Talk:Julia Margaret Cameron

Untitled

I noticed some discrepancy from source to source on the marriave and "move to england" dates. Without spending *too* much time on this, I updated the page with what looked like the most credible of the sources I was looking at. Alchemist0405

I've seen some original prints by Julia Margaret Cameron. They are far from perfect : dust and hair on the plate, I think this is objective not POV. Ericd 00:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'd still have to source it, e.g. "according to X, Cameron's prints were QUOTE far from perfect, with dust and hair on the plate UNQUOTE". Otherwise we only have your word for it, and we can't cite User:Ericd as a source, firstly because you could be anyone, and secondly because it would be original research. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I added her birthplace and parentage info. Also, the section on her "illustrations" needs to be clarified, since it seems, at times, that the article is talking about actual drawings, and not narrative photographs. -- AKeen 18:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced info

This paragraph keeps appearing from time to time. If someone could actually find the source for this it can be included:

"Unfortunately Julia produced her own prints and was unkempt in apperance. Producing her own prints stained her fingers making them look dirty. With a least one vistor had the fear of god put in them when Julia seeing a new subject over- enthusiastically approached them. Julia must have appeared as a beggar from her looks than the "Lady of the House"."

-AKeen 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New file File:Julia Margaret Cameron by George Frederic Watts.jpg

Recently the file File:Julia Margaret Cameron by George Frederic Watts.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Luminist

Would it be informative to add mention of David Rocklin's novel "The Luminist" which is based on Cameron's time in Ceylon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.91.204 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Source for allegorical photos

Hello. I'm curious to know what book if any can be used as a source for Cameron's allegorical work. Her (at least) four amazing pictures of Alice Liddell are evidently in this group. (Please drop a note on my talk page if there is ever a reply to this note.) -SusanLesch (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ceylon is not in India

The section entitled Later Life several times refers to Cameron as being in India, statements apparently based on the belief that Ceylon was part of India. It was not, is not, never has been. The government of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) was always quite separate from India's. I have therefore changed the text in this section to remove mention of India, replacing it with Ceylon. Do I have to cite sources for this fact? I have referred to the subjects of her pictures as Ceylonese in order to avoid assuming that they were Sinhalese or Tamil (they were likely the former, but I have no way of proving or sourcing that statement). Penelope Coleman (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Penelope Coleman

Seems reasonable. Thanks for the useful edit! Naturenet | Talk 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710102136/http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/cameron/artanna.shtml to http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/cameron/artanna.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211181039/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/features/photo_focus/cameron/related/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/features/photo_focus/cameron/related/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Revised url substituted --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 03:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160811225311/http://mimt.jp/cameron/eng/midokoro.html to http://mimt.jp/cameron/eng/midokoro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Revised url substituted --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 03:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

recent edits

So I just became a wikipedia editor a few days ago as part of an Art + Feminism event and didn't realize that it wasn't cool to edit entries that I had a personal interest in. Ie. I wrote a biography of Julia Margaret Cameron in 2003 so a few days ago I went in and made some updates, including (among other changes) adding some more recent exhibits of her work, taking out references to her being an "unattractive" woman, and adding my own published biography to the reference section. So I guess I'm just flagging this for someone else to check my work because I didn't mean to run afoul of the rules. If I did, please instruct, revert, or whatever. Thanks/apologies!Vcolsen (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)vcolsen

Victoria, I am sure you are a welcome addition here. In fact content expertise is a good thing, as long as one does not shamelessly self-promote one's own work! However I have been citing your work around here for some time. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I put the reference to your work in a more standard format. Thanks for reminding me of your work. However you did delete a lot of material, and there may be some discussion about that. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the deletions I've reverted a couple of them (albeit with some rewriting) as I think they matter. Firstly, I disagree with changing "out of focus" to "soft focus" as they are not the same thing, and ISTM that it is precisely because Cameron (and many Pictorialists) used out of focus technique as a proxy for soft focus that they were derided as incompetent. (By implication that means the other bits that talk of "soft focus" really need clarifying as it is significant to understanding how she was received.) Secondly I restored the Gernsheim stuff (except the bit crediting him with single-handely popularising her, as I think that was just his vanity, her work had already been published by Stieglitz in Camera Work in 1913 for instance). But he did make the crucial observation that being a great photographer is not the same thing as being an influential photographer, as their contemporaries may either not appreciate their work or simply not have heard of them (he puts Hill & Adamson in the same category BTW). I amended the Cunningham quote to reinforce this, since it shows that even a great fan of Cameron only became aware of her in retrospect - Cameron is popular now because her close-cropped style became fashionable from around the mid-20th century, but her influence skipped a few of generations of photographers in between, basically she was a 100 years ahead of her time! Samatarou (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

