M-15 centerline 1917

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2010 at 14:57:53 (UTC)

Reason: To be honest, on technical merits, this photo doesn't meet all of the criteria. However, it is the only known photograph from 1917 to show the original highway centerline from a rural part of the state of Michigan. Because of its age, this photo can not be retaken. According to the Graphics Lab at the Michigan Department of Transportation, no higher resolution copy can be obtained.
Articles in which this image appears: Road surface marking, Timeline of United States inventions (1890–1991), M-15 (Michigan highway)
FP category for this image: Engineering and technology
Creator: Unknown, original photo courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation, image adjustments and conversion to PNG by Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)

Support as nominator supporting edit #2 now.--Imzadi 1979 → 14:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is PNG really a suitable format for photographs? J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought PNG as preferred over JPG because it is a lossless format without patent issues. Imzadi 1979 → 16:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see it making much difference in this case, file sizes are about the same. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought GIF was the only major format with patent issues. Also, once the image is in JPG the information is already lost, converting to a lossless format doesn't restore it, though it may prevent further loss of information if the image is modified.--RDBury (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - JPG has issues with resizing and thumbnails as well. Compare a thumb of File:401_Traffic_Cam.jpg with File:401_Traffic_Cam.png. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit. Too much contrast, losing detail. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the original? Imzadi 1979 → 18:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Papa Lima Whiskey, the trees in the edit look like they've been painted black. If adjustment is needed at all it should be much more subtle.--RDBury (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very small, not eyecatching, quality is pretty low... I appreciate the value of a shot like this, but I don't think it's FP material, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support first PNG version - Despite the low resolution, the PNG image vividly shows the old road. I also like the historical value of the photo. However, the JPG image and the edited PNG image have quality issues and would not be suitable for FP. Dough 48 72 00:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the PNG version I liked was removed from the nomination, I have to Oppose all as the quality is not satisfactory. Dough 48 72 16:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to note that this is way below our minimum size criterion, which is already extremely low. In order to ignore that, the image would really have to be something impressive. J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. Subject matter dies not justify such a low resolution image. Plus this seems to be a lousy reproduction in any case. B/w photographs should have a much higher dynamic range (and a much higher resolution) than this (compare File:1944_NormandyLST.jpg,File:Landing_on_the_coast_of_France.jpg,File:D-day_Normandy_Nara_26-G-2343.jpg for the impact that reproduction/scanning can have). --Dschwen 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've uploaded a copy of the photo that was printed in the book Making Michigan Move in 1980. This is the book where I discovered this photo. I've scanned it at 600x600 ppi resolution, resulting in a photo that's 16.1MB in size. Sadly, the photos in the 1980 edition of the book were printed in sepia or bluetone. There's moiré to be removed as well. Anyone here good at that? I've also added my own first attempt at editing the printed original. (The thumbnails on both look off though.) Imzadi 1979 → 13:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you scanned what already is a low quality reproduction. --Dschwen 14:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All Very low quality and the EV this adds isn't enough to justify that low resolution in terms of featuring it. — raeky t 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as road and highway history goes, this is both a very significant event, and an impressive photo in the sense that it has been preserved as an example of the first. This sort of thing is normally forgotten, it's rare to find it preserved in history so vividly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but that doesn't mean that it is a feature quality photograph. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was only asserting the EV. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC

I ment the way it's used does not give it enough EV to overlook our minimum size requirements. If it had it's own article that was substantive and well sourced and good reason presented why getting a better scan would be impossible, then I'd reconsider. But it being just used in a general article about road markings and a list article, isn't enough by my book. — raeky t 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Commons has a tutorial about removing regular noise, which applies to printed images like the one listed here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Query: Well, it seems my... comments... to MDOT have them seeing the error of their ways. Yesterday I convinced them to rescan the photo from their archives. They sent me back a 300dpi TIFF that I have converted as a PNG. It's now up to 2.52 MP of resolution. I was trying to shame them with the fact that my inexpensive home scanner could do the 600dpi images scanned above from the book. Now, do I keep badgering them gently to see if they will listen to me when I say: "send me the highest resolution, largest file you can, even if if means I have to pick it up on CD in person because it's too big to e-mail" or do not provoke them into saying, "you got what you're going to get". In any case, the new file is at File:M-15 centerline 1917-2.png. Maybe we should close this whole nomination for now? Imzadi 1979 → 15:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This is what came back from the graphics lab. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An admirable attempt. But doomed from the beginning. After all it is just fudging the hell out of a low quality source. A bit like image alchemy. There just is no (profitable) way to turn lead into gold. --Dschwen 16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Jujutacular ^talk 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]