Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arnolfini Portrait

Arnolfini Portrait

 * Reason:I wonder why this hasn't been nominated before. This is one of the most famous paintings of all time.  The depth of the symbology and era in which it was painted make it utterly unique.
 * Articles this image appears in:16 articles in total: History of Painting, Infrared, Oil Painting, Renaissance, Jan van Eyck, Las Meninas, Early Renaissance painting, Early Netherlandish painting, Arnolfini Portrait, Giovanni Arnolfini, Pentimento, Flemish painting, List of people from Bruges, Western Painting, Do Not Open, and National Gallery, London Collection Highlights
 * Creator:Jan van Eyck


 * Support as nominator  Spinach Dip  05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Is it that famous? I'm no art expert but I've never heard of it. I can think of plenty more famous paintings... Anyway, I'm guessing the reason it hasn't been nominated before is because at 100%, the quality is quite awful. Very blurry/soft and seems to have artifacts, but it is admittedly difficult to determine what was on the canvas originally and what is as a result of the capture of it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the most well-known piece of early-renaissance painting, and the frontispiece of that article right here of Wikipedia, I would say so.  Spinach Dip  06:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose because of low quality. Yes, it must be a bit famous, since I've seen it in a few art books... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, this is a very famous painting, and it's great that we have a fairly good quality image of it here on Wikipedia. However, because this is an image of a work of art, I'd like to really be able to see lots of details in the art by looking at the image.  I'm afraid that, even thought the resolution is amply over the listed minimum requirement, it simply isn't high enough resolution to really see the kind of details of a work of art I like to see in featured images of works of art.  - Enuja (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, the painting is a little fuzzy. But, I believe it would be quite impossible to get a more detailed version at any resolution close to 2024x2777 (of course, if someone submits one, I would gladly support it).  As for any artifacts, aside from doing a side-by-side comparison with the original, it will be impossible to tell what are actually artifacts, and what are the effects of 570 years of aging.  Spinach Dip  06:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The years don't generally leave blocky gradients. :) Thegreenj 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. One of the most famous renaissance paintings but atrocious quality. Check out this closeup of the mirror. I want that quality in a full shot before I will support. D\=&lt; (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for same reason as D\=&lt;. Visit the National Gallery in London, if you can, to admire the original. Motmit (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In my experience, though I support the Yorck Project's goals, their reproductions tend to be of very poor quality, with loss of detail, poor colour reproduction, and so on. Comparing their reproductions to anyone else's, even of significantly smaller resolution, tends to show major flaws in theirs. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Opppose per Froth (:D\=&lt;). This is a wonderful painting, but we could have a far, FAR better quality image of it. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Grainy. Spencer  T♦C 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)