal could not be confirmed in the renewal records [5]. Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote: the photo was published without a copyright notice in a 2016 book [6] [7] of 100 influential photographs by Time magazine. 32 of the 100 photos have a copyright notice and 68 do not, the Iwo Jima photo does not: [8]. This gives additional credence to the public domain arguments on Commons.
@Geni: Also this LoC copyright notice. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- KTC (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 12:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've not yet looked closely at the copyright arguments, and will defer to Commons folk to sort that out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support GMG ^talk 14:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support all versions, I'll leave it to others to decide which is best. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've collected links to the copyright discussions on c:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retouch discussion

Comment the retouched version from Bammesk should be uploaded as a separate file (c:COM:OVERWRITE). While it looks better overall, some details were also lost, so the original needs to be kept as a separate file. If Bammesk uploads the restored version as a separate file and we're voting on that, ~~you can count a support vote from me as well.~~ I'll vote more clearly above. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found another version with less compression artifacts. The sky still looks speckled, I suspect the photo was saved as a .gif at some point. Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a retouched version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann, Bammesk, Nick-D, Janke, KTC, MER-C, The NMI User, Rhododendrites, and GreenMeansGo: An alternate image was added the nominations. Please update your !vote to indicate which version(s) you support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool. I see lots of dust spot removal, which I wasn't going to fuss about given the nature of the photo. Is there anything else I'm missing? GMG ^talk 21:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: the sky was blurred. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded another retouch, Retouched 2, made from the higher quality original that Alexis Jazz gave us here. Both retouched noms are worthy of support. My upload has less artifacts and is a bit sharper along soldier/background boundaries, smoother left valley, smoother background between soldier's arms/legs, and I touched up the lower left edge. ~~Also touched up a couple of spots based on the negative image here: [9], [10]~~(no longer so, see below). ~~I Support both retouches but prefer Retouch 2~~ (revised vote below). Bammesk (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either of the versions are OK for me, but Retouched 2 is slightly better. --Yann (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've improved my retouched version a bit. You may have to refresh the page/image in your browser. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll say that I prefer some retouched version to the original, but my retouching expertise is mediocre at best, and so I don't pretend to have an authoritative opinion on which version is better. GMG ^talk 14:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I prefer retouch #2~~. MER-C 18:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: can you say why? Perhaps I can improve my version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retouch 1 has sufficiently improved over #2 in the time since I wrote that comment. ~~I now prefer #1 as the specs that were there are there no longer.~~ MER-C 15:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this after the dust has settled, I prefer #2 due to the white streak on the side. MER-C 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I prefer #2, but two comments: (1) why is the [rivet?] on the helmet of the soldier on the right noticeably brighter in just that version? (2) in both retouches there's a space between the leftmost and second leftmost soldiers, around waist level, that looks to be actually a gap between them rather than a blemish on the photo itself, but it's smoothed out... (in case that isn't clear I've added an annotation to that image on Commons here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a gap but actually light that is reflected off of the handle of a holstered knife, more easily seen in File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal.jpg. I've corrected my version accordingly. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, I don't understand your first question? About question 2: as I said above, I used the negative image here: [11], [12] as a guide. The gap is smaller in the negative, that's what I went by. However looking at the negative more carefully, it has bleeding (or diffusion) because it is old, which would make the gaps smaller. So I did a recheck of all gaps, and compared the print gaps to the negative gaps, and it turns out all print gaps are a few pixels wider than the negative gaps. So going strictly by the negative is not a good idea (because of the bleeding). I redid the gap and did an upload (also redid another tiny gap/spot at shoulder level, plus helmet of left soldier, the things I had relied on the negative for). Thanks for the question! Bammesk (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Can you say what you mean in your first question? Nothing “on the helmet of the soldier on the right” is “noticeably brighter” in any version! Bammesk (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following and I'd just like to say that maybe this discussion is not yet ripe to be closed. The images are evolving, which is ultimately for the good of the project(s), and this is an iconic image of the type we don't often see discussed. GMG ^talk 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I agree. I'm not sure if we are done retouching (unless someone points out flaws in my version, I am) but if we are it still leaves us with three images to pick from. Since I created one of them, I support all three. There are arguments for sticking to the original and between the retouched versions it'll largely be matter of taste. Bammesk filled in the gaps one way, I did it another way. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Commons promoted the original. MER-C 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually 16 of 18 votes on Commons here were for a restored version uploaded at 02:11, 29 August 2018. Bammesk (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC) . . . Obviously the higher quality original uploaded later at 09:16, 4 September 2018, is more deserving of promotion, but not when there is a cleaned up version of it, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So how exactly ought we go about finding some resolution to this nomination? GMG ^talk 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: Everyone, who already voted, should indicate which version(s) they support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped my preference to retouch 2. Putting my admin and ex-FPC closer hat on, I would now close this as promote retouch 2 if I hadn't had voted - the choice is between the retouches, and #2 has more first preferences than #1. MER-C 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-pinging participants. This has been open now for almost two months, and we do need to try to find some type of resolution.
@Yann:@Janke:@Bammesk:@Nick-D:@Geni:@Alexis Jazz:@KTC:@The NMI User:@Rhododendrites:@Armbrust:
GMG ^talk 12:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: As I said, I support all three. But I will say this: when I added to/updated Wikipedias, I used the original. Leaving it to the Wikipedias to switch to a retouched version. No Wikipedia (zero, not Norsk Wikipedia) (zero, the number, not Wikipedia Zero) made the switch. - Alexis Jazz 18:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support retouched1 I think this is an improvement on the original, and retouched2 looks a little bit washed out Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I very slightly prefer Retouched 2, because of the area to the right of and below the leftmost soldier's right foot looks a lot better in this one. I think that tilts the balance to let this be closed. @Armbrust:? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs} 17:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this some more, I withdraw my support for "both" and now support retouched 2 only. A) The original and retouched 1 have a white strip on the lower-left edge of the image. This is fixed in retouched 2. B) In retouched 1, the noise reduction (blurring) of the sky area is uneven, some areas are heavily blurred, other areas not at all. For example, in retouched 1 the sky area near the lower-right edge of the image, and sky areas adjacent to soldier's bodies have no blurring and are identical to the original image. In retouched 2 the sky noise is blurred uniformly everywhere. C) Looking at the original image, the background field (the far hill behind the foreground rubble) has similar noise/grain as the sky. That area is slightly denoised in retouched 2, not in retouched 1. D) The original has a scanning artifact along the edge of the flagpole (bottom portion of flagpole), visible when enlarged, say at 200%. The artifact appears as a white line along the pole's left edge. There are similar artifacts elsewhere along the edge of soldiers' clothing. These artifacts are removed in retouched 2, not in retouched 1. Bammesk (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal retouched 2.jpg --feminist (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Retouched 2 version feminist (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]