Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:James McNeill Whistler - La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine - Google Art Project.jpg 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:James McNeill Whistler - La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2012 at 18:00:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine, as digitalized by the Google Art Project.
  •  Info created by James McNeill Whistler - uploaded by Dcoetzee.
  •  Support - this image failed its first FPC due to lack of participation, but I think it's one of best reproductions of a work of fine art on Commons, so I think it should be given another chance. -- Claritas (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Just another "Google Art Project" picture, no need of a FP promotion, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Special thanks to Dcoetzee for keeping up the good work. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  CommentTo be clear: I think that uploading such pictures in "Commons" is a very good thing and very useful. The more nice pictures (like this one) are known around the world, the best it is. But I think that it has no place in the FP gallery, because it is the simple copy of the work of others than "us", without any "personal" work. However, I do not oppose, because it is not the place to use my vote to make a point : it is only my opinion, and I understand it could not be shared.--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment "Wat we are voting for" should be pretty clear. Again verdicts are returned based on the creator of the image, not the media file itself. Furthermore, I object your statement on the work invested in this reproduction: despite this being a reproduction by Google employees, their reproduction workflow is as time-consuming and difficult as it is for everyone else. Many of their reproductions are created using a Gigapan unit, a regular DSLR and lightning equipment. Maps, drawings, old photographies, paintings and other material that qualifies for 2D reproductions are "simple copies" as well. Getting this kind of material featured, and hence visible in articles and maybe into the POTD series helps to spread the word about the item. It's not about promoting the creator or the person who worked on the item, especially if he does not provide the image himself like in this case. If we continue judging images based on their creator, we will undercut the idea of free content and the cause of the Commons. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment per Jebulon. Wat we are voting for? For the reproduction? For the art? Can anyone explain me it??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I much prefer File:James McNeill Whistler - La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine - brighter.jpg Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose please take a look to the image histogramm: bad light (--> false colors!?). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support alofok 18:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's not clear under which circumstances they got this result. In my opinion digital reproductions are very difficult to make. This picture offers no evidence (picture with gray card, color targets or a hint for the color management) which we can proove afterwards and a histogram is pointless without a reference. No proof no support.   • Richard • [®] • 17:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that this sort of "verification" has never been demanded before at FPC, and would be detrimental to the image as a reproduction of the artwork. It's a professional reproduction, it's a good reproduction. Go and look at the painting in real life if you think it's wrong. --Claritas (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a good reproduction I'm right there with you. But if one must have seen a picture in real-life to decide if it's color reproduction is excellent or not then you don't get a Quorum for this poll. I'am shure that some Wikipedians could do much better comprehensible results than a company which produces infinite masses of content. Once again, no proof (Reference) no support   • Richard • [®] • 19:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While opposing for any possible reason is fine, there is an argument against the logic of the point you are trying to make. Complaining is just the first step in order to get the desired information. If you are really that interested in the creation process of this image you might want to consider contacting Google. Otherwise, I'm afraid you won't succeed in this endeavour. As for your argumentation: as a matter of fact you have to see the original if you aim for an excellent reproduction (dunno if you have any professional experiences on this topic). Evaluating digital reproductions amongst a group of people that is working with non-standardised hardware and software (and that's what FPC is) is bogus, when trying to determine the authenticity of the original work. We had numerous discussions on the question of white balance, histogram, etc. for similar items which were all more or less pointless, regarding the aforementioned condition of differnet hardware and software. Name one Wikipedian who creates gigapixel reproductions of 2D artworks - I can't think of one single person. It's a pity to notice that your argumentation degrades into evaluating the creator of the media file as well. Again: this comment is not about your opposition (I use the opportunity of opposing for "uncommon" reasons myself quite often), it is about the logic of your argument. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be impossible for a Commoner to produce a reproduction like this, because they wouldn't be allowed access to such a valuable artwork and probably wouldn't have access to the equipment required to produce such a good scan of a large canvas. You really can have no idea of what the colours are like unless you've seen it in real life. --Claritas (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EOD.   • Richard • [®] • 09:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

alternative version
  •  Strong support A lot of photo of shell and butterfly are featured, what wrong with the paintings?--Claus (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose The original does not feature this kind of brightness and neither does this edit. Obeying to the histogram won't lead you nowhere in this case. This is an unfaithful edit of the original. Yes it does look nice and shiny but it does not properly represent the original. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose - don't guess the colours from the histogram. If you've seen the original artwork at the Freer you'll know that this is wrong. Whistler's painting is not gaudy like that. --Claritas (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you saw the "origanal" in 1863-1865? Yes? I think no! All the arts are aging. The colors too. The art will be yellowed. And the histogram says to me: the scan is simply wrong. That's all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't. But we shouldn't try to replicate its original appearance unless there is an academic consensus that it looks like that. Thanks for trying to help, but the original colours (or the slightly brighter edit) are much better than this. --Claritas (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, my conclusion: the scan isn't a good work and therefore the image can't be FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can accept that as your opinion, although I would urge you to reconsider, seeing that this is a high quality professional scan done for the Google Art Project. --Claritas (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alchemist, given your various statements, I assume you are not into conservation and restoration. It looks like you are trying to use a method of interpretation of histograms that works just fine for everyday photography, but most certainly does not for reprography standards. The idea behind reprography is to create a genuine copy of the object you are aiming to photograph/digitise. If that leads us to an histogram without a bell curve, that's perfectly okay. Ofc we don't know how the original looked back when it was created, but that's not our aim; otherwise we would be using crystal balls on the Commons. The changes you applied are based on a technical assumption without considering the actual ageing process of the image: the histogram represents an underexposed image, hence correcting it will improve the result. Unless the original painting gets restored, the Google Art Project reprography will remain a faithful reproduction of the original artwork - even with a misfitting histogram. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 02:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, "the histogram represents an underexposed image, ....", an underexposed scan is an FP image for you, but not for me. OK, I'm still learning ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alchemist, with all due respect, "fixing" the histogram is easy. Producing a scan of this sort of resolution is not easy, and there's therefore no explanation of why the professionals who created this reproduction would have left it with incorrect tones when it would be dead easy to sort out. --Claritas (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose looks too artificial. alofok 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, sorry, but thinking these histogram games are more faithful than the professional work at the Google Art Project seems a bit... ...naive to me. --Dschwen (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as for dschwen & Peter Weis -- smial (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Peter.   • Richard • [®] • 18:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:James_McNeill_Whistler_-_La_Princesse_du_pays_de_la_porcelaine_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg_2&oldid=69889095"