Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Madonna with the Christ Child, by Pieter de Grebber.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:The Madonna with the Christ Child, by Pieter de Grebber.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2017 at 07:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Madonna with the Christ Child, by Pieter de Grebber
Hi Colin, the size is the same. As for the EXIF, I add everything I can find about the painting, so it differs. The colour balance is mine. If you think there is a need for the unedited source, feel free to upload it. I nominated this image, not the other one, though. So please oppose if you think this is not enough quality. But opposing for other reasons is rather curious. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jan, we don't generally move comments to the talk page unless really off topic, so I've moved this back. Ok, I  strong oppose. The file description is not an honest declaration -- the image we have uploaded on Commons is not the same as the source. Please upload professionally taken photos/scans of artworks unaltered. Then if you plan to do more than minor dust/scratch removal, you need to create your own separate upload filename and state what you have changed. File:The Madonna with the Christ Child, by Pieter de Grebber, edited by Jan Arkesteijn.jpg. You can't just muck about with colour balance and tone to suite your eye and you certainly can't do this without declaring it. Jan, you've been warned at AN/U about your cavalier attitude to other people's works and dishonesty with sourcing before. You claim, in the source field, that this image is from "Museum voor Religieuze Kunst Jacob van Horne, Weert". It is simply disrespectful of the photographers/scanners at that museum to have their work amateurishly altered and yet claimed to be unchanged. Since the file is PD, you are welcome to make whatever edits you like, but only to your own derivative work with a separate filename, and with honesty about what viewers are seeing. -- Colin (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I am sorry to see that your personal opinion stands in the way of judging an image on its merits. A strong oppose has nothing to do with the image in question. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jan, I suggest you read the criteria for FP. For an artwork reproduction we expect that it is exactly that: a reproduction. Not "coloured and toned to Jan Arkesteijn personal taste". While museum photographers are not infallible, it is their job to reproduce the image professionally. Despite my comments, you have not edited the file to indicate the changes you have made. Therefore that page is still dishonest: the image we have is not the image from the source. Our criteria state: "An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced.". In fact our FPC criteria mention this twice. Our repository of artworks only has value if we are totally open about the source and any changes made to reproductions we hold. I have to say, that if it your practice to upload significantly altered images (as this one is), while claiming it is a file taken from a given source, then another visit to AN/U might be required. -- Colin (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral per resolution of issue identified by Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be happy to upload the original into this filename, and copy Jan's version to a different name such as suggested above. But that would alter the image under nomination here, and it is Jan's nomination. So I won't make that change just now unless Jan agrees or withdraws. He's welcome to nominate his own colour-altered version of the photo, as long as its filename and file-description-page are honest. I'd still oppose that one, though. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Colin. --Code (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination I didn't realize this image was not eligible to run for featured picture. I felt the criticism was personal, but seeing what happens with this image makes me realize I was dealing with a wiseacre. The idea that a painting has an absolute colour is false. It starts changing the moment the varnish is applied. It changes under ambient light. It changes because of the photographic methods. It simply is never the same. If you don't agree, just look here. Or have a look a the so hailed Google Art. There is some pretty bad stuff there, as well. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jan any more personal attacks and I shall request you are blocked. I am fully aware that paintings vary according to age, ambient light, etc. There are, however, professional techniques for accurately recording the colours of artworks, which require the use of colour checker calibration charts, careful use of lighting, professional processing software and calibrated monitors, etc. Some museums have this capability and some do not. What is certain is that this image is your own personal interpretation of what colours/tone we should all see, and yet the file description page continues to dishonestly state that this JPG comes from the "Museum voor Religieuze Kunst Jacob van Horne, Weert". As for File:Meisje met de parel.jpg it is quite clear that the nominated photo is inferior in many ways, and since FP is about "finest" then that is what matters. We can have different versions of an artwork, and we can choose which version/processing we think is best, but what we mustn't do is lie to our viewers and reusers about where the image came from and what changes have been made to it. -- Colin (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Colin: I uploaded the original file without alterations, however, the user is reverting me --The Photographer 11:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Overwriting existing files. User:The Photographer, Don't edit war over a version. Jan's version is permitted on Commons and while I think the filename should ideally indicate it has been edited, there isn't any policy that requires that. Since the original upload is his, then he gets first-mover-advantage. I suggest you upload to a new filename. What you can do, is edit the page description of this nomination file to indicate that it has been significantly retouched by Jan. Should Jan edit war over that, then a trip to AN/U would likely result in a block. As for what file the Wikipedia's link to, that's up to them. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:The_Madonna_with_the_Christ_Child,_by_Pieter_de_Grebber.jpg&oldid=241912268"