Talk:Alma Mater (New York sculpture)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Lede image
An editor is attempting to replace the lede image with one in which the subject, the statue, is smaller and darker. I do not think this is a good idea. Here are the two images at the same size:
CURRENT IMAGE
ATTEMPTED REPLACEMENT (New)
I think the first is obviously superior. BMK (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a newer version of the full statue, which is now lighter (to deal with the above criticism). This one can be seen on the right. I think it is better to have a higher quality image that displays the full statue (particularly, the pedestal). --JSquish (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- It still does not show the statue itself well at the resolution it is presented at. Too much of the image is the surrounding envirnoment, and not the statue. The pedestal is a block or granite or marble with the words "Alma Mater" on it, there's nothing significant or interesting about it. BMK (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Even in this version I can't see the details of the statue that I can see in the current image, which, by the way, has those columns as well (how could they not for any image taken fro the front?). The images in the Low Memorial Library article show the columns clearly, and well they should, because the columns are part of the library's architecture and not part of the sculpture. BMK (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I find the "current image" to be preferred. While the Ionic capitols make a nice picture they are sort of a distracting element to the statue. Carptrash (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Take a look at the newer version: Attempted Replacement (New). I got rid of the column work, but still tried to maintain the original photo quality. What do we think? --JSquish (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is fine with me. I sort of like the warmer bronze tones. Carptrash (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that the tones are warmer, but the visibility of detail is still not as good, because of a cerain amount of glare. The book, for instance, is quite clear in the current version, bnut I really only see it in your latest version when I look for it. Same with the details on the face, etc. BMK (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is fine with me. I sort of like the warmer bronze tones. Carptrash (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Take a look at the newer version: Attempted Replacement (New). I got rid of the column work, but still tried to maintain the original photo quality. What do we think? --JSquish (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
