Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles-Antoine Cambon - Set design for the première of Rossini's Robert Bruce, Act III, Scene 3.jpg/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Charles-Antoine Cambon - Set design for the première of Rossini's Robert Bruce, Act III, Scene 3.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2020 at 14:58:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera
Info created by Charles-Antoine Cambon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)- Info Renominated because I managed to screw up the previous nomination's ability to be seen by adding an <onlyinclude> pair through accidental clicking from that list of helpful mark up below the edit window. Not my best moment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Benh (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support --StellarHalo (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support --shizhao (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
opposebut only really temporarily to prevent this from 5daying before asking the following question: @Adam Cuerden: could you say more about how you decided which bare areas were damage and which were in the original? Comparing this with the original [damaged version], it looks like there are places where you've filled in but similar kinds of areas elsewhere that aren't filled in. I've annotated an area in the current image as an example. It looks like you've covered up a solid vertical line there with the reddish color, but left other white areas where e.g. it intersects with the arch. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)- @Rhododendrites: This used a variety of media - paint, ink, washes and so on - and I tried to treat it appropriately for each. Some sections appeared to be layered, and the awnings, in particular, seemed to have chipped off some of the paint, revealing things that should have been under the paint if only it had it been better preserved. On the other hand, a pencil line is fully visible under a wash. But there's also judgement calls to be made, since some of the lines go over and some go under different layers. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate there are a lot of judgment calls involved, since we can't just {{ping|Charles-Antoine Cambon}}. It makes me a little uneasy, but I don't know what else could be done. Regardless, striking my oppose to get out of the way of the speedy promotion. — Rhododendrites talk | 01:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aye. Restoration is an art form. But digital restoration has the advantage that it's non-destructive of the original, so, while I do try to maintain artistic integrity, there's an issue where not making a decision can look far worse, since one area having much more damage than the rest of it really draws the focus there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of destructive/non-destructive, I would very much appreciate it if, next April Fool's Day, you could nominate an Adam Cuerden version of this fine genre of restoration. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 02:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aye. Restoration is an art form. But digital restoration has the advantage that it's non-destructive of the original, so, while I do try to maintain artistic integrity, there's an issue where not making a decision can look far worse, since one area having much more damage than the rest of it really draws the focus there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate there are a lot of judgment calls involved, since we can't just {{ping|Charles-Antoine Cambon}}. It makes me a little uneasy, but I don't know what else could be done. Regardless, striking my oppose to get out of the way of the speedy promotion. — Rhododendrites talk | 01:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: This used a variety of media - paint, ink, washes and so on - and I tried to treat it appropriately for each. Some sections appeared to be layered, and the awnings, in particular, seemed to have chipped off some of the paint, revealing things that should have been under the paint if only it had it been better preserved. On the other hand, a pencil line is fully visible under a wash. But there's also judgement calls to be made, since some of the lines go over and some go under different layers. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera
