Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Street Musicians at the Door

Street Musicians at the Door
Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020  at 22:21:10 (UTC)
 * Reason:High-quality museum scan of a notable artwork
 * Articles in which this image appears:Street Musicians at the Door, Jacob Ochtervelt, Pythagorean tiling
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Jacob Ochtervelt




 * Support as nominator – David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a lot brighter than the original image, and that's not documented. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 04:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it was automatically uploaded by a bot from the museum image. So when you say "It's a lot brighter than the original image, and that's not documented", I think it would be closer to the truth to say "The image that the museum now makes available is a lot less bright than the one they made available when the bot uploaded it, and they have not documented that change." I think the brighter version looks better; whether it accurately reflects the present level of aging and restoration of the original artwork is of course a different question, but one that without access to the painting itself I have little way of answering. I don't think it would be an improvement to replace with the version the museum currently makes available, though, for a different reason: that version is covered by vertical streaks of distracting white dots, for instance across the face of the taller musician, possibly a combination of cracking in its varnish combined with how it was lit for the scan, possibly because the earlier version (the one we have) included some digital restoration which they later decided to omit. Whatever the reason, it looks worse independent of its choice of light/dark balance. (Also the current museum version appears to be higher resolution and with higher saturation levels, to the point where it looks like the maid has heavy mascara, but again I don't know whether the increased saturation is more or less accurate to the physical object.) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll check the histogram once I'm not exhausted and see whether it's blown out at all. That'd be the biggest problem. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 06:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support either Checked the histogram, seems fine. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 18:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either – Bammesk (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either. MER-C 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Slight oppose original, support alt 1 I think the new scan available from the museum site is substantially superior. The white crackles are fairly easy to deal with, and in any case don't appear in properly-resized versions; and when zoomed in it's substantially more detailed, and looks far more like a real painting. I've uploaded an extremely quick edit (light dust and scratch filter, slight level adjustment) of the new scan; I'd be a bit loath to promote that as is, as it's clearly not a full restoration, but equally I think it already exceeds the old version so I think it would also be odd to promote the older scan. TSP (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I hinted above, I think the new scan is a bit oversaturated. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps - I'm never sure how far it is sensible to depart from the judgement of the uploading museum on these questions (though in this case they have provided two very different interpretations). As I say, I'm sure this could be improved upon; I just felt even this 10-minute edit already exceeded the original. TSP (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1. --Gnosis (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 22:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Only alt 1 has enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)