Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA.jpg

Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA
Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2011 at 23:42:21 (UTC)
 * Reason:High res, good composition and lighting, good EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Nataraja, Shiva
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
 * Creator:Los Angeles County Museum of Art


 * Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, brilliant. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, nice... everything. Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The image page should mention the size dimensions of the statue.  A call to the museum should resolve this.  Spikebrennan (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dimensions added. Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. We often get nominations of sculpture, art objects and artifacts that are on display at a museum.  This image could be suitable as a reference image showing the kind of quality that we're looking for (no lighting glare, no glass in the way, well-composed).  Spikebrennan (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, per Nergaal, except for the baby she's stomping on! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus a question: Is the background real? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note two things: First, it is not 'she' but 'he'. Lord Shiva is generally male. Second, he is not stomping a baby but a dwarf who represents a demon or ignorance etc... Ahirwav (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh ok consider this ignorance stomped out. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the edit okay with everyone? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Indeed very nice image, thanks LACMA. --Elekhh (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support . A nice image when viewed at smaller sizes. My support is weak because there are several dust spots, hairs, etc visible at full size, along with heavy noise in darker parts of the background (and also in a few darker parts of the statue itself, although these do not seem too obtrusive). --Avenue (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. The noise especially is much improved. There are still a few dust spots, but the worst flaws seem to be fixed. --Avenue (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Not special enough for reaching FP status. I don't like the lighting and the tight framing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Alvesgaspar Razum2010 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I like both the lighting and the framing :-), I think the background lighting is in good contrast to the statue and brings out the details very well. 99of9 (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit 1 added: The original does have noise, dirt, and fibres, as Avenue pointed out. I've cleaned up the image and selectively denoised only the background.   Mae din\ talk 22:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1: Edit addresses issues raised by Avenue, and I don't think the crop is too tight.   Mae din\ talk 22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Question Is the background real? (Sorry to repeat, but it seemed to get lost up there...) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. The iconography is well illustrated. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * looks ok to me, but I have no idea what does the sRGB thing means. Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a colour space and is standard for the internet. The usage section of the sRGB article might help.  Though it is better to use sRGB, it's not necessarily a critical change as far as FPC goes and I needn't have mentioned it at all.   Mae din\ talk 10:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could someone clarify whether the background is artificial or not? Brand meister  t   19:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we don't know... The Los Angeles County Museum of Art probably knows, and it would be nice to know, but I'm not so worried about it any more. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been open long enough for anyone that doesn't like the edit to say so. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)