Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marian Anderson.jpg

File:Marian Anderson.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2022 at 10:43:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Carl Van Vechten - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Historically important photo. Any idea how big the print is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: My feeling is fairly big, 5 to 8" wide , with the height whatever that works out to, but that's kind of an educated guess based on dust size and the appearance of the corners. Of course, the print, whatever the size, can only be as detailed as the negative, so I think we're getting all detail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great person and pose, but unfortunately this photo lacks sharpness --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sharp for the time it was created. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Yes, a little soft, but I find it compelling. I admit maybe I'm not judging objectively enough, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no, I don't dig it at all. I like the pose and how the skin tones are handled. But those nicely nuanced mid-tones are lost among the strong contrast between the upper left corner and the dress. It's like trying to listen to the radio while there are two people yelling at each other. I also don't see the point in including so much of the dress when there is practically nothing to be seen in this area because it's all pitch black. A head-and-shoulders type crop could work for me, but this leaves me unimpressed. --El Grafo (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose Historically important and Adam did his usual bangup job on the restoration. But the sharpness ... maybe it was the time but we've had pictures from that era that were better. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly feels like the paper could have resolved more detail than the lens (or the film?) did provide. And I guess, purposefully soft portraits were not yet a thing in the 40ies, right? El Grafo (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedically valuable. Buidhe (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women