Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Jeremiah lamenting.jpg

Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem
Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 23:46:15 (UTC)
 * Reason:While somewhat small in file size, this is a gorgeous painting. I'd love to have a good-sized copy with good production values, but the only copy I can find of any greater size is the Yorck Project one, which is, like most of the reproductions they do, terrible.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Book of Lamentations, Jeremiah, Mishpatim, Bo (parsha), Tzav, Behar, Bechukotai, Balak (parsha), Pinchas (parsha), Matot
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Rembrandt


 * Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Regrettably, this just isn't up to the standard of our fine art FPs. The detail and brushstrokes of this painting are very difficult to make out, due to low resolution and artifacting. Compare it to this image which, while admittedly not having enough EV to be considered for Featured Picture status, is an exquisite digitization. Nautica Shad es  12:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Gorgeous image with good EV, it catches my eye every time I scroll down the page. I'll take Adam's word that it's a good restoration, but very borderline size does harm it a bit. --jjron (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a restoration. Just a good copy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Actually meant to say 'reproduction'. --jjron (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the version at the website of the Rijksmuseum. It is 1273x1600 px. A lot darker then this version, and probably closer to the original. (As someone already pointed out, the Yorck versions are usually quite bad). P. S. Burton  (talk)  21:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll admit my experience with originals of Rembrandt is limited, but it's not nonexistant, and the original image shown here looks much more Rembrandt-y to me than that one. Rembrandt has a tendency towards a subtle glow in the lighter parts of the picture. Further, I find it hard to believe that as much detail as seen int he original copy here would be completely invisible in the final version, instead becoming a sea of black. Perhaps a botched restoration job has attacked this, but, at the very least, the original image here seems a lot nearer Rembrandt's intent. (Note the original image proposed here is not the Yorck Project version.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed now that it's not the Yorck version. And you are probably right about the palette. What kind of puzzles me tough is that the museum hosts this version. I would think the currators would spot the difference. P. S. Burton  (talk)  22:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's not uncommon: there's a lot of paintings in the Rijksmuseum, and people tend not to review websites once the pages are set up very much. What probably happened is that someone took the picture then handed it over with a dozen or even a hundred other images, which were then batch uploaded and sorted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  T · C 03:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does not have minimum number of supports.  Jujutacular  T · C 03:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)