Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2011 at 09:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

•  Info created by Leonardo da Vinci - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Claus
•  Support. One of the most important paintings, and now we have a huge image.-- Claus (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Maybe a little too huge; my whole computer was so slow until I closed it. And the colours seem off to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Have you seen the other options, some of which are used on dozens upon dozens of pages? Some people have a seriously messed-up idea of what the colors are supposed to look like. I've seen the ML at the Louvre and I wish I could remember better what it looked like, but I believe it to be truer to the muted versions available. But unless someone has the painting directly in front of them, I'm not sure an exact color reproduction is truly possible. I do find this image to be "realistic" per my own experience. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support support your local (if dead) artists – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 06:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support As per Claus. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose, too huge for me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Too huge does not apply for the Mona Lisa. If anything, it serves as a pro: given the resolution, we can hope it was scanned by experts, who also cared for a realistic reproduction of the colors etc. Of course it won´t be possible to objectively judge this, but in my art book, the colors seem to be the same (does not prove that the book got them right, tough). Anyway: One of the most important drawings of all time meets encyclopedia in high-res. I see a match... --Nikopol (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support as Nikopol. W.S. 11:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support although I like this one as well Tomer T (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support It is a great documentation of the painting – so far the best here I think. If you ask me, big size with good details is definitely not a bad thing. --Ximonic (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I fail to see how it's possible to have too high a resolution --ianaré (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Wladyslaw's arguments.--Jebulon (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not sure about the colours (compared with the image's source) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I adjusted only levels from C2RMF's original image, not colours. I have confidence they were methodical about getting the colours accurate. There are a lot of versions of this painting floating around with digital editing to attempt to correct for yellowing of the paint, which this one does not have. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media