[WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

[Durova]

Then let's take a better example.  The dilemma with this restoration on an
architectural design is easy to explain.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Concourse_Singapore_compressed.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Concourse_Singapore2_courtesy_copy.jpg

Normally I wouldn't nominate a compressed courtesy copy for featured
picture, but the original TIFF is well over 300MB.  So even an uncompressed
JPEG conversion turned out to exceed the Commons upload limit.  (I
discovered this once the restoration was finished).  This extremely high
resolution reproduced detail which would rarely be visible, which is what
makes this interesting.

At the upper right in the sky the original has a very small pattern, roughly
C-shaped, which repeats several times.  At first it seemed like a very odd
coincidence.  Upon close examination I became convinced of an explanation:
this was an eraser rubbing which had gotten between the paper and the
drafting table, and which formed an imprint several times as the architect
Paul Rudolph moved the paper to fill in sections of sky.  Eventually he
lifted the paper, brushed off the table, and the imprint stopped occurring.

So should a restoration of this image retain the eraser rubbings or remove
them?  Viable arguments could be made either way.  This obviously wasn't
part of the original creative intention.  Yet Paul Rudolph spent several
years as dean of the Yale School of Architecture--deliberate retention of
the rubbings could convey the creative statement that even a man at the top
of his profession is not quite perfect.

I was leaning toward keeping the rubbings until the thought occurred that
reviewers might mistake this for bad clone stamping.  Red herring inferences
make about twenty percent of my featured picture nominations go haywire.
Most of the people who review restorations lack firsthand experience.  So as
a practical measure I removed most of the rubbings.  I still have qualms
about that.

-Durova

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia at zog.org>wrote:

> 2009/9/18 Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com>
>
> > Let's set the Sistine Chapel example to rest: physical restoration and
> > digital restoration are so different that it clouds the discussion to
> > compare them.
>
>
> I could not disagree more. But I get the impression this is a discussion
> that would be a lot easier to have in person rather than by e-mail, so I'll
> graciously bow out. :)
>
> Michel
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.blogspot.com/