Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flowers in a Terracotta Vase

Flowers in a Terracotta Vase
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015  at 22:44:03 (UTC)


 * Reason:Good quality image, beautiful still life by a master of still lifes
 * Articles in which this image appears:Albertus Jonas Brandt, Eelke Jelles Eelkema
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Albertus Jonas Brandt and Eelke Jelles Eelkema


 * Support as nominator – CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lovely... but the colours are different in the Rijksmuseum's scan. (See addition here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment' Gosh. I found a third, hurray. just in between. Hafspajen (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since it was painted 1820 it is weird that it should lost its color so fast. Wonder if File:Bloemen in een terracotta vaas. Rijksmuseum SK-A-1013.jpeg isn't the closest to original after all. Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support ANY ALT - Hafspajen (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious -- how would the first image get those bright colors? Did somebody change the colors with a software program? - CorinneSD (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - like the crisp colors of the original --Atsme  &#9775; Consult  03:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm just trying to learn: what is the primary goal here at FP? To have an image that looks as close as possible to the way the painting looks in the museum (with its aging, grime of decades, etc.), or to have an image that looks as close as possible to the way the painting looked when it was first painted? I've seen discussion of slight modifications to other images using software; are those modifications never acceptable? If we're honest, the one with the bright colors (original) is the most attractive, isn't it? If somebody could explain this to me, I'll be better informed for future voting. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been issues in the past with this. My own position is that well-done edits may be good, but we need to be able to refer to the actual painting, because in the end we're trying to show the painting as it is today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support original. Alborzagros (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Original and Alt 1; Support Alt 2.' Have people actually looked at these? Alt 2 is 9 times the area. It's a much bigger image, of the same quality. We shouldn't even be nominating low-res copies. I understand that the good image was found late, but I'd suggest closing and renominating. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Rijksmuseum scan, oppose others: they know what they're doing. Accuracy is more important. BTW, Adam: that Rijksmuseum scan was uploaded the day after this was nominated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did note that it was found late. I don't know. If this was mine, I'd just restart the nom, but... it's sorting itself out, I suppose. But if the original passes, there's a problem here, which is one of the reasons I don't like presenting options that shouldn't pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the day after to be all that late. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Crisco 1492 Would you be willing to put this nomination on hold for another day or two to give a Dutch editor (who has been a museum guide) time go to the museum and look at the painting? CorinneSD (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The painting is in a depot, and not hanging in the Rijksmuseum. The colours on the website are correct according the museum staff member. I checked both articles and added new information from Dutch websites. I had never heard of these two painters. It was interesting to read about. Regards. Taksen (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 03:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)