Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Meninas 2

Las Meninas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 00:43:32 (UTC)

Original – Las Meninas, a 1656 painting by Diego Velázquez, the leading artist of the Spanish Golden Age. The work's complex and enigmatic composition raises questions about reality and illusion, and creates an uncertain relationship between the viewer and the figures depicted.

Reason: The image is of an impressive high quality. A different version of the file was promoted to featured status sometime ago, but it was removed shortly after.
Articles in which this image appears: Las Meninas
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: The Prado in Google Earth

Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ~~previous~~prior discussion. The Google Art image was not substituted for the previous FP because it is too dark. The contents of the two paintings high on the back wall are supposed to be visible, and they are not in this reproduction. This is one of the most-discussed paintings in academic art history as well as outside of it. We should absolutely feature a first-rate reproduction of it. This isn't it, though. I also don't think an edit would help (I have fiddled with it myself); this was not properly lit when the photograph was taken. Chick Bowen 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the last discussion was this one, where a new nom was recommended :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. Chick Bowen 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that when Google made a 2.1 gigapixel image of this painting at 394 dpi that they didn't take into CAREFUL consideration the coloring and lighting of the painting. It appears to be intentionally dark, photographs of it in the gallery File:Fale - Spain - Madrid - 75.jpg show it being dark, that picture is very overexposed and still it's very dark, and has a reflection across it from the angle. It's MORE Likely people have always brightened up the images of it artificially to make a better photograph canceling out the artists intent of the background being very dark. The darkness of the background is VERY likely to be intentionally because of the mirror in the background so it would clearly stand out by it's contrast in the dark space. Even the image used by say this video review of the painting shows it very dark. This article on the painting talks about the dark ceiling and darkened background being used to highlight the figures. So what sources are you using to say that this image is not an accurate representation of the actual painting? — raeky t 23:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~<Sigh>. I do rather feel we've been over this before.~~ The human eye has a far greater dynamic range than a photograph. When you are in a gallery you can see the details of the painting even if it is not brightly lit. In order to be able to see the details in a reproduction (which you need to do, for example, if you're teaching the painting, as I have done many times), you need to brighten it. In this sense, there is no such thing as an accurate reproduction--any reproduction will require a choice between making it dark enough to look good or bright enough to see the details. Google has erred on the dark side because they think it's more aesthetically pleasing and because (I believe) it makes wear to the painting less obvious. I believe that is the wrong choice. Chick Bowen 02:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the points made by both of you. I am able to edit the picture, as I understand how photography works. Disclaimer: I have never worked with painting before, so please don't kill me if I make a mess :) As my internet connection is somewhat low, the edited version won't have 250MB of size, and it will be impossible for me to upload such a file. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then don't bother, to get my support on an edit you'd also have to upload the split version for full resolution AND include a loss-less version of your edit (PNG or TIFF) which would be A LOT larger than the JPEG. Plus lightening it in photoshop won't bring out anymore detail that Chick Bowen wants, it would need to be done at creation of the image or from the original RAW files if they exist. If it's just a matter of someone tweaking the brightness setting in an image editor anyone can do that on their end if they wanted it lighter for a presentation. — raeky t 02:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then I'd better leave it as it is. Too much work I'm unable to do. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I agree with Raeky about this; it would require different lighting in the first place. Incidentally I regret the snide part of what I said above and have crossed it out. Chick Bowen 03:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]