Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View of Delft, by Johannes Vermeer.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:View of Delft, by Johannes Vermeer.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 23:39:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Johannes Vermeer - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Jan Arkesteijn -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)- Support Since it's a Vermeer, the only question we should concern ourselves with is: is it well-digitized? It's enough for me ... I really like that we can see the craquelure, and ponder the artist's brushing technique in his fine details (@Ikan Kekek: I'm interested in your thoughts on this). Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Well, what I'm seeing is that the apparent source file (go to this link and then click "View of Delft" and enlarge the image as far as it will go) is smaller but finer than this version. It looks to me like the image was enlarged here to focus more on the cracks in the paint, but what's sacrificed is the ease of seeing a view that's zoomed but still focuses more on the light and shade of the painting (not the lighting on the painting) and its overall composition. In other words, it's not that I want to argue, exactly, that this version is too detailed, but rather, that the degrees of zoom available in the original, including full size, show the painting to better advantage as an artwork. Now if we had one of those humongous Getty images, where many degrees of zoom were available and the lighting was perfect, that would be a different story. But do you all see how the glare in the cracks is highly visible at full size in this version, whereas the full sized version of the original still looks pretty smooth, even though the cracks are visible? This is a high-level criticism, but I'm tempted to vote against a feature for this, unless my deduction of what was done to edit the original can be effectively debunked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to
Oppose, partly per my comments above and partly so that a tenth vote doesn't automatically stop discussion. Perhaps no-one will agree with my points, and if so, so be it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to
- Support lNeverCry 07:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support What i met at pictures is; you will never see same colors of same image. Go to Google, check images, and suddenly there will be in many color options - white balance problem. Some museums have doors, windowds. A guest from 12h will have diffferent color than guest from 15h - even with same camera and camera setting. Also preservation is here. When done, picture before and picture after have some difference. Or you might try to put white-balance cards, white-gray-black, and then to set it in program, to get some "serious" colors. Vermeer is fine anyway. --Mile (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 07:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support –Pugilist (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support My favorite painting by Vermeer. Great! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Claus 08:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
