Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Whistlejacket

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2013 at 11:08:14 (UTC)

Original – Whistlejacket

ALT – A very small amount of canvas restored digitally

Reason: Good quality and high EV notwithstanding a tight crop on the left
Articles in which this image appears: Whistlejacket, Horses in art, 1762 in art
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: George Stubbs

Support as nominator --Nikhil (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
question The colour goes right up to the left hand edge in places. Does the original crop that tightly?Geni (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that is the case, looking at the file history and also at this link.Nikhil (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm yes in fact looking at the darkening on the upper left edge and the bottem left courner I can't help wondering if the original canvas was damaged in some way.Geni (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't believe that The National Gallery would screw up the crop so badly as the presumption that the crop was screwed up would imply. It's probably one of those things where, if seen in its original context, it would make more sense (or that it was cropped with a saw at some point for some reason). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The Beeb shows it in its frame to be like this, so I think this is an accurate representation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support goes for ALT as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. That sorts it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 07:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very striking; excellent candidate. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ but is there anyway that there could be more space between the tail and the edge of the photo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, may be if people like Adam Cuerden and Crisco 1492, who are very good at restoration, could help us on this :).Nikhil (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable to add fake parts to a painting. Well ... maybe if it is certain that the picture was originally bigger, and the exact original dimensions are known, and it is certain that there was nothing in that part other than continuation of the same flat green colour, and the picture is accompanied by some big disclaimers explaining the reconstruction. Even then I'm not sure... 86.160.84.127 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be equally unacceptable to crop the other edges tighter as well? It just looks a little off with there so much blank space above and to the right of the horse. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly not add the extra white space, because the main image in a painting article is generally supposed to represent the painting as it is today. Adding the extra space on the other side, even if historically true, feels like WP:OR and misrepresentative of the work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original painting visible in the National Gallery does in fact have a bit more space to the left of the tail. The current crop has chopped off a centimeter or so of hairs that were present in the original, but even the original framed painting appears to have a bit covered by the frame. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a bit more reasonable (and, looking more closely at the Beeb, seems to be supported by modern sources). A bare centimetre or two? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About 1 centimeter or maybe a bit more. To get this estimate, I took the Wiki image, rendered it transparent, and using Gimp, overlaid, rotated, and scaled to match the Beeb image as closely as possible. At the zoom level that I was using for this exercise, 2–3 pixels of excess cropping on the left edge corresponded to 1–1.5 cm. The excess cropping appears to have been necessitated by the original image being tilted by about a centimeter or so. Including all of the tail would have brought in some of the upper left hand frame. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried lining up the two I got some space on both sides. Surprisingly. My edit is here as an alt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a bit of cropping all around. But people here were concerned about the tail being chopped off. Let me add my Support here to your ALT. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Whistlejacket by George Stubbs edit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]