File:Katharine Hepburn publicity photograph.jpg , featured [ edit ]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2023 at 06:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes .

Featured picture candidates/File:Katharine Hepburn publicity photograph.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Katharine Hepburn publicity photograph.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
•  Info created by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden ( talk ) 06:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden ( talk ) 06:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Support - ABAL1412 ^???????????? ( talk ? ) 07:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Support -- Radomianin ( talk ) 12:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Support -- The Cosmonaut ( talk ) 15:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Oppose Strongly dislike the lighting. 20 upper 15:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]

  It's very much a lighting of its age. The "pale beauty" was a thing then. Adam Cuerden ( talk ) 21:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]

•  Support The lighting is strong, but this is a classic photo to me. However, in this case, Adam , I prefer the original to your version, which as far as I can see, mainly crops out a bit of the photo. Would you be willing to offer the original as an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek ( talk ) 18:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]

  I mean, there's a lot of other fixes, scratches and such. I do have a restored version in similar state, though, but this was the version preferred at en-wiki, so I'd rather not have the mess of multiple versions unless there's strong opinions. Adam Cuerden ( talk ) 21:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]

   Comment Shouldn't crop the right edge Adam . Charlesjsharp ( talk ) 11:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]

• I decided to cross out my supporting vote on this basis. -- Ikan Kekek ( talk ) 15:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]

  The right edge has a blurry insert poking into it. I can't imagine that was intended to be printed, as you don't see photos from the era with things like that published. It also looks vaguely like an overlap between two photos printed at the same time. Adam Cuerden ( talk ) 15:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]

•  Support -- Aristeas ( talk ) 08:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Oppose Per 20upper, light is far from ideal. Saw this before. -- Mile ( talk ) 07:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan ( talk ) 12:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Support -- Yann ( talk ) 17:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Support ? Hamid Hassani ( talk ) 09:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Support JukoFF ( talk ) 08:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]