Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portrait of Sir Thomas More (Google Art)

Sir Thomas More
Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 00:10:33 (UTC)
 * Reason:At a recent delist nomination, this image was suggested as a replacement. I agree that the image is of high quality, so it would be nice to have as a FP. If the delist nominator, P. S. Burton, feels as if s/he should be conominator for this image, s/he should feel free to add her/himself.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Portrait of Sir Thomas More (Holbein), Thomas More, and others.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Hans Holbein the Younger, digitized by Google Art Project

Question -- It's loaded with prominent white specks. First, are those actually visible if you stand in front of the painting or are they brought out by the camera? Second, wouldn't we want to carefully clean up a few of those spots before making it a featured picture? – JBarta (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The picture is high-quality, and seems to convey a moody, if not downright gloomy, atmosphere that fits the circumstance surrounding the end of this chap's life.   dci  &#124;  TALK   04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I can't comment on the accuracy of colour / tone (as per the concerns in the delist nom) however this seems to be a very high quality repro of a notable work.  Nik the  stoned  10:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments on D&R nom. Clegs (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support (no need to co-nominate) – P. S. Burton  (talk)  20:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Great. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support--Stu Phillips (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the original, so I can't comment either way on if it has it. The other Google Art images don't have random white specks, that I've seen. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have spent many a happy hour staring at this one at the Frick. I agree that the white specks are too prominent.  I think this is caused by the lighting used to make this photograph--what we're seeing is the yellowish bits caused by worn paint, overexposed and thus appearing brighter than they should. Chick Bowen 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose -- While it's a beautiful painting, my suspicions are confirmed by Chick Bowen. Wear marks are one thing and I wouldn't wish to go too far trying to eliminate them, But quite a few of those bright white spots can and should (IMO) be touched up first. – JBarta (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

--Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the length of the PotD queue, I see no harm in promoting this now. Previous iteration has been PotD twice, so maybe this one will be skipped. Nonetheless, please do nominate a cleaned version for D&R in due course. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)