Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Auguste Renoir - Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette - Google Art Project.jpg

Auguste Renoir - Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette
Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2014  at 23:39:37 (UTC)
 * Reason:One of Renoir's most iconic images. A Google Art Project Gigapixel image (638 MP)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bal du moulin de la Galette
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Pierre-Auguste Renoir


 * Support as nominator – Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Now this was my nomination, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Le Moulin de la Galette.jpg. And oppose for the same reason I withdrawn MY nomination of this earlier today - I am pretty sure that the colours are not like it should be. Hafspajen (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How is this different from the one nominated by ? I am confused: two of the same images up at FPC? Drmies (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is exact the same picture, but file has more pixels - and the colors have a greenish hue - versus original that has a different - pinkish hue, very much like like here. Hafspajen (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I spent significant time contributing to the last nomination. The original file nominated was effectively unsourced (i.e. sourced to the museum but the actual image significantly edited - this happens all the time). I noted that with a neutral "Comment". Another long-standing editor then opposed the nomination on the grounds that it lacked sufficient pixels given the size of the painting. At that point I proposed the Google Gigapixel image as an alternative and constructively (and cooperatively) debated the subsequent objection about the colour values. Late yesterday evening I was astonished to discover all that significant input "withdrawn". I think there is a debate that should be had here about the authenticity of so-called "Featured" images of works of art. You will forgive me for reaching the conclusion that this is not the place to pursue the debate. I am simply not prepared to invest the time when I am treated like this. Over at Commons I made a nomination Commons:Featured_picture_candidates regarding the so-called "Dutch Mona Lisa", one of the best loved paintings in the world and certainly by me from my very earliest childhood, nevertheless a painting whose "Featured" image on Commons is an absolute travesty of the original, frankly a parody, which I think effectively encapsulates the problems we are facing with these Featured pictures. I shall continue to vote here. I rather enjoy looking at the "own work" images uploaded by editors here and would certainly wish to support their efforts. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As for this image, all I can say is that the thumbnail does indeed suck, but when I get it into Windows Live Photo Gallery screen size it's absolutely beautiful and as I mentioned VintPrint do it for their poster. The only pity is that it won't zoom for me because the file is far too large, and in fact I don't have any applications that will accept it. I don't know why thumbnails of these Gigapixel images suck so. I have suggested what seems to me a sensible workround in LCH space, rather better I suggest than DCoetzee's Photoshop Curves edits, which introduce unpleasant colour casts as they must when you are equalising 10% or more of the histogram in RGB space in this way, but I didn't receive a single constructive remark about that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ... oh, and BTW, the version originally uploaded is not the version in the Musée d'Orsay, but rather a smaller version sold for a record price by Sotheby's in 1990 and now in a Swiss private collection. HTH. Of course one would be so very grateful and obliged were the d'Orsay version I nominate here to receive support. Thank you all so very much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually not it turns out, but it is unsourced and it emphatically is not is the museum image. I've got the Sotheby's image now and scanned it, but it was from a foldout and I'm going bonkers learning how to Inpaint the crease out, so it may be a day or two before I can get it in. It's almost exactly the same, but there are some minor differences (for example the central figure leaning over lacks an earring). The catalogue reproduces the d'Orsay image in the same 'dark green' colours as the museum image. Yet another source that unfortunately doesn't process its reproductions properly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Hey...whoever took the photograph did their best and it just isn't good enough. This artist's use of color can be difficult to capture in the low lighting of a museum. Trust me...I know this from experience.. Perhaps one day when working with GLAM we can get better images but we can't just hand this a Feature status because it has more pixels. As Hafspajen states, this image has a greenish hue and I also note is far too dark.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless it's the image used by VintPrint and Google. It's the thumbnail that looks green. The image itself at 100% is stunning. Remember the thumbnailing process is a simple algorithm that averages pixel values. It may not be equally effective for all images. It's the image we should be judging and not its thumbnail. