Reason

Historic photograph of the Taj Mahal from an unusual angle. Samuel Bourne, one of the earliest photographers of British India, lived and photographed widely in India from 1863 to 1869. Along with Charles Shepherd, one of the pioneers of albumin printing, he founded the Bourne and Shephard studios in Simla, Calcutta, and Bombay. The studios continues to operate in Calcutta (Kolkata) today. Note that the river today does not flow as close to the Taj; from this angle today all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." (See third photo, for comparison.) (See: Sampson, Gary D. 2000. "Photographer of the Picturesque: Samuel Bourne," in Vidya Deheja (ed.), India through the Lens. Photography 1840-1911. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 163-197. Also, Gordon, Sophie. 2000. The Imperial Gaze. The Photography of Samuel Bourne (1863-1870). New York, Sepia International.)

Articles this image appears in

potentially India and Taj Mahal

Creator

Samuel Bourne

• Support as nominator — Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Weak Support One of the precious and historical photographs. Low Resolution should not be considered as factor due to historical significance as per Point 2 of Featured pictures criteria. I will prefer copyright issues to be resolved without any ambiguity. Collect Britain web page give hints that it could be copyrighted--Indianstar 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may need to be sorted out at the Wikipedia Powers-that-be Level. See discussion here for similar problems at Getty Museum I don't know if the Morven there is the Morven of Wikipedia, but I'll ask him. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Awful photograph! But they say it is copyrighted. Bad that a photo 147 years old should still be copyrighted. How did you remove that copyright tag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.39 (talk • contribs). at 03:04, 4 June 2007

