Talk:Oregonian Building

Lead image

@SJ Morg I disagree with your conclusion the 1899 photo is of inferior quality to the previous (and current) 1912 one. In the 1899 photo, you can clearly count the number of eaves, see text drawn on windows, and see the spokes of wheels at street level. The clock tower is out of focus yet still renders more details than the upscaled black and white 1912 photo. Recommend looking again or seeking more opinions. OceanLoop (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I, too, would welcome more opinions. Although it's true that the 1899 photo has better detail, it is – as I wrote in an edit summary – very washed-out and distorted (attempts to "correct" perspective distortion often produce results that look less natural, as in this case), making it less attractive overall, in my opinion. Personally, I'd be OK with having both images in the article, but I still feel that the circa 1912 photo would be better than the 1899 one as the lead image. I don't think the majority of those reading the article ever click on the photo, and at the relatively small size of reproduction in the infobox, the circa 1912 still looks better. SJ Morg (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I do see your point about the distortion; however the upscaling and/or scan artifacts in the 1912 photo are even more distracting. Of course this is all subjective matter of taste. Let me look around for a third image option, else we can revert to the 1912 photo and possibly include the 1899 photo below, where readers are more likely to enlarge it, as you had suggested. Thank you. OceanLoop (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of these options? Personally, I like the first:

1. https://oregondigital.org/concern/images/df71fs51n
2. https://oregondigital.org/concern/images/df71g721s
3. https://oregondigital.org/concern/images/df71g6323

They are marked as In Copyright, but that may be in error given their publication date - curious to hear your thoughts. OceanLoop (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Although those are some good photos, I won't compare and offer an opinion on which is best, because all of those are ineligible for Commons unless you can find clear evidence that they have have been published (name of publication, author or editor, date of publication, etc.). The pages to which you link say nothing about their ever being published. Being in a publicly accessible archive does not constitute "publication". SJ Morg (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

After taking a moment to look at my personal files of (found online) photos of this building, I was reminded that the first one in your list – https://oregondigital.org/concern/images/df71fs51n – is actually a high-resolution version of the very photo that had been the lead image here for years, was uploaded by me 11 years ago, and we do know was published in 1914, so should be in the public domain. I don't know whether copyright can be applied to a higher-resolution version of a photo that was published long before copyrighting was possible, but I would imagine it is not. SJ Morg (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It does indeed look like the same photo, but with some minor alterations (the crowds and building top is different) - quite odd. I have put back the original one until the higher version one is added to Commons. OceanLoop (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. It was also altered (for the 1914 book) to remove the large banner for Friedman's Clothes Shop at one doorway: "Must be sold; doors close forever". SJ Morg (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)