Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Fortune Teller

Original - 1905 poster for Victor Herbert's The Fortune Teller (1898), in an evident revival of the original production.

Reason: I've applied every trick in the book to this, and I think I've managed to get around some flaws in the original scan, to bring out an image from the original production of this opera. I hope you agree.
Articles this image appears in: Victor Herbert, The Fortune Teller
Creator: The U.S. Lithograph Co., Russell-Morgan Print, Cincinnati & New York.

Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another excellent poster restoration. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - out of focus film record of an original poster; serious uncorrected problems with uneven fade. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what "serious problems with uneven fade"? If you point to them, I'm happy to work on them, but I think you may be exaggerating slightly, as the paper looks pretty consistently even-toned, to me at least. Shoemaker's Holiday 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paper typically dries and darkens more at the edges than at the center, as it ages. When I worked on El Capitan for you it was actually more work to correct for that than for the color balance. If I recall correctly, it was one of the issues I discussed when you asked me to sharpen a really unsharp image a couple of weeks ago (which might have been this one). Blogged about the fade issue recently while I was helping another restorationist.[1] Unsharpness and uneven fade are problems that affect a lot of your poster restorations. After a few times raising these points and not getting a reaction (or the needed changes) I usually abstain from the nominations that are objectionable, but this time it's really too much. Durova^Charge! 14:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But uneven fade is such a useful and not too noticeable sign of age - I think it's authentic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Sorry but it looks blurry to me even at the scale on the image page. Can't comment on other technical issues. Terri G (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it's PNG - something that's the current subject of a bug report. Check it out at full resolution, because, unlike JPG, no sharpening is applied after scaling. I'm told this will be fixed quite soon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The PNG bug does not account for this degree of blur. It's a result of poor camera focus--and a bit too much of that to correct adequately in software. Durova^Charge! 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So I see now about the PNG thing, but I still think it's a bit blurred, particularly in the centre, so I'll change to Weak oppose.Terri G (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Out of focus, even at full res (I saw the comments above). — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, fair enoguh. Honestly, I was largely thinking of not nominating this, but the four day restoration of that evil little Commodore Perry delist and replace made me decide to keep my hand in with this one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Out of focus. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]