Image talk:Nieuport.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Restored Photograph Needs to be Replaced

It's obvious that those who posted this image did not understand the extent of the article.

Modified versions of photography or motion pictures should not be intermixed with historical data unless cited under image.

Furthermore, they should be replaced with original image or moving picture.

A modified or edited version can misinform readers or take away from the original meaning.

I understand some editors may feel the original version of this photograph was distasteful to the eye or would look better with a little touch up.

However, for those looking for a reference of dated photography, such changes can mislead their development of their desired themes.

Auto chrome did not look this sharp, it was an early color development. Modifying a scan of auto chrome and making it look better then it originally did, takes away from the entire purpose of the photograph's presence in such an article.

Can someone please replace this image with the original photograph scan or replace it with a more suitable image that relates to the article?

Thank you.

There are two properties in a photo: the subject and the material. This photo is used for it's subject, the Nieuport, not as an example of an autochrome photo. Besides, there is no need to replace the image with the original, because that one is also available under a different name:

As you can see the original is in a poor state and hardly representative for an autochrome photo. The scan shows abundant jpeg-artifacts and a lot of colour noise. That's why I used Image:Nieuport 17 at Festival of History 07.jpg as a model for the colours in this picture. If you don't like the colours you could try to improve the picture. If you need an example of an auto chrome photo you could use the one shown above, but it is not one of the best examples, I am afraid. Kind regards Arconada 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I edited this photo previously, but Arconada did a much better job. I think it is appropriate because the color balance will definitely change with age. For instance, normal photos will tend to redden with age, but this can be fixed easily in Photoshop and is preferable to the original reddened photo. I understand that the autochrome photo's colors might not have been this brilliant originally, but the editing that's been done to it both reverses the effects of age (as with reddened photos) and actually makes it look much closer to the actual real-life colors (like the colors in the recent Nieuport 17 festival photo). This is preferable to the original scan, which is faded, deteriorated, dusted, and farther from the real-life colors.

Ahh.. errr.. in summary, I fully support the edited version of this photo. I understand the rationale behind preserving the original, but as long as the original is kept in the revisions, I have no problem with the edits.  :)

FranksValli 02:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed this image was also used on Autochrome Lumière. Probably, this was the reason for the critique of anonymous. I replaced the image on that page with the original autochrome. Arconada 08:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Yes it was the Autochrome Lumière article that I stumbled upon that photo first. Thank you for taking my critique into account, most editors on wikipedia ignore the little guys these days, thanks for caring."

- From the anonymous, thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.8.171 (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)