Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aphrodite Pan Eros NAMA 3335 Athens Greece.jpg

File:Aphrodite Pan Eros NAMA 3335 Athens Greece.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 10:01:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aphrodite Pan Eros NAMA 3335 Athens Greece.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aphrodite Pan Eros NAMA 3335 Athens Greece.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created by an unknown artist - the rest by me -- Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Nomination due to @Yann: 's comment above, I think he is right, but photographs inside of museums by non professional neither accreditate photographers are very difficult to take. Here, Aphrodite (again !) is experiencing a sexual assault by Pan. Eros is trying to help her. She defends herself (not very violently...) with her sandal. Found in Delos island in 1904. Marble, 1m32, traces of color painting, 2nd c.BCE, hellenistic era. The text on the pedestal indicates who was the owner of this sculpted group (Dyonisios, son of Zenon, grandson of Theodoros). Now on display in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Greece, inventory number 3335. Original background available in file history page -- Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment You managed it quite well, but I don't think the black background is the best choice to make the sculpture stand out. And I have some doubt about the white balance, see File:Aphrodite Pan Eros 100 BC NAMA N3335 102833.jpg and File:Group of Aphrodite, Pan and Eros. About 100 BC (3470784387).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for comment and interest. I think the WB of your comparison pictures are off, too blue and/or too green, with not enough "red", if I may say. That's probably why my candidate has been elected as VI in the category. About the black BG, It is just a matter of taste. Do you have any suggestion ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    • A grey background would be better IMHO. Yann (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't share your opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - This is a great sculpture, very well photographed. Sure, the pitch black background is a little bracing, but I much prefer it to most bokeh backgrounds and I consider it a very minor point - which just shows once again that tastes and priorities differ. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 22:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Moderate oppose The background is what it is. But ... the head and upper arm are just too grainy/noisy for me to support it. I appreciate the effort involved, and it deserves its VI status, but that's as far as it can go. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Not so bad, but bottom white marmour bothers. Some erasing, cut maybe. --Mile (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 22:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco² 15:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects