This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Burning
Judging by this version
here the rendition used to illustrate this article has had the sky heavily
burned in order to look more dramatic. At which point did this edited version become the standard, and who edited it? -
Ashley Pomeroy (
talk)
23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Although the photograph in the article is cropped differently, it does appear to have been edited in some manner. By careful comparisons of specific portions of each photograph, the one in this article is definitely darker in certain areas. What do you suggest...go back to the original? It works for me if that is what needs to be done.
Cuprum17 (
talk)
23:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Or compare it with this, which is the same picture uploaded under a different name. This appears to have been a former feature picture which was presumably rejected because of damage to the print, and I surmise because it's less dramatic than the version with the burned sky. My hypothesis is that this image - with the dull grey clouds - is an accurate rendition of the original negative, but at some point someone at a newspaper decided to make it look more ominous, and the edited version has become the new standard. You see the same kind of thing with the famous shot of the landing craft on its way to the beach - the top of the ramp and the chap in the top-left have been burned-in. It'd be interesting to know what it looked like when it first appeared in a newspaper, presumably on June 7th. -
Ashley Pomeroy (
talk)
11:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)reply
User:Ashley Pomeroy, I changed the image after the edited version was selected as FP over the "original". As far as I know, the editing process was done by a Wikipedian to the standards they saw as improved quality (not by any newspaper), and this is what the FP folks found the best image. I'm not sure I agree with this standard, but it seemed best to defer to the FP process consensus on this - I honestly don't know the line between technical improvement of an image that may have degraded over time, and overcreative editing for dramatic effect that may be ahistorical.--
Pharos (
talk)
16:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)reply