Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned edit.jpg

Image:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned.jpg, not featured

•  InfoThe Pietà (1498–1499) by Michelangelo is a marble sculpture in St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City, the first of a number of works of the same theme by the artist. Created, and uploaded by User:Glimz - nominated by Bewareofdog2 -- Bewareofdog2 17:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Bewareofdog2 17:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jaakobou 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Poor angle and annoying background. Obvious enc interest but this famous work deserves a better picture -- Alvesgaspar 19:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment You can't really move a sculpture. That said, can we clone out that annoying yellow-grey square near the top? Adam Cuerden 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack Alves. What about using a shallower dof to blur out the background a bit? ---Freedom to share 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - as above. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree, the box needs to be cloned out, or the background altered. Then I'd be willing to change my vote. --ErgoSum88 09:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment This is a very famous sculpture in the St. Peter's Basilica. The statue is close to the wall and it is difficult to get a shallower dof and you also can't change the background. And the box...well the box is there and thus the picture shows it too. Is it really a good idea to clone it away and change the original view on this famous place? (Especially concerning the encyclopedic value) If this is a FP i am also not sure. But one thing is for sure...it is difficult to make a better picture of it. --AngMoKio 10:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe a slightly higher angle... Adam Cuerden 12:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bcs of removed window (See below). This is a (more or less) historical place that shouldn't just get changed by photoshop. --AngMoKio 09:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC) It was just a reflection....took some time for me to realize that :) ...thats ok i guess. --AngMoKio 14:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Although a marble texture is visible that doesn't show reality. --AngMoKio 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned edit.jpg, featured

•  Info Cloned out the "annoying box" in the background. Created, and uploaded by User:Glimz - nominated by Bewareofdog2 -- Edited by ErgoSum88 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --ErgoSum88 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Normally encyclopedic value is not the most important thing for me but in this case I have to oppose because of it. We don't know what this box is so I think we shouldn't just clone it away. It changes the actual view on this statue. --AngMoKio 09:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Check out the original photo. Upon further inspection, it turns out somebody already did a partial cloning job on the reflection of a window. And it turns out we aren't the only ones who hated the background, check out this picture. I also discovered that the box is actually the bottom of a Christian cross, check it out here. Upon further consideration, I still support this edit. --ErgoSum88 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok the fact that this window already got removed gives me reason to also oppose the upper version. It is a big difference if I cut out the whole background or if I change things in the background. Btw there exists also a replica that has another background - so I don't know if your example with the other background really is this statue we discuss here. --AngMoKio 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Nice sharpness, light and value. Thanks --Beyond silence 21:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Value? You mean encyclopedic value? This picture shows totally wrong surroundings of this statue. A cross got removed and there is also a new marble texture. This might sound irrelevant to you...but for encyclopedic value it is relevant i think. there might be people who are especially interested in the marble texture. --AngMoKio 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - This is a nice clone out, but on this one I prefer the real life situation un-manipulated. Jaakobou 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Adam Cuerden 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Don't care for the background. The object in the foreground is the subject here. --AM 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Serg!o 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment In case anyone cares what I think... while I realize the importance of retaining encyclopedic value here, I think if the photo had been taken from a different angle, this same effect could have been achieved. As far as the marble texture goes, it all looks the same anyway, so the texture has no value in my opinion. If I had cloned out the entire cross, this would be unacceptable... of course. Cloning away reflections and distracting elements that could have easily been removed without retouching the photo is... in my opinion... entirely "ethical." --ErgoSum88 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You would have to take it from a very different angle and then the photo would be quite different and wouldn't look like this one here. Well it is still my opinion that such historical places shouldn't get changed by cloning. --AngMoKio 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --wau > 14:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support. James F. (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with AngMoKio on this one. Lycaon 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)