Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Abraham Bogardus

Abraham Bogardus

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2025 at 14:27:07 (UTC)

Reason: Another in my occasional series of "photographs of photographers". We've featured a few examples of Bogardus' work, and it seems only fitting to provide a bit more about the creator. Article will need some improvement before it goes on the main page, but mainly turning a list of refs into ref tags.
Articles in which this image appears: Abraham Bogardus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Abraham Bogardus, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionStar (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Shouldn't it be cropped? The frame seems unnecessary ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added a CSS crop to the image in the article it appears in. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the caption in the article says, that's a facsimile of his signature. Since this is a self-portrait, I don't quite see why it should be changed. (Or where you got that date you're assigning the photo in the article. Why did you put it as 1857 instead of 1871?) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The frame should be cropped if it not contemporaneous. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Pretty sure it is contemporary, though: It more-or-less matches other works from his studio and exactly matches other copies of the image. That leads to only two options: 1. This is how Bogardus planned to display his photo (which I'd say is the most likely) or 2. This is from some unknown book that got photographs taken out of it, which is just about possible, though I can't imagine a non-contemporaneous book that would include Bogardus as an albumen print pasted to a paper mount. Albumen prints weren't really used after 1900, and you don't normally see albumen prints pasted into books. Maybe certain very low quantity editions, but I'd expect something more like Men of Mark's Woodburytypes by this point (e.g. File:Tom Taylor by Lock and Whitfield.jpg). It is weirdly centred in the original, I'll grant that, but the mount appears to be a card mount if you check the damage at the edge of the card, which makes book less likely. Actual print size is about cabinet card, although the mount's a little larger than standard.

But I think the biggest thing is there's multiple copies. That makes it much less likely this was a one-off mount. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; frame should stay then. I've tidied up the article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp, Yann, TheFreeWorld, ArionStar, Howardcorn33, and VulcanSphere: Just noting I found a minor mistake: the pocket in te lower left was surrounded by heavy damage and was similar enough to some definite damage elsewhere that I had removed it. It was more obviously real in the copy and also appears in the other shot from the same photoshoot, File:Abraham_Bogardus01.jpg. I've restored it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No worry, I did a successful delicate "surgery" on it! ArionStar (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean, sorry. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 12:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Successful delicate surgery = Thorough, careful work. ArionStar (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good restoration, respectful of the original, non-destructive, high EV Wilfredor (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]