- Info created by Vincent van Gogh - scanned and uploaded by User:Peter Isotalo - nominated by User:Peter Isotalo 12:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support However, I should point out that this is a modified version of the original uploaded by me. The tweaks were made by Actam. The original was nominated previously but failed to become featured. Peter Isotalo 12:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You could Upload this new version in the original --Econt (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Scanning paintings from a book is not the best way of obtaining pictures of paintings. The printing process is already re-colouring the art piece, and the scan process changes this again. Photographic reproduction of the original is really the only way to go. Lycaon (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't all reproductions of the real thing bound to alter coloring to one degree or another? Peter Isotalo 16:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. There are things like standard colour cards to adjust to a faithful reproduction afterwards, and also every step in the processing can (and will) introduce more artefacts. Lycaon (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this particular reproduction of the painting is flawed because it's scanned from a book, how do we know that any number of featured pictures of paintings are not? Most of them have even less information of their origin than this one, and no one seems to have bothered much about whether they are photos or scans. Peter Isotalo 13:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I propose to transfer painting scans and SVG images to either Quality Images or Valued Images. Discussion here --S23678 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good scan of a good print. --Calibas (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As Lycaon. No wow factor at all. --Karelj (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Impressive. Barabas (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Beyond silence 20:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support cool!--Sensl (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I totally agree with Lycaon. Scannings of art reproductions from books are IMO always unacceptable for FP (and also QI) promotion. Apart from moiré and general quality loss, these scans violate most of the time the copyright laws, as they don't mention the name of the photograper of the artwork. -- MJJR (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get this. Many paintings have been chosen as featured pictures. When was it decided that they're not acceptable? Where are arguments against this particular nomination? What separates it from other featured pictures of paintings? Peter Isotalo 08:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The remarks are absolutely not personal, and not against this particular nomination. Older FP nominations of art reproductions scanned from books should be reconsidered, unless they have good technical qualities (no dotted patern of the printing, no moiré, no color shifting) and are correctly copyrighted. -- MJJR (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a personal issue, but a request for consistency. Most of the other featured painting pics appaer to have been taken off more or less anonymous webpages with no relevant info about the origins of the picture. Concerns over faithful reproduction of colors appears to be an issue only when people see the word "scan". What are the merits of the rest? That they have brighter colors? Peter Isotalo 05:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not recently have paintings become featured pictures. It is difficult to know if the colors are correct (even professionally printed books use different colors from other professionally printed books in their "displays"). Personally, I have seen many an overly fleshed person smoking (sometimes in a mirror even....), so even the editorial qualities of this painting are somewhat limited in perspective. -- carol (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, x neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
