Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cypresses at Cagnes

Cypresses at Cagnes
Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2014  at 00:08:20 (UTC)
 * Reason:Is among the late works of the artist, after shifting his technique from Pointillism to "broad, blocky brushstrokes". Illustrates the "second generation Neo-Impressionism strategy" of keeping "the colors separate". Cross's paintings of this time were considered "precursors to Fauvism and Cubism". Also, at this time Cross was having trouble with his eyes. (per WP article on artist).
 * Articles in which this image appears:Henri-Edmond Cross, Neo-impressionism
 * FP category for this image:Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Henri-Edmond Cross


 * Support as nominator – CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – secondary lighting from above the painting's brought out the texture of the brushstrokes (and a shadow from the frame) . Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes, this painting has a secondary structure, well done. Hafspajen (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — Though not to my (limited) knowledge a household name, Cross seems to have been quite influential. At this point (!), his pointillism seems to have morphed into ... blobism? Sca (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Appears to be a deframed version of File:Les cypres a Cagnes.JPG, which has no acceptable copyright. What's with all the art crit here by the way? Seems superfluous. It's the quality of the image we should be dealing with, and this photo really isn't very good. It's simply not in focus and you should be able to see the brushwork in a featured image of a painting in my opinion. Marinka van Dam (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming the uploader meant to give a free license, the copyright on both images is fine. The metadata indicates that the framed version was taken with a Canon EOS 400D in 2008, so it's quite probably photographed by the uploader. Furthermore, no matter what the copyright of that file, this one (with no 3D elements) is free, per Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Not crazy about what looks like ISO noise, but fairly good reproduction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you are so laid back about the copyright issue here when you were so punctilious (to the extent of nominating the image for deletion) about the issue regarding my Doha manuscript. It could well be, likely is, a Flickr upload. As for the camera, a Canon EOS 400D is an entry level camera simply not capable of providing the kind of image we ought to be featuring here. Some calculations might help here. The minimum acceptable pixel size of an image will depend on the canvas size. 36 inches by 48 inches is a pretty standard canvas size. That would be 1728 square inches. A scaled pixel version meeting the featured picture specifications would be 1500 by 2000 pixels = 3,000,000 pixels (i.e. 2.81 MP) in size. There are therefore 3,000,0000 / 1728 = 1736 pixels per square inch or, converting to metric, 269 pixels per square cm = 2.7 pixels per square mm. It's perfectly plain that this is a resolution that should bring out all but the finest brushwork in a canvas this size. In this case we have a painting 81 by 100 cm, a much smaller canvas, amounting to 810,000 square mm. The pixel size is 2517 by  2037 = 5,127,129 (i.e. 4.9 MP). This is equivalent to 6.3 pixels per square mm for this painting and we should be able to see fine brushwork at that resolution, but we cannot. The image simply isn't up to scratch.  At 800 ISO there is indeed a problem with noise. Compare that with, say, Paul Signac's  Canal of Overschie, which  is a typical Google Art Project image of a pointillist painting. The image is of course in focus and the resolution adequate to render the texture of the canvas itself. The painting is 650 by 808 mm = 525,200 square mm and the pixel size is 3752 by 3022 = 11,338,544 pixels (i.e. 10.8 MP) in size. The resolution is thus 21.6 pixels per square mm. I suggest that 20 pixels per square mm is the standard we should ideally be aiming for a  worthwhile Featured Picture of a 2-D artwork, adequate to render the finest brushwork in the case of a painting or every mark in the case of a graphic work.  Marinka van Dam (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: And in the case of the Paul Nash ink drawing below, where the nominating editor doesn't wish me to comment further, there's actually an implied resolution of 190 pixels per square mm, which the image is quite plainly not providing. It's in that sense that it's a poor image in my opinion, thus my oppose. Marinka van Dam (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between something being demonstrably a copyright issue, like your nomination below, and something being demonstrably not a copyright issue under current Commons policy regarding 2D works of art. The probable source image (which has had a free license attached for the photograph) is not being nominated here, and its copyright does not affect this nomination. That being said, unless you are accusing the uploader of faking EXIF data (a very bad faith accusation), all evidence points to the uploader being the photographer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing the uploader of anything regarding EXIF data, your projection. It doesn't matter what the evidence points to. It didn't have a valid copyright tag and that was all there was to it. The uploader has provided one now. But the issue here is the quality of the image, which isn't adequate for me to support. I will not support 2D images of artwork that don't meet the minimum criteria I seek: that it should show fine detail of brushwork in the case of the painting or the marks made in the case of a graphic work. The rules regarding minimum pixel size should ensure that for all but the largest works of art, as I show above. But the rule is not an end in itself, rather it is designed to ensure quality of end result and that is lacking in this case - noisy, out of focus and taken on a camera simply not up to the job. Even Google's robots make a better job of it. And it's not being "combative" incidentally, merely responsible about Wikipedia's relationship with museums. I supported thus your nomination of the van Eyk, but I won't support this. Marinka van Dam (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Vote by sock puppet in violation of block stricken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I struck out his other comments too. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - this is not especially my favourite style of artwork; it does however provide good EV and interest while illustrating a change in the artist's style.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A fine image, great EV as stated above.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 00:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)