Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Abraham Lincoln Oil Painting

Abraham Lincoln Oil Painting
Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2011 at 22:55:37 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality version of the presidential painting of Lincoln. I've edited the original version significantly to remove a large number of the distracting defects. The portrait, used extensively in multiple articles, is an excellent example of the official U.s. presidential paintings.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Abraham Lincoln, Presidential portrait (United States), List of Presidents of the United States, Reconstruction Era of the United States, English American, White American, Frémont Emancipation, Curse of Tippecanoe, Bixby letter, Sidney Breese
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:George Peter Alexander Healy


 * Support as nominator --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would otherwise agree with the nomination, but the scan has huge areas of clipped shadows. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool view. Can you show that for the original image? Are the clipped shadows seen by the naked eye when viewing the image normally at full size? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 14:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I could, you can generate the same image with gimp or photoshop though. It is - I noticed that there didn't seem to be any discernible detail there - that is why I checked. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this version. Yes, I agree with JJ; this is simply too dark a reproduction of the painting. Even in this indistinct picture, you can see that there's more of separation between L's knee and the background than there is in our scan.  Also: I know this is an issue that people at FPC disagree about, but personally I'm not a fan of retouching paintings (assuming the original photograph of the painting is accurate, which this one seems not to be).  It's not like a photograph, in which there's an idealized original of which any print is effectively a representation.  A painting is an object, and to me it makes sense to present that object as it exists; we wouldn't clone out the chipped paint on the bust of Nefertiti. Chick Bowen 02:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The retouching of the painting is solely to remove the dust artifacts that riddle the scan and obscure the subject and provide distractions for readers. I left in the regular colorations and cracks that form over the aging of the oil painting. The image easily could be modified to remove every single blemish but that would detract from the original version as well as the history of its longevity. As we have the resources to remove the dust that appears from the scans, there's no reason to have a version that provides a close representation of the original painting. Concerning the scan, I don't know how we would get a better scan that what is currently available, as the original painting is not available in a museum. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a moot point, since it's not a good reproduction. It's hard for me to gauge whether the state of the painting is altered. Chick Bowen 20:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If this is an accurate reproduction, then it's a very mediocre painting to start with. There's no detail in his suit or shoes, and the background is the same colour. His attitude is strange; the right hand is supporting his face suggesting that he's deep in thought, his legs are crossed suggesting he's not planning on going anywhere, but the left arm is bracing his body ready to rise up from the chair, and the left arm has strange proportions as well. Not right at all. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears the scan is the issue here, but I would argue that the painting itself is historical. It's the official portrait of the president, so I'm assuming that was the position Lincoln decided on. If you view the other presidents' portraits, they are a wide variety of stances, some quite interesting. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He probably didn't choose the pose if it was painted in 1869. . . :) Chick Bowen 20:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's right! Maybe he wrote down his intentions for his portrait... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)