See also
original nomination, which has already dropped below the "attention horizon" before we figured out how to retrieve the higher quality version. The version by
antilived is the original, mine the brushed-up version, to see the difference between the two you can check the version comparison on the right.
Strong Support Great improvements; the original is a B&W thumbnail by comparison. One problem: how is this going to fit on the Main Page?--
HereToHelp01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose edit and Support original. The edit just ups the contrast for no reason. The image is centuries old, we should expect some fading, and who says the contrast was even that great when it was first created? All I can say is this edit added extraneous 'pop' that isn't necessarily, and probably not representitive. Furthermore, the edit was sloppy. It lost some subtle color information by 'blowing' the blacks (blown shadows). -
Andrew c17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
There are, from my estimate, about 20 different versions of this image online. You can see some in the
Along the River During Qingming Festival article and some doing a
Google image search. Very few have the low contrast of the National Palace Museum, so unless anyone actually saw the original at the museum we have no information about the actual contrast level, but likely it is higher than the NPM version. On "blowing out the blacks", can you actually point to an area of digital black? ~
trialsanderrors19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Any Been a long time since a picture on this page has made me go 'Wow!' Centy 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)