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a detail from the original so editors can judge closer to the mark (it still needs to be opened). An interesting feature of this painting is that it depicts both natural and artificial light (gaslight), a combination I suspect we are not too familiar with today. I should think that's where most of the grief is coming from here. To repeat, my comment (it was not an oppose) about the previous nomination was simply that the image was unsourced. i.e. to say it plainly was not the museum image as the file claimed. I simply can't find a plausible candidate for the original image nominated. At least a couple of websites suggest that is in fact an image of an earlier version auctioned 1990. I've ordered the relevant catalogue and will upload a (sourced) image of that in time. Done my best here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, what I'm suggesting is that Renoir might well have laid down a thin glaze of a greenish hue to suggest gaslight. If that is so, then the presence of that in every single pixel might well get concentrated down in the thumbnail. To repeat, it's the original we should be judging, not the thumbnail. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems to assume a great deal. Your argument does not convince me but mainly because you are emphasizing things that are not relevant and are just guesses. Having VintPrint and Google use this image is not a standard for feature Picture. I would like to see a true "own work" uploaded. Where is this painting located now?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already made the tests and I can confirm that is what seems to be the problem here, on the assumption of course that Renoir did lay down the sort of glaze I suggest. But I don't know this painting at all, though I must have walked past it literally dozens, even hundreds, of times. I don't really care very much for Renoir. There are two versions of this painting. An earlier smaller version of the painting which I gather is not so atmospheric nor well defined. This is the version that was formerly in the Whitney collection and was sold for a record price in 1990 to a Japanese shipping magnate and since, allegedly, by private sale to a Swiss collector. I've never seen this painting, nor can I find a convincigly sourced image of it and as far as I know it hasn't been exhibited since 1990. I've ordered the 1990 sale catalogue and if possible will upload a scan to Commons. The other version is in the Musee D'orsay. It's an exact copy in every detail of the original, but it's larger. In the course of what I took to be a perfectly ordinary discussion in the last nomination, I gave the Google Virtual Tour location of this painting, which provoked the nominating editor to withdraw his nomination. Here is is again, though you have to walk a couple of rooms to the left of this point (to room 32, fifth floor)Ah it's more complicated. Take the lift to the fifth floor. Which room you end up in seems pretty random. In the strip of thumbnails below, click on Luncheon on the Grass (nominated below). That will take you to the room with Whistler's Mother. Now walk two rooms to the left. It looks absolutely stunning under a combinatation of the gallery lights and natural light coming in from the vaulting above, and you can see that its general impression from a distance is indeed somewhat greenish, though not as pronounced as the thumbanail, and certainly not the pinkish version originally supplied in the last nomination. As I pointed out in a *comment* (I wasn't opposing) that image is effectively unsourced as it's given as the museum image in the description, but plainly isn't their image. Regarding your comment about assumptions, if that's a reference to gaslight, then that's not an assumption. The museum description confirms it as image bathed in both natural and artificial light: "The study of the moving crowd, bathed in natural and artificial light, is handled using vibrant, brightly coloured brushstrokes". I hope this is useful and that at least this time my remarks will be allowed to stand. I can't but help thinking I'm on a hiding to nothing here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way I like "own works" too. I always link my Commons file descriptions to a framed work if I can find one. I know a couple of Flickr editors who upload excellent images, but they're "all rights reserved". As a general proposition own works can't compete with gallery images, because flashlight and ancillary lighting isn't usually permitted. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2014‎
 * I had a very valid reason witdrawing my nomination. This picture, that I actually had withdrawn, is too dark. Impressionists painted sunshine. This PDF say that he painted it in the afrernoon. Most painters wouldn't try such a complicated subject to paint both artifical and sunlight (that would make the shadows look like if they were comming from several directions) - and the impessionist most certainly wouldn't. They wanted to catch the light and the sunshine of the moment. And, of course - with so much sunshine one wouldn't be able to see if the lights from the artificial light either, anyway - if the artifical lights  were on -  because the sunshine is always stronger. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The museum description confirms it as an image bathed in both natural and artificial light: "The study of the moving crowd, bathed in natural and artificial light, is handled using vibrant, brightly coloured brushstrokes". Not doing very well the museum, is it? Not only does it give the painting the wrong colours, it doesn't even describe it properly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 23:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)