Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shrovetide Revellers

Shrovetide Revellers
Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015  at 16:14:39 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality scan of an interesting work.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Shrovetide Revellers
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Frans Hals


 * Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - nice. What does the f h stand for on the ale thing?   Hafspajen (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Frans Hals, perhaps? Supported by the Met — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Freiherr von Hafspajen? Sca (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Support - A bit unusual for Hals; the background revelers are downright caricatures. But it's a gorgeous work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently they were painted over, so I guess you weren't the only one who felt that way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Except I like them. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I never really liked all his pictures, making faces. But he is a great artist. I don't often vote because I personally like an artist - but because he is a good one. He did have tendency to make funny looking paintings, thoug. (almost caricatures) like most Dutch those time. It was a la mode, Joos van Craesbeeck - LE FUMEUR.jpg this one, by Joos v C. It was called Tronie, the style... Hafspajen (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not usually this much of a caricature, though. He tends to exaggerate a bit to give a still painting more life, but doesn't tend to go as far as here... These ones are very modernist, actually, remind me of artworks from the 20s and 30s. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment — If the primary subject's cheeks are that red, why aren't his eyes red too? (Or did Hals have a red-eye app on his palette?) Sca (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fine picture showing the funny drunkards of the 1600s. The: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose Hafspajen (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The painting is interesting enough, but the image is too dark. – Editør (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of paintings darken over time. I'd presume that's like that in the original. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but in my opinion the image needs more brightness and contrast to pass FP criterion #1. Although I'm not nominating this version because it is taken too far, compare File:Frans Hals, Merrymakers at Shrovetide (c. 1616–1617).jpg. – Editør (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That - and all images like it - fails criterion 8, inappropriate digital manipulation. That one fails particularly hard, as it doesn't even mention it was modified from the source given. With paintings, we need to show them as they are now; this is a long-standing consensus. We can argue a little bit, since lighting can change how a picture looks, but only a little. "High technical standard" for paintings means "shows what the painting looks like", not "what we might wish it to look like", as the latter tends to kill all value for discussions of the painting. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. That one in particular is a lot whiter than the painting is now (compare what appears to be the frame, which is still visible in the lower left corner; do you know any wood that is that bright?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course that images fails a bunch of criteria, but that is not relevant, no-one is nominating it! My point remains that we should not select a dark and unclear image of a painting as FP based on speculation of the state of the painting. A reliable source about the state of the painting would clear things up quickly and would probably convince me to change my vote. – Editør (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't mere speculation: This copy is the reproduction by the Metropolitan Museum of Art themselves, directly sourced from the museum who owns it: . Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Very nice.--Jobas (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support--High quality image with it's own article.--Godot13 (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Nice and gorgeous _ Alborzagros (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)