Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Résurrection Corneille cartouche central 2.jpg

File:Résurrection Corneille cartouche central 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2011 at 07:57:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/ File:Résurrection Corneille cartouche central 2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/ File:Résurrection Corneille cartouche central 2.jpg

•  Info created by Michel Corneille l'Ancien (1602-1664) - photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Detail of the recently (2010/2011) restored fresco vault of 1640 by Michel Corneille the Elder, Church Saint-Nicolas-des-Champs in Paris. -- Jebulon (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice indeed. --Avenue (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment -- Almost there. But I still wonder if the curved lines can be straightened. Or maybe they are part of the "trompe l'oeil" design? Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info--Yes you are right. It is so in real (if not, I have had correct it). The vault is curved, and the painting too (increasing the depth of field, from below.) Please notice that the frame is curved, but the design is not deformed. (hard in english, sorry) Oh by the way ! I agree with you, the question is : let this poor Jesus breathe ! But I'm not responsible for that...--Jebulon (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Snaevar (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Interesting painting with an interesting shape. The details look over processed to me (e.g. cracks have an oily smoothed-and-sharpened over-contrast feeling). --99of9 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Oh, I see the original is in the file history (thanks). I think the work you've done is in the right direction, but you've gone too far in my opinion. --99of9 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I understand what you mean, but I disagree. Matter of taste ? The 100 % resolution is sometimes cruel, but I didn't want to down sample... Thanks for careful review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Question Is there a pincushion distortion? Or is this real? --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Info This is real. Please see explanations above. If it were such a pincushion distortion, I wouldn't have nominate this picture as FP candidate...--Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- After the explanation above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support A little bit to cold light. Otherwise good and valuable. --Niabot (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects