Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eva Le Gallienne (mnwp.275003, cropped restoration).jpg

File:Eva Le Gallienne (mnwp.275003, cropped restoration).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2020 at 15:32:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Eva Le Gallienne (mnwp.275003, cropped restoration).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eva Le Gallienne (mnwp.275003, cropped restoration).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Women
•  Info created by Nicholas Haz - restored, uploaded and nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment - I'm not happy with how much she's in shadow. Leaning toward opposing, but I'd welcome an argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose I noticed that too. When shooting a portrait, it is important to set up good lighting. In this case I think the photographer blew it. --Peulle (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Nah, lighting is alright – that's pretty much a soft en:Rembrandt lighting. But it is rather dark over-all. Based on how the the original looks like, I'd say it was scanned very conservatively so as to not blow out the highlights in the digital version. Note that the plain white border of unexposed photographic paper is represented as grey here (about 225,225,225 in RGB or 75% lightness in HSL). That makes sense for archiving, but is very likely not a faithful digital representation of the original print in terms of viewer impression. Raising the exposure a bit so that most of the border (but not the background) is clipping makes it much more friendly. But still, in the end it is just a reasonably well done formal portrait of a reasonably well-known person. A good candidate for COM:VI, possibly a good candidate for FP at en.wikipedia, but it really doesn't have the WOW I'd expect from a Commons FP. Sorry, but I'm still gonna have to  Oppose. --El Grafo (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment - In neither of the works by Rembrandt given as reproductions in the linked article does he give one of the brightest spots to a random area on the upper left corner of the picture. Instead, the backgrounds are dark to black. So I don't think this is a good example of emulating Rembrandt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek I have made a small adjustment to the exposure. You can see the characteristic triangle under her left eye a little bit more. I think El Grafo is right. The intent was must have been some sort of en:Rembrandt lighting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's all about the subject, background doesn't really play any role in how you classify basic portrait lighting (). The important point here is the triangle of light on the darker side of the face. Also, it's a photography/cinematography term, not an arts/painting term afaik. Despite the name, Rembrandt is not really the reference here. Some random references: [1], [2], [3]. The lack of photographic examples in the article is weird, I'll see if I can fix that – maybe eve with this one ... --El Grafo (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see. However, having part of the background be distractingly brighter than the face seems like a bad practice to me. I will  Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Can't disagree with that. Meanwhile: Wikipedia article updated with some actual photographs ... --El Grafo (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Support The look in her eyes is so intense and captivating that I'm not distracted by the shadow. Daniel Case (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)