Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Birth of Venus

The Birth of Venus edit

Original - Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli, c. 1485 Tempera on canvas 172.5 x 278.5 cm (67 7/8 x 109 5/8 in.) Uffizi, Florence.

Alternate.

Reason: One of the more famous paintings from the Italian Renaissance with allusions to classical mythology, and a good quality image file large enough for featured picture consideration. A representation of the human body that is neither exploitive nor gratuitous.
Articles this image appears in: Aphrodite, 100 Great Paintings
Creator: Sandro Botticelli

Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is our best scan? It's, I dunno, kind of small and the colors seem drab. Compare http://www.johnmitchell.org/botticelli-birth-venus.jpg and the top image at http://www.integral.soton.ac.uk/~sguera/good1/venus.html or even Wikipedia's own version here (which is the version that appears in the painting's article). Spikebrennan (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair question. Wikipedia has been using both so the editors here might as well choose between them. Durova^Charge! 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, which is closer to the actual painting's dimensions?D-rew (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original nom. is slightly larger. Durova^Charge! 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ummm...that's why I asked the question.D-rew (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure what to say then; the dimensions of the original are listed in the original version caption. It's a large painting. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reason I asked was because it looked (to me) like the original was stretched horizontally. I did the math, which I was trying to avoid in lieu of sucking at math, and the found alternate is closer to the actual dimensions of the original painting. That's all.D-rew (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) The point may be the different aspect ratios; the original nomination is noticeably compressed vertically relative to the alternative. I can't help with which is more accurate; the dimensions for the original given on the painting's article give a ratio of 1.62, as against the original nomination's 1.70 and the alternative's 1.59; but any differences there could be down to cropping as much as stretching. The alternative looks a little more convincing to me on aspect ratio, but I'm not sure about its colours - the red of the sheet and the white of the Venus' arm look over-brightened to me. TSP (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both per nom. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did some research: the first image does have incorrect proportions and should be excluded on grounds of accuracy. A ratio in the area of 1.6 is correct. ~~I'd support the "alternate"~~ Changing to neutral—if I imagine an FPC standard for art reproduction both in terms of tone and detail I'm not sure this cuts it. (It opens the door for many paintings to be "featured" otherwise.) We should feature only the best-quality public domain reproductions that can be found. –Outriggr § 02:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose both The original has issues with vertical compression and the alternate has possible issues with warmth/hue. Both seem to be too small to adequately illustrate the detail in the original; after viewing at full size, I instinctively clicked again thinking that I wasn't looking at the actual full image. The detail image from the article illustrates the amount of fine detail lost and the possible issue with the colours. Matt Deres (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both per Matt Deres.D-rew (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nom Maybe we'll have another go at this sometime if a better file version becomes available. Durova^Charge! 11:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Withdrawn. Julia\^talk