'Out-of-focus' or 'selective focus'?

Samatarou is right to draw the distinction between soft focus and out of focus, but neither term describes her technique effectively; much of Cameron's work uses selective focus. This is especially evident from the summer of 1865 when she started using a larger camera, with 15x12 inch glass plates producing images such as The return after three days of that year and then early in 1866 switching to a larger format still for Summer Days (a big group including May Prinsep, Freddy Gould, Lizzie Koewen, Mary Ryan), dated 1866-1870. Even contact printed, the depth of field with such a format is but a razor's edge and requires much more precise operation than is credited to Cameron by most commentators (most of whom have not tried it for themselves). Focus has to be placed 'here' or 'there' but can't be 'all-over'. Both The Return and Summer Days are sharp, but very selectively, and in examples like Prayer and Praise (1865) the forward tilt of the camera produces sharpness at several, very strategic, points in depth; lips, nose and one closed eye of the Christ child in the foreground and just the eyes of 'Mary' and 'Joseph' in the background at top of frame. That image reveals a highly sophisticated use of focus we see rarely repeated by her peers. It might even have been achieved by titling the lens panel...if her camera was designed that way. We don't know because a difficulty preventing deeper analysis of her technique is that none of Cameron’s cameras survive and the only lens to come down to us is her first, a 'Jamin', made in Paris a Petzval type made specifically for 'soft-focus' portraiture with a severe curvature of field and used for the earlier glass plates approximately 12 x 10 inch (31 x 25.4 cm). It is between usually very sharp areas of focus that the 'roundness of form' that Cameron loved is given expression.
The article needs added a knowledgeable section on the technique of this hugely important artist which she quite evidently warrants and which I hope comes out of this peer review...the term 'soft focus' does her an injustice. Jamesmcardle^(talk) 05:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamesmcardle, from what I recall, this part of her technique was referred to as "soft focus" or "out of focus" much more often than "selective focus" in the reliable sources I've used. That said, you make a good point that the type of focus that she uses might more precisely be described as "selective" and that this distinction may be useful for readers. Her technique overall may deserve more coverage; it is addressed in the article, but it is scattered across several sections. I will have these concerns in mind during the peer review and will look for how this is handled by reliable sources. Thanks for your comments. Qono (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Qono There is a reason why contemporary sources describe Cameron's focus as 'out-of-focus', and some later ones 'soft focus'; the term ‘selective focus’ was not in use in Cameron’s time; the earliest mention of the phrase that I can find is 1911, well after her death, in Volume 5, Page 530 of Camera Club of New York; Boston Photo-Clan; Photo-Pictorialists of Buffalo (Society) (1907), American photography, American Photographic Pub. Co.], ISSN 0097-577X

Here are some reliable sources that use the term in relation to Cameron's technique which may be useful in the peer review and in creating a specific section in the article (underlinings are mine):

“During the 1860s, Julia Margaret Cameron's images helped to establish the issue of selective focus as a criterion of peerless practice. The making of “out-of-focus" images was considered an expressive remedy that shifted the artificial, machine-focus of a camera toward a more natural vision. Cameron considered focusing to be a fluid process during which she would stop when something looked beautiful to her eye.”

“Had she been dissatisfied with the indeterminate, selective focus; that she settled upon, she could certainly have modified her equipment or sought an alter native method of working, but her choice was very consciously made.” In the same text there is a discussion of the standard sliding-box camera that Cameron used, the size of her early glass plates (approximately twelve by ten inches) and the qualities of focus of the fixed aperture (f3.6) French-made Jamin lens of Petzval construction of approximately twelve inch focal length, only the centre portion of which was sharp.

