Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joseph Huddart
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2011 at 19:03:55 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality reproduction of an work of art, which is both useful to illustrate the subject and the style/technique. Very few Chinese reverse glass paintings with identifiable subjects exist, and this one is unusual in that it depicts a westerner and is relatively large.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Joseph Huddart, Reverse glass painting.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art
- Creator
- Anonymous. Traditionally attributed to Guan Zuolin of Macao. Photograph by an employee of Bonhams.
Support as nominator --Xijky (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Stricken because user blocked as sock puppet, per MuZemike below. Pinetalk 08:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)- Oppose The image is littered with spots and I'm not convinced all of them are actually part of the painting. Also, somewhere along the line it suffered fairly high jpg compression. It's a nice image to be sure, but the quality seems not that high. Is there possibly an original image down the line that can be had that doesn't have these problems? JBarta (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- The white spots you can see are places where there is damage to the paint. Black spots are essentially dirt. I could photoshop them out, but it would be a less accurate reproduction of the surface of the painting. What makes you think it has been compressed ? I can't see any compression artifacts at full resolution. The unsharpness of the image is a reflection of the way it was painted. --Xijky (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Zoom in a little and the telltale jpg squares are very pronounced. Excessive jpg compression is needless and permanent destruction of fine image detail. As I think about it, it may also account for some of those spots seeming so pronounced. JBarta (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're right - there is some compression. I'm not sure how much it deprecates the original picture at normal viewing resolution (as opposed to 200-400%). --Xijky (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Zoom in a little and the telltale jpg squares are very pronounced. Excessive jpg compression is needless and permanent destruction of fine image detail. As I think about it, it may also account for some of those spots seeming so pronounced. JBarta (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- The white spots you can see are places where there is damage to the paint. Black spots are essentially dirt. I could photoshop them out, but it would be a less accurate reproduction of the surface of the painting. What makes you think it has been compressed ? I can't see any compression artifacts at full resolution. The unsharpness of the image is a reflection of the way it was painted. --Xijky (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per JBarta. Pinetalk 09:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Dirt is original to picture; there is no jpeg artifacting at 100%. 99 out of 100 people will never zoom in farther, making visible artifacting at 200% irrelevant. Clegs (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Administrator note Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet of banned user User:Claritas; suggest fail and speedy close of this FPC. –MuZemike 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would go ahead with the speedy fail if this had no support, but with the one supporting vote I see no harm in letting the clock run out as normal. However, I will invalidate the nom's vote. Pinetalk 08:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support While JPEG quality is indeed lower than our usual, and a slight green cast present, the image scores high on EV and does not seem easily replaceable. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)