Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Delftsevaart in Rotterdam

Delftsevaart in Rotterdam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2014 at 10:11:33 (UTC)

Original – Delftsevaart is a canal in the city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, here on a photochrom print around 1900, before this area of the city was destroyed in the 1940 Rotterdam Blitz. The St. Lawrence Church, which survived World War II, is in the background.

Alt 1 - restored file

Archive - original photochrom

Reason: This photochrom print gives a good impression of the canals in Rotterdam before World War II, which were not unlike the canals of Amsterdam. The image is detailed and has a high resolution.
Articles in which this image appears: Rotterdam
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator: Unknown (photographer)
Photoglob AG or Detroit Publishing Company (reproduction)
Jan Arkesteijn (uploader)

Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Alt 1 – I continue to question the color balance though, too much green/yellow, not enough red (for instance in the bricks). – Editør (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could use a little restoration. I'm on it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration uploaded; support Alt 1 Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the restoration of the image. Are you sure about the color balance though? It seems so yellow/green compared to the original. – Editør (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the original here(not the LoC scan) - realise that LoC scans tend to be very inaccurate colour-wise. From knowledge of working with ones that do have colour guides, this is very likely to be more accurate, and the original here too blue. If nothing else, canals tend to be bit on the green side. They're slow-moving water with plenty of nutrients. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be more accurate, as you say, but when I switch between the images the colors of the Original look fresher and cleaner than the colors of Alt 1. – Editør (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong support original~~ Support either prefer original. Support Alt 1 - sorry all the dickishness here. The restoration is extremely fine and I'm satisfied there are no issues of authenticity involved. ~~Very nice photochrom. Restoration totally sucks per Editør.~~ Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at the restoration, I have to admit it's extremely fine, imparting something of a "Golden Age" quality to the image. But it's a quite different image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coat of Many Colours: I should probably point out that the original image looks like this: [1] - which is nothing like either image - and for good reason: the Library of Congress scans, particularly the older ones (and this is one of the older ones - the newer ones of the Detroit Photographic Co. prints tend to be nearer 70 megabytes in size) don't actually have much colour fidelity. From my experience of working with photochroms, I'm fairly sure there's too much blue in the original. Now, that's not to say mine is perfect, but the restoration has less to do with the colours (which can be tweaked) and more to do with removing all the dust and hairs. I could try a bit less yellow, but it's one of those things where you're basically working off of rules of thumb and experience with other, similar images. (And, even after that, there's the judgement call of correcting for yellowing of the paper - sometimes there's something obvious; for example, when doing L. Prang images by Thule de Thulstrup, I know someone who owns one, which mans I have a lot more information. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

Well that original is quite beautiful! I agree the Library of Congress is too blue. I should have looked a bit more closely before making my original comment (I'm stressed by this new viewer thing which is driving me crazy with frustration). Sorry. I do like your restoration on reflection. If the LC is not authentic anyway, then I would go for your restoration. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love the original, which has high EV given that most of this city has been destroyed in WWII. Why can't we have the original photochrom nuances? --ELEKHH^T 11:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so do I. It is archived in Commons (as I expect you know) here (thumbnailing as Archive). A connoisseur's thing, perhaps - not to everyone's taste? The restoration does strike me as genuinely excellent (though as you can see it took me a while to reconcile myself to it). So I'll stay with supporting Alt 1. I would be favour of including a gallery image of Archive in the Common Description. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical note, Archive doesn't contain full tones and there's an evident colour cast. If you remove these in the usual way you get images much as presented here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress scans do not have particularly good colour fidelity. Presuming them to be accurate is a bad idea. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt 1 A very nice picture of Rotterdam before this part of the city was destroyed. The colours are more accurate in Alt1 than the original judging from typical Dutch urban canals. CRwikiCA talk 18:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 - Quality restoration. It seems like there are a few very faint vertical lines with one (near the right side) a bit heavier than the others. Is that worth addressing? -- Godot13 (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed that. Will see what I can do. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to reduce it a fair bit, at least. You'll probably have to purge your cache. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ support ALT1 - I agree, it looks a tad too yellow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt1 is not only about the colour balance. It has also been meticulously cleaned, for example on the sky line to the right of the central rotunda. There's no question that Original is hopelessly blue cast. I'm happy to accept Adam's judgement about how far to correct that. He's right about canals and he was working from colour strips. And we aren't talking about a reference image here, as in the case of an image of a painting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what Adam has done to the photochrom; it's visible even at thumbnail size. I'm just saying that a very slight tweak may be in order. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, what do you think of colours like this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true there's a slight yellow cast. When I put Alt1 in my image processor (I use Capture NX2) and choose Auto Levels there is a perceptible change and I would agree it's a pleasing change for the better. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, that's the same I get. I would go for that myself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the auto tool (I hate it with a vengeance), but knocked back 3 warmth in Photoshop CC's Camera Raw Filter. But of course if Adam prefers his edit (or consensus is for it) I certainly wouldn't force this on anyone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never use anything else myself :). But I think you're right about your tweak. Of course it's up to consensus. This is one finely considered image - let's not lose sight of the fact that it's a real find with loads of EV and deserves "featured" status. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Crisco: Your edit looks either a smidgen too blue, or a smidgen too desaturated. Flipping betweent hem, you've desaturated the reds a bit compared to the edit I made subsequent to yours, which doesn't quite look right, . In any case, I mnoticed that what I had thought was light was water damage on the building on the right, so fixed that now. There's some ~~mold damage on the buildings next to it~~ water damage to the treetops next to it, but I don't think I could fix that with enough accuracy, so that'll have to stay. Don't want to mislead. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Editør, Crisco 1492, and Coat of Many Colours: I've made it slightly less yellow; how's that? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:31, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Striking "weak". BTW, just noticed... there appear to be little scuffs to the right of the clock tower (in the sky). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a fix. Purge when done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Detroit Publishing Company - Rotterdam - Delftsevaart, c. 1895.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]