Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Korea - Seoul - National Museum - Incense Burner 0252-06a.jpg

Celadon Incense Burner from the Goryeo Dynasty (918-1392)

 * Reason:Recently promoted as Quality Image meeting Featured Picture Criteria and is a significant cultural object in Korean history. This rare Celadon Incense Burner museum piece is designated National Treasure of South Korea #95 and is one of the finest examples of Korean Celadon ceramics.
 * Articles this image appears in:History of Korea, Culture_of_Korea, Korean pottery and porcelain, National Treasures of South Korea, Celadon, Goryeo ware
 * Creator:Steve46814


 * Support as nominator --Steve46814 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per the tiny bunnies. Actually, per the high quality and EV and the tiny bunnies. I love bunnies. User:Nezzadar (speak) 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support high quality and education value.--Caspian blue 02:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terrible lighting. Whilst i am sure it looks very dramatic in a museum display case, it doesn't work for a illustrative photograph. The result being that we only see about 30% of the object and none of the texture. Mfield (Oi!) 06:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, again per the lighting. While most of it is in complete darkness, there are areas that are actually approaching overexposed. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a national treasure, as such, it's going to be behind glass and likely will have photography restrictions. This might be the best we can get. Thoughts? User:NezzadarUser_talk:Nezzadar 16:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, unless photographers hired by the National Museum of Korea release their photos under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA regardless of their contract to the museum, I think this is a best photograph that we can get. Just compare this one File:Korea-Goryeo celadon-Incense burner-01.jpg. Moreover, the museum strictly prohibits to use tripods and flash, so lighting is also a unmanageable option for the photographer.--Caspian blue 16:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Even if this is the best executed shot possible, why simply settle? The lighting is just too dark. -- mcshadypl T C  20:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although you're entitled to your comment, my right above comment to inform of "the fact" has no indication of any "simple settle". I find the image high quality with educational values.--Caspian blue 04:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose On a lighting basis. I'm surprised that a museum would use such high key lighting in the first place. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried a crop and an edit. Although the lighting is very high key, it does bring out textures that would otherwise be quite hard to capture.  Durova  326 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Might as well come out and support edit 1. Directional lighting serves a useful purpose here by emphasizing contours which would otherwise be difficult to discern.  As a technical matter of ceramic construction, the successive layering of the petals and the openwork bulb at top are virtuoso workmanship.  A bit of shadow/highlight adjustment tones down the highlights to reveal beautiful glazework, and shows more of the object's features such as the lower half of the bulb.  Durova  326 20:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ahhh! Someone who recognizes the high artistic value of the subject and understands the objective of the style of lighting employed here. And this edit does improve this image noticeably. Thanks for the time editing and commenting on this effort. Steve46814 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between correctly employed (directional) lighting for the human eye and for a camera, that is part of the problem. The kind of dynamic range required to catch the highlights and still retain some shadow detail is not yet achievable with a single shot (and HDR is going to be tricky without a tripod at this light level). The human eye at the museum is not going to be seeing what this single shot is displaying. I know it is of no concern to the museum as they are not lighting it for cameras but the upshot is that it is not a good lighting setup for photographing this object. Maybe it's one of those subjects that it may be impossible to get an FP of. The shadow lift has unfortunately brought up some fairly nasty color noise which suggests that there is simply not enough captured information in the extreme shadows to be worked with as they are as black as the floor of the case itself. Mfield (Oi!) 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. The human eye responds much better to this sort of lighting than cameras do.  And agreed regarding your criticism of the shadow lift.  One problem with museum shots is that people often review them at FPC as if the photographer had full control over the conditions, when often they don't.  Do we exercise greater flexibility when the artwork is really major and not theoretically replaceable with a better lit shot of a similar piece?  Durova  327 05:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's four days in with a four-four deadlock. In the end, this nomination is going to get killed unless additional voices are brought it. Where are the regulars. I see Durova, noodle and Caspian, where are Shoebox, jjron, and makeemlighter? Come on people. This is too important of an image to die because of lack of consensus. Nezzadar  ☎   02:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shoebox lol. Four-four's not exactly a deadlock, and besides someone's got to be around to close it... --jjron (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shoemaker I am so sorry. I really need to stop editing late at night.  Nezzadar   ☎   15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to temper your enthusiasm with a realistic look at who are the regulars here, as there are surely more that the 6 that you mention. Mfield (Oi!) 00:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oy vey! This is why I don't usually list. I didn't say "the be all, end all, holy exclusive list of people that matter," I merely listed the people active in the last week. In case you didn't notice, those are the people active in the last week. I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else. Sheesh.  Nezzadar   ☎   04:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)