I downloaded it in November 2005, when there was no British Library tag on it! I don't think they are copyrighted. All they have done is to scan a Bourne image. In 2006, I wrote to BL asking them if I could put the picture on Wikipedia, but they never replied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I can't imagine it could be copyrighted, since there were many prints made and sold by Bourne and Shephard Studios in the 19th century, and the British Library has only one of those prints (from which it made the scans). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support A great picture. --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - bad compression artifacts (49k file!) A better scan might succeed. Debivort 06:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize that in cleaning up the picture, I compressed it further. I have now included the original scanned version with the orginal marks and blemishes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Super strong SUPPORT: It is an excellent detailed picture of the historical Taj Mahal (one of the seven wonders of the world). Also, instead of the usual front view of the architectural structure, it shows a different yet equally amazing view of the marvelous building. Also, in terms of imagery, it has a good resolution and everything else. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What wonders would that be?--Svetovid 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by your comment? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He probably was noting that the Taj Mahal is not one of the definitive seven wonders of the ancient world: the Pyramid of Giza, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Temple of Artemis, Statue of Zeus, tomb of Mausolus, Colossus of Rhodes, and Lighthouse of Alexandria. J Are you green? 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not one of the seven ancient wonders (and it can't be one either because it was built around the sixteenth century, which is way after what ancient is), but it is one of the seven tourist travel wonders of the world. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard that one, but I doubt a difinitive list of ultimate tourist destinations exists, and if it does, my guess is that it's a gimmick. J Are you green? 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - cant see anything special in this photograph except that its claimed to be very old. And the 'historic' pitch is moot because this photo doesnt show anything about the Taj that we cant see today. Sarvagnya 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What is special about this picture is that it shows a different yet equally beautiful view of the Taj, one that is different from the normal cliched one. Also, in this view, the picture is taken from a distance which also reveals the beauty of the nature (e.g. the river, soil, etc.) around the Taj while still succeeding in maintaining the focus on the Taj. Also, its historical value should be appreciated. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 12:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose *weak supportprobably a low quality digitization of the original, and actual building hasn't been destroyed, damaged or changed much since this photograph was taken Bleh999 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to weak support of edit .02 in light of the information about the river, also I removed the color image of the taj mahal, because it's not a fair comparisonBleh999 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The river doesn't flow as close to the Taj any more. From this angle today, all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." See third photograph above for comparison. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An unnecessarily poor version of a beautiful photograph. At first I thought the worst of it was the fogged upper half of the original print, but the scan is just too small to proprly appreciate the image in almost any respect. You get an idea of the exquisite detail of the original print here, where the "zoom" facility lets you see a small portion at a time of what appears to be the print at 100%. Stunning. The below-par submission here should not be promoted without a proper attempt to acquire a better scan. mikaul^talk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until a better version is uploaded. I'd be happy to attempt to contact the source and get hold of it, assuming no-one has recently done so of course. mikaul^talk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent, fingers crossed, chances fat :/ mikaul^talk 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just received a reply promising a decision by next Tuesday. mikaul^talk 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Have my fingers crossed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...did you hear back? Jumping cheese 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mick Stephenson did hear from them. He is currently talking to the BL people to work some kind of an arrangement for the image. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of arrangement? Mike is not gonna have to pay for them to scan a high res copy is he? The license seems alright, so I'm assuming you don't need permission to use a high res version. Jumping cheese 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Neutral about the candidacy, but the OR about the changing distance between Yamuna and the Taj Mahal doesn't make much sense given the overwhelming temporal non-uniformness of precipitation in the Indian subcontinent -- On an average 90-odd days of flood and practically no rain for the remaining 275 days in the year. If you go there often in different seasons, you'll know that the "distance" depends upon the time of the year. A good rain for a couple of days, that the river comes all the way on the Taj. deeptrivia (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The quality of the picture (both the photograph and this version) is just not good enough. Sure it's old, and what can you expect, but I don't think this should be featured. Althepal 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose low res scan of old picture does not make a featured picture. Stefan 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting for the high res version. See Mick Stephenson's (Mikaul) post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In all fairness, I think we've waited long enough and I think this nom ought to be closed. Mikaul should re-nom it if and whewhen he is able to get permission for the hi res version. Sarvagnya 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that, assuming the original nominator is too. I had hoped to have a result by now, but these things seem to take time :o/ mikaul^talk 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not OK with it. Mick Stephenson (Mikaul), a professional photographer, has made a big effort to talk to the people at British Library. There is no reason why we can't wait, since Mick's chances of success are quite good, and his effort promises other bounties for Wikipedia. Besides the wait doesn't involve any active effort on anyone else's part. Mick can certainly take over as the nominator when the high res image arrives, but I'd prefer to have the history of the nomination in one place rather than two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT - an excellent picture considering the time the pic was taken.. dtj 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be closed, anyway we have this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sambourneagra1860s.jpg on commons, which is a much higher resolution and better photo of the Taj Mahal by Samuel Bourne even if it doesn't show the river, the related problem is that this image doesn't even appear in any articles Bleh999 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: The reason why it hadn't been added to the Taj Mahal page and the Samuel Bourne page is that I was waiting for the better version from Mick. I have now added the image to both pages. As for the other image, the reason why we are waiting for Mick to get the high-res version is that it is much better (both in composition and resolution) than the image you mention above. I wonder if Mick has any comments. Did you hear anything else from BL, Mick? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to prejudice anything, but the British Library have made noises to the effect that they might be "interested in working with Wikipedia" with regard to some of their photographic collection(s). Release of a high-res version of the Bourne image, which was my original line of inquiry, is kind of tied up in these negotiations, which in turn have been hampered somewhat by the BL's need to do things by conventional mail. I'm still on the case, as it were, and optimistic though I am, it will probably take a while longer before I can shed any light on the Bourne image. If/when we get a suitable license, I'm hopeful it will open up access to more quality historical images, so it's kind of worth being patient a little while longer. mikaul^talk 09:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital images and snail mail! Now there's a new one, but par for the course for libraries, who (it seems) have been dragged kicking and screaming into internet age. Thanks for pursuing this, Mick. I know it is slow and frustrating work, but as you said yourself somewhere, the payoff could be substantial. As for this nomination, I'm happy to wait; if, however, at any time in the future, you feel that the nomination is "stuck" and it is time to pull the plug, please let us know. You are pretty much calling the shots on this. Thanks again, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In short: this is not WP's best. Puddyglum 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Why are we using an old black and white from the 1800s? Isn't the Taj Mahal still standing? --ffroth 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the nom, and the additional image uploaded to illustrate. The river no longer runs alongside. I actually think it has wider enc value, but it looks as if it'll have to wait until a future nomination anyway. I'm still hopeful of a high res version but if nothing transpires by the end of next week I'm going to suggest a close on this one, it's been around way too long. --mikaul^talk 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw the nomination Since I heard from Mick Stephenson that the British Library is not coming through on this, in spite of his more than a dozen attempts (see here), I am now formally withdrawing the nomination. I am sure other lovers of the Bourne image will agree that Mick has done a stalwart job and deserves our collective thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]