Support, in fact an excellent example of
photochrom that is better than what is in the article now. Lively even with posed persons in foreground, showing the wide variety of activity on a typical urban street of the day. --
Dhartung |
Talk22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Support What a great scene! And we could certainly use more pictures depicting ordinary life from times past in my opinion—they tend to be underrepresented, compared with the wider availability of older photos of famous people ~
Veledan •
T00:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1 (or original) - So I actually don't like the noise in the full version. I'm sympathetic to the "never downsample" argument, but looking at the full size I was totally distracted trying to make heads or tails of the image because of all the noise. Here is an alternative.
Debivort03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1. What a great scene, what great details. My only question was about the color process used and whether it was even contemporaneous with the picture. Agree with Ragesoss that
Photochrom needs to be in the caption wherever it is used.
Unschool08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1. Who said downsampling was a bad thing? Sure, as a current photo this may get torn apart, but fascinating insight into city life at the time and nice colour work. --
jjron16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment If I understand the references of the Library of Congress it seems it was published in color around 1900. As it is a colorized photograph the color was added after the shooting and before the publishing. It may have taken some time because hand painting picture was probably a slow work. This makes a bit difficult to know when the photo was shot. Photocrom was invented in 1890 but the publisher could have used a 20 years old photography. It seems to me that it is gelatin-silver process (the standard Black and White process today) and shot with a good lens so think it was shot circa 1900, but that only opinion.
Ericd21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Support the downsampled version. And well, I think that the downsampled version is still to large it was originally shot for a postcard a size that doesn't need more than 1 Mpixel to get a nice print. What we have is probably a scan ofa photo of postcard sized-print. It doesn't make justice to the picture to oversize it.
Ericd21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)reply