Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Allegory of Salvation by Wolf Huber (cca 1543).jpg

File:Allegory of Salvation by Wolf Huber (cca 1543).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 10:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Allegory of Salvation by Wolf Huber (cca 1543).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Allegory of Salvation by Wolf Huber (cca 1543).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
•  Info Allegory of Salvation by Wolf Huber (cca 1543). My photo and edit. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral Hmm ... do we really need to have the frame in the picture? Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Good question, and never ending enigma for me. Frame give that esthetic value to painting (aura of high art). I even prefer it with a bit of wall as nice background. --Mile (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support We don't have enough FP pictures of paintings taken by "commoners". It is a very difficult work (far much more than any landscape), the painting is interesting and the photograph very good. As for the frame, I think that at least a part of it shows the evidence that we see the whole (uncropped) picture. That said, everybody can make its own crop.--Jebulon (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should judge an image by who took it. But nice painting and good reproduction. I wish it could be bigger. Yann (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I Agree, it is just a comment. But "who" means "somebody" in my mind (i.e. not a Google tool)--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yann size is 9+ MPx, that's not small by any mean, you get all details from painting in very good quality. Jebulon mentioned we don't have enough paintings here, agree. One reason is no tripods are allowed in museums, but my tourist cam has 5-axis IS, and it brings 3,5 stop advantage (to cope in low light handheld), so I can deliver some from museums in fine quality. Problem is art is so underrated on Commons. --Mile (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • +1, 100%--Jebulon (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said, it is nice, but for me, that's a very minimum for a quality reproduction. My recent FP nom. has over 31 Mpx, and it didn't received enough support. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I saw it. It feels chopped and tight crop. Perfect case why frame should be present. --Mile (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Honestly, I don't think this is a good faith argument. Do you argue that Google doesn't know how to properly take a picture of a painting? Yann (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
        • But maybe a lot of us found Valadon's work ugly enough ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Do they know ? I hope they are almighty. So why did you put Tower of Babel edited nomination by user Dcoetzee and not original by Google ? I guess wasn't so eyecatching (saturation and brightness). But guess what, we made mistake. When I was standing in front of it I realized that. I suggest you to make "replace" of it. You cant know till you stand in front of it. And again, you can evaluate why paintings wont pass frequently here, in your behavior of choosing, simply, your mind went for photo, not painting. Poor Netherlandish can say. --Mile (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)