Reason

Bird's eye view with captioning of Pulaski, New York as it appeared in 1885. Very high resolution. Restored version of File:Pulaski bird's eye2.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Pulaski, New York

Creator

Lucien R. Burleigh

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Are all these recent LOC uploads from the same batch? They appear to have a distinctive colour cast, probably due to poor calibration when they were scanned. I checked the first one I could see had and page white (the Zaandam nom which appears below) and having corrected for that, the paper stock tone looks much more likely. mikaul^talk 11:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They come from a variety of different printers and come in a variety of different tones, most of which are yellowed because the youngest of them is 80 years old. The printers tended to be regionally based and I am assisting a featured portal drive for Portal:Finger Lakes. If you're curious, browse a bit.[1] Durova^Charge! 16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's why I thought there was a common source for the scans; a colour shift in paper is unlikely to give such a consistently yellow-magenta hue across multiple docs, much more likely a mis-calibrated monitor somewhere, or some kind of aesthetic affectation. The fact is, when a (fairly) reliable white reference is avaialable (as it is on the Zaandam map) it corrects out to a more neutral, natural tone. mikaul^talk 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very surprised you view this as a confirmation. Degradation traits for bird's eye panoramas varies by publisher. And the publisher that used the best paper (Currier and Ives) experiences the least aging--which would be explained by paper chemistry, not scanner settings. In support of the featured content drive for Portal:Finger Lakes I have been restoring material for a limited geographic region, selecting the originals that had the least degradation. So the images that have been going up at FPC are no random sampling. Durova^Charge! 21:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mikaul has continued putting forth the idea at another candidacy, so following up. What he has actually noted is not a scanner calibration error but the characteristic fade pattern of material from the L.R. Burleigh publishing company, which served upstate New York.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Other publishers from the same collection exhibit different fade patterns. See Hughes & Bailey,[8][9] and Currier and Ives.[10][11] The difference is the paper, not the scanner. If you are confused in the future, Mikaul, please ask questions on talk instead. Durova^Charge! 08:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Point taken. Paper fades, and similar papers fade in similar ways. This doesn't alter the possibility that these scans are from the same source and have a common calibration issue. This whole hypothesis is based on the availability of a white balance reference at the Zaandam original upload. A similar reference is available on the Japanese Archer original upload, also currently listed here. It's an observation, nothing more, a simple correction and and one you haven't yet accepted as a possibility. Oh, and if you want to get personal in future, drop me an email, don't do it here. mikaul^talk 19:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nothing personal here, although it does get a bit frustrating to explain the same thing three times in succession. Tonal qualities within the bird's eye cityscapes collection obviously correlates to printers. Even if a machine were miscalibrated (which is unlikely; LoC is the best archive around in terms of its digitization practices), it's very unlikely that two random items from unrelated collections would go through the same scanner before such an error were identified: the LoC site hosts hundreds of thousands of images. Of course if you write to their reference department and confirmation of the calibration idea, I'll apologize just as openly. Durova^Charge! 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GerardM (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't the white balace needs to be corrected? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already been addressed in the discussion above. Thegreenj 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thegreenj 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sasata (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, wow, amazing detail. Renata (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pulaski bird's eye2.jpg MER-C 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]