Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Angelus

The Angelus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 07:49:38 (UTC)

Reason: Jean-François Millet's famous painting The Angelus
Articles in which this image appears: The Angelus (painting), Jean-François Millet, Droit de suite, Martinus Sieveking
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Jean-François Millet

Support as nominator – Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good scan, a bit dark but as it's set at the end of a working day that's to be expected. The creator is not "Artwork", though. It's Millet. The uploader =/= creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do with "Creator" now: the template says "the creator of the image, where possible using the format wikiuser" Done anyway.

"where possible using the format wikiuser" means if the creator is a Wikipedian. If the creator is someone from Flickr (like File:Lucky Diamond Rich face.jpg), a painter (like this one), etc. we should link elsewhere (an article on the photographer, the flickr feed, whatever). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a very dark version. In order to see it t something like its real tonality, I have to up the brightness of my monitor to the max. I would like to see the overall brightness increased to a point where it looks right at a setting that is closer to medium. Amandajm (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine on my monitor, but these LED monitors nowadays are a real nuisance. I have mine tilted towards me (I really can't be getting on with vertical) but that means I have to stand to get a proper look at images. Regarding brightness I was looking at the most linked version of Van Gogh's The Potato Eaters this morning. That's been brightened to a quite unacceptable level, to the point I'm not prepared to nominate it for "Featured". It's quite inauthentic in my opinion. This one (Angelus I mean) is the museum image. I shouldn't want to tinker with it. Wikiart's verion, for example, is a travesty. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice picture, but one has to think of visibility. I might support if brighter -lighter version can be proposed, - e.g. an alt - if possible. Add one, but not sure about that either, that one - the other scan we have on commons - it is of a weird reddish colour. Here is someting in between.. Hafspajen (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartHistory has a video shot in natural light here. You can see the colour values are the same, but the lighting is a little warmer. Colour temperature (i.e. whether the painting was viewed on bright sunny day or on a dull day - the D'Orsay has overhead vaulting letting in the light) is not something you can adjust in a JPG as far as I know. Crisco would know more about that than me. On the other hand if you start fiddling with the brightness control all you get is a washed out image because, like The Potato Eaters, this is an image which is supposed to be dark - it's a representation of evening prayer in the fields - and in particular the faces are in shadow. I can only repeat for myself I have no problem with the image. Of course it's for community consensus. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One can adjust warmth, but after the Olympia debacle I will not be doing anything of the like. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but if you start doing that here you do end up with something along the lines of the hopelessly orange Wikiart Alt1. But it's true one can be overly respectful, and it's just a fact of life that art images vary very widely in fidelity. It's when you start tinkering with the museum image that I begin to feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless the Van Gogh image above I think probably does need warming. I shall look the other way ... :). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Coaty, you see that things can be more complicated than they might seem... in the beggining. Hafspajen (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:) Yes, well the Van Gogh image is very strange. I was tinkering with it earlier on in my image processor using Lch space, and I coudn't do anything with it. The blues are too light I think. Strange. The National Gallery charges serious money for their digital images ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Hafspajen (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]