Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hendrik Voogd - Italiaans landschap met parasoldennen.jpg

File:Hendrik Voogd - Italiaans landschap met parasoldennen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 00:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hendrik Voogd - Italiaans landschap met parasoldennen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hendrik Voogd - Italiaans landschap met parasoldennen.jpg

•  Info created by Hendrik Voogt (Amsterdam 1783 - Rome 1839) - uploaded by Ophelia2 - nominated by --Pava (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pava (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Anonimski (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate crop.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  if this image is a 100% reproduction of this painting then "unfortunate crop" is an invalid argument --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  Sadly that's not completely true. The Nachtwacht by Rembrandt, for one, was cropped, which is still considered to be very unfortunate. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem to be cropped. See the version with frame. Lupo 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Neutral Oppose The version at the Rijksmuseum has completely different colors. Also different and (I think) less noticeable cracks. This version here looks overprocessed to me. Lupo 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • acquisition matters a lot, a good acquisition can have brilliant effects very close to the oil color. It seems to me that it is not true the other image, but it will depend on the light. I do not think we can speak of "overprocesssed". thanks for reporting, very valuable, however. --Pava (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Our version here gives the Rijksmuseum as the source. The direct link in the template on the file description page doesn't work, though, so I don't know if the Rijksmuseum did do two versions of this, or if the one I found was supposed to be the true source of our file. But if so, the difference is striking. I like the version now available at the Rijksmuseum better. Lupo 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Switched from neutral to oppose. Lupo 12:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Info Alternative: from the Rijksmuseum. No restoration attempted by me. Lupo 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is now a contradiction, however, with your vote, you should not remove the neutral version and put the other in favor of this proposal that you've seen? --Pava (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the contradiction? Lupo 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

you propose an alternative without vote on it, now it's ok :) but did not want to be a severe criticism, so maybe I was wrong to expose myself --Pava (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Lupo 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Far better quality, less reflection problems. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Halavar (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Jee 02:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Oops! I voted twice
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 06:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

The chosen alternative is: File:Hendrik Voogd - Italian landscape with Umbrella Pines.jpg