“Her portraits are not presented the way our eye sees. The selective focus allows Cameron to direct the viewer’s eye where she wants emphasis, and also reminds us that we are not looking at “real life.” This is a constructed performance. The shallow focus along with the spots, scratches, marks, chemical stains, and other “imperfections” of the print make a viewer unable to look “through” the performance to see only [the sitter].” “Mary Mother [1867] displays Cameron’s characteristic selective focus, a technique that was controversial at the time. The image directs your gaze to linger on the light on her forehead, her profile, her right eye. In order to command such control of the viewer’s gaze, Cameron used techniques that were the opposite of how commercial portrait photographers of the time worked, which was to let in as much light as possible from all directions to reduce the amount of time subjects would have to remain still. So much light, according to Colin Ford, “flattened the sitters’ features and in effect ‘smoothed out’ their characters” (46). One can imagine that a paying customer who wanted a likeness of herself would be reluctant to be still for the amount of time it took [and] the paying customer would not have been interested in an image like the one above. Mary Mother is a performance, not a likeness. Flat light is “photographic”; it merely records what is in front of the lens.”

Susan Kismaric briefly describes a Cameron work with the term ‘selective focus’ on p.73 of Butler, Cornelia H; Schwartz, Alexandra; Museum of Modern Art (New York, N.Y.) (2010), Modern women : women artists at the Museum of Modern Art, Museum of Modern Art : Distributed in the United States and Canada by D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers, ISBN 978-0-87070-771-1

“Because her work was intended to achieve pictorial effect, Mrs. Cameron naturally adapted the photographic technology of her day to that end. Sharp focus was less useful to her than differential, or selective, focus because she sought spiritual meaning rather than particular information from her subjects. Her model was the same as that of Watts : Titian. Cameron's friend Sir Henry Taylor (fols. 4v, 5r, 9r, 25r, 29v) described Titian's method in one of his plays, St. Clement's Eve (1862)”Jamesmcardle^(talk) 11:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Did Cameron herself say anything about using selective focus (however described)? The most noted proponent of selective focus is surely Emerson who built a philosophy of photography on the principle. It would be interesting to know if Cameron, whose work predated his by about 20 years, anticipated his ideas. Samatarou (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe she did, in her talk of 'screwing on' the lens, but lacked the language. Various interpretations of that expression have been made, but not often by those who have actually used large format at full aperture. Her choice of making 'life-size' portraits (as she truthfully described them), when few others would dare, means she was making 1:1 close-ups, and any photographer knows what that means for extremes of shallow focus. So her talk of focussing ('screwing on') the lens till she reaches a satisfactory point is analogous to the action of focussing a microscope on a 3D specimen as the sharpness glides over its contours. She gets one eye in focus, but not the other, picks out the contour of the cheek, the line of the nose; significant, emblematic elements of the human visage are isolated. Her imagery, her oft-mentioned focus, is by definition 'selective' - there's no other word for it. Very few of her pictures are 'out-of-focus' everywhere (only when she prints through the back of the plate), but all (even those, in the negative) are sharp somewhere, even when her long-suffering subject dares to breath during her interminable exposure times Jamesmcardle^(talk) 06:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should the infobox use the original photograph of Cameron or a version modified by a Wikipedia editor?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus to use the restored version of the photograph. One of the arguments against this is the claim that it is original research, but the original research policy explicitly states, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy." As pointed out by those favoring the restored version, no one has made a case that Adam Cuerden's restoration does present unpublished arguments. Besides that policy, there is no other policy or guideline that I'm aware of that would potentially be relevant to this discussion, however, a clear majority of editors do favor the restored version. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the image of Julia Margaret Cameron used in the infobox be the original print as reproduced by The Metropolitan Museum of Art or a modified version that has been altered by a Wikipedia editor who has cropped the original, removed spots, increased contrast, and modified the color? Qono (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: The photograph is not by Cameron. People seem to be in a lot of confusion about this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 22:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

NOTE about WP:CANVASSING (Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification/Campaigning): Adam Cuerden made these following posts about the RfC immediately after their vote/comments at 22:31, 27 March 2021 [1]. This happened after Pincrete's !vote when the straight vote count was 9 for Original and 4 for Restoration. Judge the diffs for yourself.

