Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Juichimen Kannon

Jūichimen Kannon
Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2011 at 23:43:00 (UTC)
 * Reason:High resolution, high quality image of a National Treasure of Japan
 * Articles in which this image appears:List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)
 * FP category for this image:artwork
 * Creator:unknown


 * Support as nominator --bamse (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. High detail, interesting. Might be worth putting in Guanyin as well; my main reason for suggesting it is so the image can be featured on the MP (needs context for that). Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I left a note at Talk:Guanyin. bamse (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Pinetalk 07:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bad scan work: the image need a curve correction! Please take a look at the image histogram. The original artwork can be featured, but not the scan. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "The original artwork can be featured, but not the scan."? There are many scanned images of artwork among featured pictures. As for the curve correction, I am not good at image manipulation, so if something needs to be done to the image, I'd be happy if somebody could do that. If I understand you correctly, the black point needs to be moved to the right. If I do this, the colors become more intensive. However since this is an old (12th century) artwork, it likely has faded a bit, and the present look is probably closer to what it looks today. I would not want to restore it to its original state (which can only be guessed). bamse (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alchemist means to say that they would support a better scan of this piece for FP (I think).  Jujutacular  talk 02:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In which way "better"? bamse (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it a scan from the "original"? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd think so, yes. Why? bamse (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Very good quality picture, either it is a scan or a photograph. I don't see any lighting problems. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Alt --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support alt (vote after the technical end of the voting period, but if this helps determine consensus...) Good detail, better coloration with the alt.  Spencer T♦ C 22:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer original, but ALT is fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alt looks like an improvement. I'm not sure how conservative it is, but it's preferable over the original. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So what's happening here? Been a month already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)