Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gustave Doré - The Holy Bible - Plate I, The Deluge.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2008 at 00:24:46
Info created by Gustave Doré - scanned, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Info Special thanks to Mike.lifeguard, who removed some pencil marks just below the image, but above the caption.
Info From Gustave Doré's illustrations to the Holy Bible. I saw his in a bookshop today - it was fairly expensive, but with a 10% student discount, I could just about afford it, and my long-standing desire to finally get some high-quality Doré featured won out =). I believe the resolution, nearly 30 megapixels, should be sufficient for quite some time.
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportThis a true treat, thanks for sharing it.... got any more??? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's about 200 in the volume I just bought. I'm going to try and scan them all, but obviously we probably shouldn't feature them all - I'll try to pick the highlights. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Lošmi (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Technically well done, but not my cup of tea. Lycaon (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Lycaon, It is OK not to like certain type of art, each is entitled to their own taste, or lack of it. Not to like Dore, in this instance, on the personal level, you have that right. There is, however, another side that is much larger than the personal taste: the fact that Dore is one of the Great Masters of engraving, and as such, his work is an inheritance to humanity, and as such, the importance of his work transcends the personal taste of a particular individual. FP is a vehicle that promotes quality images of encyclopaedic value, consistent with the goals of Wikipedia, and I am sure, Dore´s images fall within that category, much more above personal preferences. At the very minumum, you may oppose this particular image based on the technical merits of the digital capture, but according to you, that seems to be OK, but to oppose the image and deprive it of its opportunity for diffussion in this wiki effort seems to me, a little unfair.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Lycaon --Latzel (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Adam, Engravings were done at 100% of their mechanical reproduction, this is important considering that the reproduction size also determines in a way the viewing distance. In the case of the bible, the viewing distance would be the reading distance too. If this were always true, a scan of 300 dpi at 100% of original reproduction size would be sufficient. In this case the dpi is at 600 dip at reproduction size, which means that one can get a very fine 16x20 print at 300 dpi, and a decent 32x40 print at 150 dpi, that when viewed at a distance would be fine enough. Point is, keep scanning at this resolution. The only tip I would suggest is to scan in grayscale in order to save space and compress in photoshop at the highest quality. A high quality compression in gray scale will result in a smaller file than a medium to high quality color scan. Unless the color of the paper is important, I would stick to grayscale. In this case the original file is 27.5 megas vs 20.9 megas in grayscale. This is a good opportunity to really have this Great Master in high quality. Another that I would love to see here is some Albretch Durer, which I am sure, you must also love. Keep them coming!!!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I figured that it's easy to create a greyscale from the colour, but not the other way around, and, as I don't want to scan the book repeatedly - it's 200+ images, after all - that I'd upload a high-res colour version, and people could use photoshop to create an appropriate black-and-white version without the paper texture. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I was just thinking about space and upload time, but you are right, better in color first and then convert. Man, I´ve been looking over this one and it is just exquisite. I am going to try a 16x20 print with this one. I will look over some of the other engravings and will suggest a few, if you don´t mind. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, certainly! Could always use some extra eyes. I cannot guarantee how quick I'll get through them all, but I'll try to get the Pentaeuch done before Christmas, possibly Matthew as well (for obvious reasons). Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I figured that it's easy to create a greyscale from the colour, but not the other way around, and, as I don't want to scan the book repeatedly - it's 200+ images, after all - that I'd upload a high-res colour version, and people could use photoshop to create an appropriate black-and-white version without the paper texture. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Simply because this is non photographic media is no reason to oppose such a technically and asthetically pleasing piece of work. Bravo to the creator! 203.35.135.136 07:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very wowwish! Muhammad 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Agree with both Lycaon and Tomascastelazo - not exactly my cup of tea, but I have to admire the quality of the image and its encyclopedic value. --AlexanderKlink (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support a stunningly dramatic image. God having declared these people wicked and unfit for life are still trying against all hope to save their children. The scan is flawless and I can't find anything to complain about.... and I sure look when it's not something commons has produced. --J.smith (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Georgez (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Both artistically and technically extremely good. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)