[2] at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Given_there's_an_RFC_about_making_my_work_on_Wikipedia_forbidden_to_be_used_on_Wikipedia,_I'm_out_for_a_while.

[3] at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#I'm_out

[4] at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#I_think_we'll_be_ready_tomorrow

[5] at Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup#I'm_out,_thank_you

[6] at User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#Too_far_gone? Some1 (talk)

FURTHER NOTE about WP:CANVASSING (Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification/Campaigning): Qono, who started this RfC, made the following posts about the RfC immediately after opening it.

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

As a result, the first few comments are overwhelmingly in support of the "Original". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Also relevant User_talk:Cwmhiraeth#March_2021 and User_talk:Qono#Julia_Margaret_Cameron. Of the six diffs you listed (to users: CharlotteM85, Michael Goodyear, Milliabb, AKeen, Vcolsen, SusanLesch), only two have actually voted (Michael Goodyear and Akeen). And the notifications from Quono don't seem problematic or non-neutral; those users seem to have been chosen because they were "someone who has contributed substantially to this article" according to their talk page messages. This falls under Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification.

The five comments from Adam Cuerden though were obviously non-neutral: [13][14][15][16][17]. A minute after Adam Cuerden's comment in the RfC at 22:31, 27 March 2021, they made those five Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notifications between 22:32 - 22:56, 27 March 2021. Then 11 "Restoration" votes came pouring in between 22:40, 27 March 2021‎ and 00:30, 28 March 2021‎. As of 13:00, 28 March 2021, there are 16 "Restoration" votes which came after those Adam Cuerden notifications. Some1 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Original. The alteration by Wikipedia editors of an original work of art as digitized and published by reliable, authoritative sources is a type of original research. These restorations can be valuable, but in the context of the visual arts it is best to use a reproduction (or restoration) as presented by a museum or other authoritative source, not a special version created by a Wikipedia editor. In this context, an editor retouching an artwork might be like an editor "fixing" what they perceive as grammar mistakes when quoting a poem that uses creative phrasing or formatting. It's an unencylopedic intervention. We should leave the difficult business of modifying creative works while retaining the artist's original intent to professionals publishing their work in authoritative sources. Qono (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This is the perfect article for this discussion, as Cameron herself was criticized for her unretouched prints and use of soft focus. The article quotes a particularly scathing criticism of her work from The Photographic News: "Smudged, torn, dirty, undefined, and in some cases almost unreadable, there is hardly one of them that ought not to have been washed off the plate as soon as it appeared". Though this discussion is meant to focus on the infobox image of Cameron, which is by her son, one might ask: what level or type of retouching of Cameron's photographs would be acceptable? Qono (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Qono: Well, that's a bit of a red herring, given the photo isn't by her. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Original - I agree with Qono's points above. The purpose of images on an artist's page is to show the artist's work as it appears, and I believe that using the original is the only way to do this. - AKeen (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @AKeen: The photograph isn't by her. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Original - we are obliged to be authentic, not artistic. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Original Opinions on whether which version is more "visually appealing" or "superior" are subjective; the modified version is not superior IMHO. Not every old portrait or photograph has to be modified to be darker and black-and-white-ish. Any editor could choose an old artwork or photograph on Wikipedia and modify it to their own liking, but that's not the original artwork as intended by the author. The fact that Cameron preferred "softly focused and unrefined images" might indicate that she prefers the original version. And if people are reading the caption Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron, readers expect to see the original portrait by her son, not some modified version from a Wikipedia editor [18][19]. The status quo is the original version and if consensus is to use the restored version, then the caption needs to explicitly state that it's a restored version as to not mislead readers. Some1 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC) expanding on my !vote, Some1 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Some1: The photo isn't by Cameron. Qono misframed the issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Could you explain how "Qono misframed the issue"? Anyway, the caption states Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron. If we are using the Restoration version, then the caption needs to clearly indicate that it's a Restoration or readers will be misled into thinking that the Adam Cuerden Restoration version is the original "1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron" [20][21]. Some1 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Original is more authentic.--Droid I am (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration - superior quality, visually appealing, and it doesn't cause the subject to be misrepresented. The restored photograph met the criteria for a featured picture, and what is described as WP:OR, is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive...typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. MOS recommends that we use the best quality images available, and the restoration is by far superior quality. I believe the restoration is what our readers would expect to see, when you compare the two photos side by side. