Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Studies of the Fetus in the Womb

Delist and replace: Studies of the Fetus in the Womb
Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2015  at 12:45:31 (UTC)
 * Reason:The current FP is below minimum resolution.
 * Articles this image appears in:Study (art), Embryology, Leonardo da Vinci
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Studies of Embryos
 * Nominator:Brandmeistertalk


 * Delist & replace – Brandmeistertalk  12:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Good restoration of a historically important sheet of paper. --Tremonist (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * D&R now. I agree with Chris about the colours, though. --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI: File:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg is already featured. Maybe this should be a d&r nomination? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, didn't notice that. The current FP is 1,443 px wide (not used in the recent target article), so propose a D&R now. Brandmeistertalk  14:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I have reformatted the nomination to use the one for delist nominations, and will move the page as well in a moment. Could you update the rationale? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * D&R though to be honest I prefer the colors of the current FP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The ultimate source for the new image is The Royal Collection and it seems that Hi! magazine have done some lightening of their own (compare the shadowing on the tears on the right hand edge of the RC image and Hi!'s); the Royal Collection have an image with a tone reference next to it; I've no idea how that works, but presumably the RC have corrected the image to match that chart. Also, the hi-res download from the Royal Collection is only 1268x1758; Hi! may have got a higher-res (that's a real word) image from the Royal Collection as far as I know, but can any image wizard tell if they've just blown up the RC image? Brandmeister's crop also removes the top and bottom of the page (unfortunately it was photographed over a light box that wasn't quite big enough, so there were ugly shadows and it is a toss up whether it is better to have those or lose some of the document; it is for me anyway).Belle (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The magazine's version is still more closer to the Royal Collection original than Luc Viatour's photo. And the page itself is untouched, I just cropped the shadow from it as could be seen at full size. The image almost certainly hasn't been blown, as you lose quality in that case, while the magazine's version preserves all details. Most likely they asked the collection to make a hi-res digitization according to the metadata. Brandmeistertalk  13:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what I was looking at when I saw your crop had cut a bit off; probably hallucinating. On the basis that it is, as you say, closer to the correct colour than the existing pic Delist & replace. What's the stance on reusing an image that is licensed by the creator for single use only like this one; I'm assuming we have decided that they don't actually have the right to stipulate that. Belle (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * D&R Looks ooo much better. --Janke | Talk 14:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

with File:Leonardo da Vinci - Studies of the foetus in the womb.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)