Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg

Whipped slave

Reason: Powerful, cringe-inducing image. One of the top 10 most requested photos from the National Archives.[2]
Articles this image appears in: History of slavery in the United States, Slavery in the British Virgin Islands, Torture in the United States, Maafa, History of the Americas
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator — howcheng {chat} 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~Support original I remember seeing this pic in every U.S. history book I've cracked open. Very horrific and cruel pic; very encyclopedic. However...I remember that all the version I've seen before appeared much cleaner. I'm certain that there must be a cleaner scan available on the web. Will fully support if better version can be found. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment only: I have not found a cleaner reproduction of this image of slave Peter. Even the original uncompressed TIFF from the NARA isn't any better. There is, however, another very similar image of a slave Gordon,Reid, fig. 4 which does appear to be in slightly better condition and which was originally published in Harper's Weekly on July 4, 1863.[3] Lupo 08:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This version [4] looks better, there is no fading over his eye area, but has scan moiré unfortunately Bleh999 11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like considerable effort was taken to find a better version without luck...so I support the original. The other version is of much poorer quality. I guess all the pics looked good in the history texts because of the small size. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original, for now; better version would be a bonus. Quality is adequate given the subject matter. Emotions aside, it's a really good photograph, well lit and nicely composed. I can see it making a striking and compelling POD. The alternative version (posted) offers nothing different other than more compression artifacts and actually has a lot less detail overall. The one Bleh999 just linked to is too cropped (although the "eye" problem is gone) None so far look as "orignial" as the original sub.
mikaul^talk 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one I linked to offsite [5] seems to be published in a book when the original print was in better condition, the detail around his eye is completely missing in these two posted here Bleh999 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's a different shot! Same subject and same sitting, different plate, interestingly enough. Could be that the more famous (?) print comes from a damaged original plate.
mikaul^talk 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell?--Here T oHelp 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The head is turned further towards the camera, we can see his beard. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support strongly any version of the same subject - this should be featured merely on subject alone, nevermind quality. E10T5A8 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, attention must be paid to the quality of the image; support anyway. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose — While we DO need a featured picture on the subject, that is not our main criteria. The image must be of high quality, and in this case, as Bleh999 has proven, there are better versions available. The nominated version appears to have no eyes! ♠ SG →Talk 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a version with eyes would be nice ;) but we don't need a FP on any subject. Nor is it true that this image must be of high quality to be promoted, as its age and historical value mitigates the obvious techincal shortfall. If there are better versions, I've not seen one yet; if you prefer the one Bleh999 linked to, posting it up as an alternative for consideration might be an idea.
mikaul^talk 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per SG. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - Important pic, and after googling I didn't see any better versions. Google image search for "whipped slave" turns up quite a variety of human behavior. :) --TotoBaggins 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. I actually had meant to nominate this image myself, and searched around for better versions but couldn't find any. I think the fact that this is one of the top ten most requested images from the national archives makes it clear that this is THE definitive image on the subject. It is striking and horrific--definitely among the best images on Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 05:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original NARA version looks disagreeably overblown. Circeus 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still support original.Circeus 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - Photo quality does not significantly detract from the significance of the subject or the artistry employed. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (both) Encyclopedic, also shows the effects of whipping quite nicely (as nicely as possible, anyway) Purple Is Pretty 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It shows the horrors of slave-whipping, which is the point, not to show the beauty of his eyes. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken a shot at doing a modest Photoshop retouch. I don't know if that qualifies, or what, but it might help having a version with decent eyes and no scanning problems. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Man...what an image. I, too, remember this from my US History textbooks, even as early as middle school. The historical and societal significance of the picture outweighs the image's shortcomings...but frankly, I think it could do with some downsampling. At full resolution, it lacks sharpness. I went to the image page, and thought that the thumbnail (at 362×600 px on my 15" monitor at work) was a much better representation of the image as I’ve seen it in textbooks. While the picture itself is 144 years old, and that is definitely the reason for its technical quality (or lack thereof), I still believe Wikipedians should get a slightly sharper version. On this nomination page, the thumbnail of edit 1 looks sharper, but there are too many blown areas in it and edit 2 for me to pick either of them over the original. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 01:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See new Edit 3, which looks less "blown out." MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I applaud your efforts here (despite some severe posterisation!) but I'm inclined to support only the original submission for this candidature, for no other reason than its journalistic and historical value warrants total respect for the original document. In other words, any retouching on this (as with any historical document) must be extremely carefully and sympathetically done. The term "original" isn't even applicable to this submission, as the true original is a glass plate negative. We don't know how much manipulation this version has already had (a fair bit, I'd say) nor how far from the true original it has come. My view is that Wikipedia should recognise the progressive loss of original information this repeated editing causes, and not materially alter historical images beyond an absuloute minimum (very slight cropping, shading, rotating, etc). Am I wrong or did you combine the head from the newer sub with the body of the older one? I'm not "having a go" here, it's a neat job, but that sort of editing should never be allowed, for the sake of preservation of the original document. mikaul^talk 08:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m still going to have to pick the original, although you did give it the ol’ college try. In the edits, the scars on his back still look somehow like liquid globs to me; I feel that they're easier to make out in the original. Plus, there is definitely some posterization, as mikaul mentioned, as well as some bad gradients — much of the picture is just represented by differently shaded blotches of gray. Plus, the eye region isn’t particularly better in the edit. If anyone wants to take a shot at downsampling, though, I’d still like to see that. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go => mikaul^talk 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support original Emotionally disturbing. Good for a FP. --Calibas 02:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 4 Okay, I downsampled the image myself in Photoshop to 1000×1657px, and I think it’s a better representation of the original. Well, perhaps not, but at least it’s sharper at full res. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 02:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the right way of going about it. While it makes sense to show a downsampled version for viewing, it's the full-size file which is the "asset" here. Screen viewing is no more than a primary use; to use it for almost anything else, you would want the original scan to optimise, just as you did. The idea of a hi-res asset is its abitily to be viewed clearly in print: the resizing, sharpening, etc which that might call for is entirely dependent on the medium it appears in, something we can't possibly predict and shouldn't prejudice. ANyway, all this provoked me to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures arguing for "piggyback" downsized versions of FPs, purely to aid on-sceen viewing & I'd value your opinion. mikaul^talk 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a powerful photo of a slave who escaped from a plantation in Mississippi and made his way to the Union garrison at Baton Rouge, LA, where the photo was taken.Sf46 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg --Stefan 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]