Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sculpture of Madonna with child and St John (Kunsthistoriches Museum).jpg

File:Sculpture of Madonna with child and St John (Kunsthistoriches Museum).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2015 at 09:52:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sculpture of Madonna with child and St John (Kunsthistoriches Museum).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sculpture of Madonna with child and St John (Kunsthistoriches Museum).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
•  Info Sculpture of Madonna with child and St John (Kunsthistoriches Museum). Background to black and ray of light with some more dramatic appearance.
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Elysian. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry Mile but I cannot support the digital ray of light illuminated. --Laitche (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I miss any structures of the marble. It is simply too flat --Hubertl 11:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The background gradient has no place there in my opinion, and it doesn't match the actual direction of the light. — Julian H.^✈ 11:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Info @Julian It match actual direction, I was there, and saw where light is positioned, and its from that direction light is left diagonal, I cant find photo which would show reflector @Laitche Why not ? If background would not be illuminated from other lights something like this would come out. Maybe I did mistake, if I wouldn't write that in description you even wouldn't know (that's called reverse evaluating). @Hubertl my my, third revenge vote in row ? Were you afraid to be first and waited, then building bandwagon ? I don't know if your comment is serious, I will try anyway: for museum handheld shot where tripods are forbidden this is very good quality. I can see details and even dots on it (this is not a macro shot and you wont be able too see anything more). Photo is also on Quality image and at the moment it has plus, and it isn't graded by my "friend", so could say its objective vote. Hubertl I am worried your grading and critique wont help me to get better if they wont be based on something objective. --Mile (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC) p.S Hubertl, of course if you mean serious, than please show me something similar to see what are you looking and asking for (with marble structure)

   Comment Give me a good reason, why I should give someone a serious answer, when he at first accuses me giving revenge votes? --Hubertl 16:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, the light is coming from the top left. But the shadows on the sculpture suggest that your beam is about 15° off. — Julian H.^✈ 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Julian You are right its off a bit - 8°. --Mile (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hubertl Giving good reason - my hope I am wrong. --Mile (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the limit of editing is cloning the background. If they made the background or subject (except fixing the errors or flaws) by digital way, that should be categorized to Non-photographic media/Computer-generated. I would reconsider if the category change to Non-photographic media/Computer-generated, but I'm not sure that I would support or not, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Background is serving main subject - sculpture. If museum would have chance and option, it would be something like this. But background isn't original part of sculpture. So why their room would be original and my presentation not ? To put it into Non-photographic media/Computer-generated is a no go. 3D subject, not changed with retouching (sculpture is not affected by retouching). As rules are saying:

Digital manipulations: For photographs...More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the Retouched picture template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.

So, Retouche template is there from the beginning. Main subject in untouched and in original shape. To put this into category Non-photographic media/Computer-generated beside existing Objects#Sculptures is not an option. Especially when we already have more sculptures there with generated background. --Mile (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• So I mean removal of distracting background elements by retouching is acceptable but adding the digital ray is not acceptable as a photograph for me. --Laitche (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If the consensus is OK as a exceptional about the digital ray for sculpture, of course I accept that consensus but I think we would never accept like that digital effect for the scenery and else subject. --Laitche (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Info: Illumination on sculpture is original, illumination in background is intensified and its coming from original direction. --Mile (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Sculptures