Original - Portrait of Tuskegee airman Edward M. Thomas by photographer Toni Frissell, March 1945.Crop - Removed much of the metal plate.
Reason
"The Tuskegee Airmen were the first African-American pilots in United States military history; they flew with distinction during World War II. Portrait of one of the airmen by notable photographer Toni Frissell, the official photographer of the Women's Army Corps. Restored version of File:Tuskegee airman.jpg."[1] The image was nominated in early January 2009, but was not promoted due to a lack of votes.
Support. Interestingly enough, I somehow found this image without even talking to Durova or knowing that she had restore it. It seemed to just catch my eye as I browsed the article on Toni Frissell, which I found from our featured picture on Jacqueline Kennedy. Maybe this is a good sign; featured pictures might be penetrating the encyclopedia a bit more now, to the point that you can find some without even trying. Great! --NW(Talk)01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One of the harder restorations technically, but a moving portrait. A very pleasant surprise to see it caught Nuke's eye. Durova33903:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The composition bothers me. The subject is detracted from by the giant, uniform, metal wall on the left. Also what the heck is in his hand on the right? Nezzadar☎16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - not withstanding "distracting metal walls" or whatever the subject is holding his his right hand (seriously...? I mean, seriously?) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC) For crying out loud, it's a cigarette![reply]
Hmm, I'm sorry if my opinion does not coincide with yours, but I see having a metal slab cover a third of the image as poor composition. Nezzadar☎05:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I said "his hand on the right" not "his right hand." On closer examination it appears that the thing it his hand on the right is his other glove. The odd shape of the thumb made it look more like a grenade than a glove, so I was confused. He eh. Nezzadar☎05:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good image, I think the highlight on the wall is somewhat distracting...but nevertheless this is still a quality image. ~ Arjun20:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Quality shot, as you'd expect from such an accomplished photographer. I can kind of see the urge to crop but apart from ruining the composition it robs the image of value. There's undeniable EV on the other pages but value to the Frissell article is significant enough that I'd want to see the whole frame, as shot, per EV accorded to images on all photographers' pages. In case anyone's interested, you can see more of her work here, including (I believe) the camera she used to take this shot... also, that's clearly a wooden door, not a "metal wall", and the thing in his hand is his other glove... he's smoking a fag, fer chrissakes... --mikaultalk11:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original and against the crop. Not every historical pictures are worthy of Feature pictures, but altering the original significantly for reviewer's taste is not what FP defines FP. I'm not distracted by the walls, but rather feel less satisfaction with the tight crop of the bottom. --Caspian blue12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The wall at left is plywood rather than metal. It took quite a bit of work to restore its wood grain (the original print was probably deficient in fixative). To my eye that wall gives a sense of place to the shot: a hastily constructed wartime outpost. The context helps to communicate that this is a tired war hero. His name was Lieutenant (later Captain) Edward M. Thomas. Wasn't able to find quite enough information about him to start a biography, but republished the full text of his award for the Distinguished Flying Cross.[2]Durova34216:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I regret to say that I agree with Nezzadar but still support the original. That dark wall in the original is for me an ugly choice. On the other hand I was looking to some other photos by Toni Frissell and in many there are those wide dark spaces usually used successfully in the composition, while in this one it makes the photo (I my humble opinion) unbalanced. It is just a possibly-hastily-madē-but-poorly-donē-historically-important photo by Toni Frissell. Franklin.vp 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the top is more artistic but if you are choosing to illusrate an article, I would choose the bottom one. A thumb of the same size with the focus larger, and distracting elements removed has higher EV (IMO). Nezzadar☎05:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. If this were illustrating the subject, I'd say use the crop, rule of thirds be damned, but I still wouldn't Feature it. However, the image is included as an example of the work of the photographer, and as such alterations such as cropping or, god forbid, flipping to face into the article, detract from the encyclopedic value as opposed to adding to it. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this picture is relevant.. I do prefer to keep the pictures as original as possible. Cropping is imho not a good idea. GerardM (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
