Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Pearl and the Wave

The Pearl and the Wave edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 06:10:14 (UTC)

Original – Paul-Jacques-Aimé Baudry's The Pearl and the Wave, described by Kenyon Cox as "the most perfect painting of the nude". Oil on canvas, measures 83.5 by 178 centimetres (32.9 × 70 in)

Reason: High quality scan of a notable artwork; I also think we should have more nudes
Articles in which this image appears: The Pearl and the Wave,
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Paul-Jacques-Aimé Baudry

Alt (color balance mostly)

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALT is fine with me too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~Support alt Good digitalization, although the hips look fatty for me :) Brandmeister^talk 08:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - butt, butt..._{I've always wanted to do that *snicker*} --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I thought this was Wikipedia, not Beavis and Butthead. Does anyone have comments actually related to the quality of the digitization or the artwork? Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. The color in this higher-res version is washed out. The color and lighting (of the photo) seemed significantly better in the original upload. As images of the human form goes, this one isn't terribly good; almost any Bouguereau would be better, for instance, and most are not yet featured. – SJ + 06:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded alt, but not sure which version is technically more correct. Brandmeister^talk 19:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annnhhh If there's a better version it should be used; looks like one of my scans. This is the hermaphrodite pic, right? (Just joking.) We do need more nude male paintings, drawings, photos featured. Young 40 somethings would be fun. Sounds like a photo project! CarolMooreDC 14:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just how widespread is knowledge of the hermaphrodite photo series? I agree, shame we don't have many good ones. It would be nice for someone to get a good image of Michelangelo's David... Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool on Nadar photos! Second scan or color balance definitely better. CarolMooreDC 05:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets featured picture criteria. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt The original appears to have a greenish tinge (fluorescent lighting?) but I haven't seen the painting to compare. Colin°^Talk 20:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which One? Dusty777 17:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alt per my support above. Brandmeister^talk 17:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously thinking of promoting an alternative with colours that look unnatural (for a painting), oversaturated, and probably do not accurately reflect the colours of a painting of the sea, because someone played with the tools and thought it looked better? Really? Without even trying to check if the changes are actually more right? You know better than the museum who actually owns the painting what the painting looks like? You realise there's this green thing called algae that grows on moist rocks, and sea water tends to be greenish-blue so this scene would be expected to have a lot of green in it? You realise that oil paintings tend to be a little desaturated, not hyper-saturated like the edit? In short: You are making a huge mistake here. Please don't.

Support original. I would think that the museum where the painting resides would know best what it looks like. —howcheng {chat}

Not necessarily. I've seen several instances of museum websites posting reproductions with inaccurate colors, even the prestigious Musée d'Orsay. In some cases the reproductions on their websites are 2nd or 3rd generation from the original. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late to simply Oppose this? Seriously, neither of these really look to have realistic colours to me for an artwork of this vintage. The original looks dull and off with greeny skin tones, the alt too cold for an oil painting. I'd tend to agree with SJ's original comment that the original upload looks to have the most likely colouring. If I had to go for one of these it would be the original, but I think it's wrong and we probably should revert to the original small upload, unless someone can do a better colour matching job. But bigger always triumphs, right? --jjron (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]