Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Filippino Lippi 016.jpg

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Tobias and the Angel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2015 at 13:18:36 (UTC)

Original – Tobias and the Angel are out walking with a fish. And a dog - Why? Read article.
ALT - High resolution NGA scan from source
Detail Comparison - Original Left, Alt right
Reason
Good scan, interesting theme. The painting is by the Italian Renaissance painter Filippino Lippi, depicting Tobias and the Angel, rom c. 1475-1480. The painting is in the the National Gallery of Art of Washington, DC, where Crisco took it to give everybody a nice Christmas mood, angels and happy end and all that...
Articles in which this image appears
Tobias and the Angel (Filippino Lippi) (own article), Tobias and the Angel, List of painters and architects of Venice
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Filippino Lippi
  • Support as co-nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as co-nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -
    (discuss) 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support – Yann (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – DreamSparrow Chat 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Jobas (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Alt16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC) - Atsme📞📧 16:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support the second imageCharlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it looks perfectly fine, I note that file is less than half the size of the download of the same resolution in the stated source [1]. This suggests re-compression and, while subtle, I think the current version is inferior to the source version because of it. Also it appears the zoomable image viewer version in source is of significantly greater resolution and detail than either [2]. – Wolftick (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have stitched together a substantially higher resolution and more detailed version from the image viewer on source. I'm fairly new to this: Assuming this is okay, should I upload as a new version of the file or post it as an alt? Wolftick (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the caution- I'm sure we all appreciate it! It would be valuable if you could post this as an alt so that the alternatives can be compared side-by-side. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Wolfie. Wonder though, if the original doesn't got the right colors, though. The work is rather tiny, it is 33 × 23 cm (13 × 9.1 in) - so the resolution of the original scan might be just enough...‎(2,123 × 3,000 pixels, file size: 4.04 MB) -- [thinking about and because of the colour question]... Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • People have a tendency to just crank up the saturation and contrast on artworks, reality be damned. We know this, although given Crisco's the one uploading, perhaps they just restored it recently by removing a varnish layer. In any case, we should go with the more recent scan by the gallery. Oppose original. Will need to check the alt over for stitching errors. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One can't do this kind of changes by removing the varnish. And all scans are not good. Hafspajen (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's impossible to tell for sure without seeing in person but alt feels right to me, in the same way original felt wrong. I think the yellows are the main tell-tale.
With regards to resolution, as long as it reveals more detail my inclination is to go with as much as available in preference to minimising file size. Not sure if people follow? In this case alt is approximately 600PPI which doesn't feel over the top for this work.
The stitching was a simple case of manually aligning per pixel 3 parts split vertically (top, middle and bottom sections), but I would agree that checking would be good in case I made any errors. - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version). I'm currently uploading the newest downloadable version they have. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. An interesting rendition of wings and a halo.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Either image is acceptable in my opinion. Editors have this problem all the time selecting images. So long as the images are technically proficient and not gratuitously processed to the uploader's taste or prejudices, there shouldn't be a problem. There was a problem with the accompanying article however, which was a blatant copyright violation of NGA text. That material needs to be rewritten by our esteemed commentators here. 64.9.157.242 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could support either version, too. The question is which one comes closer to the original painting. Can this be decided? --Tremonist (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment support either, however if I were to use one in an article, I would use the 1st. Atsme📞📧 13:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Support either per Tremonist.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirming my vote above: I think ALT is better. Yann (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer original - It doesn't have any stitching errors, and since the museum is releasing it for download, it's probably reasonably accurate.. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand if the original is preferred but unless examples can be cited I would assert that there are no stitching errors with the second image. While it was stitched together this was achieved using only 3 overlapping parts of the original whole and thus could be performed manually with per pixel accuracy. - Wolftick (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support original - For all the NGA scans here and there - Renaissance paintings and especially Filippino Lippi - ALL of his paintings have CLEAR; LUMINOUS colours. Original is most probably right. Hafspajen (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would contend that while less sharp and contrasty in thumbnail the colours in alt are clearer and more luminous in alt. Note in comparison the rosey cheeks and distinction in colour between the face and hair that are present in alt but sadly absent in the original, along with the blue sky that is actually blue rather than grey, the richer green... I could go on. - Wolftick (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hafspajen and Crisco 1492: The ALT appears to be the scan from the NGA. Where has the original come from? You're stating it's accurate because the original is the one the museum released; that doesn't appear to be true. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NGA has both scans available. The one available for download (i.e. the one here) is the one used in the Original above. I've stated this already, above ("I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version).") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is just weird. I think, then, we can probably make this supposition: The image has been restored, and the original is before the removal of yellowed varnish? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite possible. Or there was a different white balance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's simply different white balance, I'd say the original is clearly wrong. It has an oversaturated, overcontrasted effect similar to hitting the "Autolevels" button. That's only acceptable if it reflects reality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Crisco 1492: Actually, there's a point. You have photoshop, right? Do an autolevels on the alt, and tell me if it comes out like the original? If its basically a bad automated adjustment, we should reject it, and some futzing with autolevels and contrast in GIMP hints it may just be that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Auto tone ends up really blue, actually. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, so both are still in the running. That's good to know, at least. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In an attempt to resolve stalemate, I note that Original is now marked as superseded by Alt on Wikipedia. Original is not currently used in any articles and this change has not been reverted for some time (as uploader of Alt I did not make this change). According to FPC criteria this renders original ineligible for FP and as it stands it now becomes a sole question of whether Alt has enough support. - Wolftick (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also while it's fairly clear from above, I should say that now I am eligible to vote I Support Alt - Wolftick (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...That is if I am not considered ineligible per "New votes will no longer be accepted." - Wolftick (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on a month. Only the alt is used in articles, and its usage seems to be stable in them, given it's been a month. Can I suggest we simply promote the alt? Otherwise, I think this has to be failed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Original is now not used in any articles so cannot be promoted as things stand. Alt is now the version used in articles and by my count just about has the necessary 5 supports if you count slightly tenuous "support either" votes. If things remain like this I would suggest either promote alt or not promoted per didn't reach the necessary quorum. Don't mind which but I think it would be good to clear this up. - Wolftick (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support alt as it is used in articles and meets requirements.
    sst✈ 11:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I differentiated my vote and dated it. Hope that helps. Atsme📞📧 16:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tobias and the Angel - Filippino Lippi.jpg ---The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Filippino_Lippi_016.jpg&oldid=1144367547"