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration - as per Isaidnoway. The fact that she favoured creating "softly focused and unrefined images" is irrelevant to the desire of our readers to see depicted the best available image of her. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Original per QonoSea Ane (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration - I think the claims of "modifying a creative work" are exaggerated. Colour-correcting a photograph in a way that probably better resembles its initial state is not "modifying a creative work". Nor is cropping it, which happens on every Wikipedia page that has photographs. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Original - I don't think the issue with the restoration is an issue of original research, but I think for a historical portrait we should value authenticity over what some editors subjectively view to be visual enhancements of the image. I'm not even convinced the darker, restored photo is more visually appealing, but I don't think that's what's important here. Volteer1 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Original for both historic reasons, and because the "new and improved" is actually very dark on some devices, so not really an improvement across the board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Original per above. ~ HAL333 16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration - for reasons detailed by Isaidnoway. The article is about a person, not an artistic work or body of work. The 'authenticity' arguments have no weight in this context - since we are not obliged to represent the person in a manner that reflects their style, rather simply the clearest likeness of the subject. Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration: Seriously, the photo ISN'T EVEN BY CAMERON. All the talk about her decisions in her own photos are completely irrelevant, and a distraction. But, hey, what do I know, I only have 536 featured pictures over my career which began in 2008 or so. Clearly I know nothing about what I'm doing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 22:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration: We have and make improved versions of photos all the time for the purposes of having improved images for articles. Also, this work isn't even by her, so most of the above "Original" votes should be discarded as not making a valid argument regarding the subject's creative works. Silverseren^C 22:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Editors are free to prefer the Original artwork by her son (as the caption states Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron) over the restoration. Not everyone thinks the restoration is better. Some1 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Of course they are free to have that preference, but several did not give it as their rationale. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration: Restored photos are accepted during featured article reviews: for example File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg, also restored by Adam, is the lead image on Carl Nielsen. An institution is concerned with providing accurate images of what is in its collection, which is completely different from providing the best possible representation of the subject of an image for a Wikipedia article, so restricting ourselves to the institution's image is not appropriate. --Mirokado (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration. This is an article about Cameron, not about the effects of photographic processes and time on photo reproduction quality. It is more important to clearly portray Cameron than to show what someone else's photo of her now looks like as a physical object. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration. The point of this image is not to demonstrate her style or her son’s style; it’s to identify her. The restoration does a superior job at that. This really is standard practice. Compare this original photo of Lucy Diggs Slowe with the restored version The New York Times ran. There’s a conversation to be had about where the boundaries lay, but of as Isaidnoway points out, we already have a body of guidance, and appropriately, it’s considerably more nuanced than straight up-or-down on photo editing—as with editing text, I’d point out. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)restoration - if we start suggesting that we shouldn't use the fixed up image, then we should just chuck the whole featured pictures process in the bin. Not only are these types of touch ups normal, we are attempting to show the subject of the image, not what the image itself looked like. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration as per many of the good points above, the photograph is not her work, and it has been restored to better illustrate her as the subject of that image. Smirkybec (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration - per User:PraiseVivec the restoration is more likely to reflect the *original* photo than the beat-up, so-called "original", but that's not even a major consideration. In this context, we simply want the best image which is obviously the restoration. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration How is this even a question? Restored images aren't some new edits to originals; good restorers clear up faults that come from e.g. weathering. The RfC opener seems to misunderstand image restoration, and by making mention both that the subject was at the center of restoration controversy, and that the restoration was by a WP editor specifically (as if that holds less value than an outside restoration), is clearly trying to sway votes, seemingly unaware that many images on Commons have been touched-up to be clearer and of higher quality and this is one of the best. Kingsif (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration per David Eppstein, mostly. I was pinged here, yes, but it's how I'd !vote regardless. