Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Unidentified bride by Tati Photo Studios, Jakarta (c1964).jpg

File:Unidentified bride by Tati Photo Studios, Jakarta (c1964).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2023 at 12:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Unidentified bride by Tati Photo Studios, Jakarta (c1964).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Unidentified bride by Tati Photo Studios, Jakarta (c1964).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
•  Info Created by Tati Photo Studios - Restored, uploaded, and nominated by Crisco 1492 --  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment - Western-style wedding dresses were worn by wealthier Chinese Indonesians as early as the 1910s (see Peter Post (2019), The Kwee Family of Ciledug: Family, Status, and Modernity in Colonial Java, p. 40; an example from the 1930s is on p. 225), and they have remained popular in the century since then. This offers an excellent example of a mid-century studio portrait.
•  Support --  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support As an Asian, this hits me so hard! I really love old pictures like this one. Thank you for restoring and nominating this one, Chris. - ABAL1412^{🇻🇳🇸🇺🇷🇺} (talk ☭) 14:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is not a subtle restoration in my view, but rather a heavy modification of a historical photograph. The new background is too dark and hiding important details. With this modification, the "historical" aspect of the picture disappears, and the goal of the candidature questionable. Although the original work is damaged, the natural appearance of the background is still important. Sorry but it seems to be like a photomontage now, combining modern and ancient elements. Incidentally, some scratches remain -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the considered remarks. I will look at the scratches; I see that, when I went back to the PSD file after five years, there were some scratches that had been removed originally but not on that copy. As for the background, I respectfully disagree. It appears that Tati used their parquet floor and plain wall for this shot (also seen in File:Chitra Dewi, c. 1960, by Tati Studio - Before restoration.jpg), with more of a low-key approach (not as dark as File:Suzzanna, c 1963, Tati Photo Studio - Before restoration.jpg, but still enough to obscure the baseboards). I did adjust the midtones on the background as a means of reducing the glare from the texture of the print, but the more low-key approach was in the original.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I have hunted down those wayward scratches. (And as an aside, I just realized that this file shows the set-up that they would likely have used for this image... it appears to be the same part of the studio).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• One big scratch is still there but whatever. You darkened the background by covering it with an artificial black shade, and it totally changes the original contrasts. This is not a historical picture anymore, sorry, now it is part 1964 and part 2023's style. The original is grey, not black. And there is a visible texture all over, which should be preserved. One can also see reliefs and realistic transitions in the scattering of light -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• On the face of it, Basile's remarks seem reasonable to me. This doesn't seem like a humble restoration that eliminates only damage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• I can take a better look after work. It was getting late, so I must have missed it. As for the tone, the midtones did affect the brightness. I can see about going back to the original upload's avoidance of touching the midtones. The only thing is, of course, that the crackleature will be more prominent.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• It is a studio photograph, so the quality should be excellent. Here the face and the hand are very blotchy, like after a Photoshop filter. The hair is full of blue spots. Even at low resolution. Please compare with normal pictures taken at the same period, for example 1964 (same year, interior shot). With good equipment, the quality can easily reach this level: taken in 1918 (your own current nomination). A professional studio is supposed to reach high standards of quality. Some old photographs are still very well conserved, and thus represent great testimonies of their period. The best results come from professional scans of original films. Unfortunately there's a huge difference with what we see here. This candidature is a photo or a scan of a very damaged print. I think previous nominations of pictures by the same studio were much better, like this one (1960). -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, Basile. This print, as well as the aforementioned Suzanna one, appeared to be on different media than some of the others (I no longer have access, which is detrimental). The white "specks" were much more prominent in this one, unfortunately. I suspect that they changed media at some point in the 1960s, as the economic crisis was ongoing. Anyways, I will take a look when I get home, just for the sake of ensuring we have as high a quality as feasible from this print. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• I've fixed the scratch on her veil and reduced the midtone modifications.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment The white balance is a little yellow. I don't think you meant to colorize the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks for your effort but the background is still too dark. The face is a mosaic of facets, particularly visible in the teeth and earring -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)