Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Madonna of the Magnificat.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Madonna of the Magnificat.png, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2016 at 07:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I haven't been to Italy (and therefore not to the Uffizi) since 1998, so I feel reassured that this painting was in this good a condition in 2015, because I did a Google image search, and some of the other pictures make it look horribly brightened and overcleaned. So I'm supporting this in the belief that with your use of lower light and tendency to use long exposures, the painting really looks like this, and that the terrible photos of it were artificially brightened. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The colour temperature looks wrong (too warm/yellow). Compare File:Botticelli Magnificat 01.JPG which has retained the wall so we can assume the background is fairly neutral grey-white. Also compare this which we might assume is professionally taken. Compare also File:Botticelli Magnificat 05.JPG which shows that this version is not showing the full frame, which one might consider an important part of the overall artwork itself. Also, the file is in AdobeRGB colourspace and should really be sRBB for the internet -- everyone looking at this on a mobile browser (which is a huge percentage of WP readers) will see desaturated/wrong colours. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment - [Edited: I didn't notice that you linked to 3 alternatives; also takes into account Livio's edit.] I'll take your word for it about the colors, but the first alternative you point to certainly makes the painting look overly brightened and overcleaned. The second is overly small for me to judge well but on the face of it doesn't impress me, and the third looks OK, but not as good as Livio's current version. Livio's reproduction is much more volumetric than your first alternative (and probably your second, as well), which looks unnaturally flattened. So I hope the other one isn't how the painting really looks today, though that certainly is possible. My father and I were disgusted by the amount of overcleaning the restorers did at the Uffizi and other places in Italy (the "restoration" of the Maestá by Simone Martini in the Palazzo Pubblico in Siena was particularly painful for me, because they completely flattened what had been a great painting 4 years prior). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support I was not sure at first, but after due proving: It´s a very good work! --Hubertl 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Conditional support The lighting and detail work, but I agree with Colin that the colorspace/WB needs to be changed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Done thanx --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Question I need a source. This is not a photograph, but a scan. From which book ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- No Jebulon is a picture,thanks (if you want i can upload the original) --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. I just miss the EXIF data.--Jebulon (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