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration I agree with the rational of Kingsif, Smirkybec, and Smallbones. The infobox image should include the highest resolution and quality image of the subject that is possible (freely licensed). This restoration is not an inaccurate portrayal of Cameron. TJMSmith (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration: as others have stated, the question in the section header is simply a false premise as neither option is "the original photograph". One is the physical photograph 150 years into its natural degradation, and another is a close approximation of what the original looked like. The purpose of the image is to reflect the subject, so the restoration is better on that count. If authenticity with respect to the son's art is the aim then, as neither is a physical photo but a digital image, then again the restoration is better. No "original research" has taken place as the only changes are uncontroversial within the field. — Bilorv (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration, per the arguments above. There is only one certain thing on wikipedia, which is that if you do a lot of work, someone will come along and dump on you. I note the bleat about canvassing: this is an RfC, which should seek as wide an input as possible, rather than being a dark alley for beating someone up amongst friends. There is a world of difference between being made aware of an RfC and canvassing; the argument that "the vote was going my way before the fact of this RfC became widely known" is as pathetic as it is unpersuasive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration I agree with most of the people that are saying here as it's better to have a clearer picture that was something like how it was originally meat to be taken and not been weathered up via up some time. If we are removing these restoration than why do we have the Featured Picture section is beyond me. HawkAussie (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration: The purpose of the infobox photo is to show what she looked like, not to illustrate her son's technique, and this is better achieved by the restored image. PamD 06:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration: shows the subject of the article much more clearly. Unless we are required distribute paper copies of the original for complete authenticity? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration: To use the original is to assume every user has the same browser size and clarity, or the same operating system. We should make these images the best quality possible for all users to access. — Maile (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration as per the many sensible comments above. The photo is being used to illustrate an article about the photo's subject, not the photographer's work. Better image clarity benefits all users visiting the article. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration: I can't see why restoration is not considered helpful. We should strive for the best possible versions of historic images.--Ipigott (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration. Cautious restoration like this upon digitizing is standard at historical photo archives, which I've worked at and done it myself. It's a Featured Picture for a reason. The restoration was done well. You can always argue it could be done better still, but there is no problem with using a restored photograph per se. While I agree that it is preferable to use a restoration done by a professional, that should not be the standard. We're a free content encyclopedia by volunteers and the starting point is that content is created by us volunteers for free. I do not agree that there is a WP:OR problem here. This is equivalent to a volunteer writing a Wikipedia article based on professional sources (i.e. how 99% of content is made) vs. a professional writing a Wikipedia article based on such sources (welcomed, but in practice rare and not the backbone of our encyclopedia). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration PamD says it best: this is about what Cameron looked like, not about the artistic merits of the original document. (Were it about the latter I would still vote "restoration", but my rationale would be more nuanced - frankly in this instance I don't even see why it should be a question in the first place.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Original as it is presumably closer in fidelity to the original photo. But let's bear in mind that both the Met's and Adam Cuerden's photo are both digital interpretations of the original. Jpeg did not even exist as a format until 1992, according to our article. I would be very curious to see with mine own eyes what the original looks like. I have a mind to email the curator there and ask if their print is actually, that yellowed, how they scanned it, is it a print or a negative and so on.--- Possibly (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked up the Met's photo curatorial department and was about to email them to tell them about this thread, but didn't as I was not sure if it would be canvassing. Anyway, here it is. Email format is supposed to be first.last@metmuseum.org --- Possibly (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Restoration. The purpose of the image at the top of the page is to provide a clear image to the reader. Touching up images to make them clearer makes Wikipedia a better and more welcoming encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art museum. Thriley (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Restoration The improvements do not alter the photo in a way that would mislead the reader. The photo accurately reflects who the person was, it just looks better than the original. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.