Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:U 871 Ölsta.tif
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:U 871 Ölsta.tif, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 13:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
Info created by Creator:Bengt A. Lundberg - uploaded by Biltvätt - nominated by Ainali -- Ainali (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Ainali (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose For me this photo is more of VI than FP here on Commons. Speaking of the photo itself, there is the very large black shadow behind the stone in sharp contrast to the very brightly colored stone which does not make it a good wow-y photo. As a representative for rune stones, I don't like it at all. This stone is brought from its original context to the open-air museum (Skansen) where it has been painted in garish colors that could only have been fashionable in the 90s. The paint is only for the benefit of the tourists at Skansen, to make the markings more visible. There is no evidence that the stones were ever painted in this way. For me this feels very much like a sort of "Viking Disneyland". A nice photo of a Swedish rune stone would be something along the lines of this or this, IMO. --cart-Talk 18:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment The section en:Runestone#Colour does not seem to be as sure as you are, but I'll check with experts at the Swedish National Heritage Board tomorrow about the coloring. Ainali (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that paint wasn't used, just not such bright, opaque colors as these. The true pigments and the medium they were mixed with (giving the paint a translucent quality) could not have covered the stone in the way modern paints do. --cart-Talk 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- I just talked to some colleagues at the Swedish National Heritage Board that are runestone experts and they say that is possible that this is how runestones looked back in the day, there are runestones from Öland found with traces of this sort of coloring (however not on runestones of the stonetype in this particular stone). In 1991 this painting was done with red lead and white lead, colors available long before the vikings (your link is to a rock art picture which is thousands of years older) both to show how they may have looked like and to see if it would preserve the stone better from lichen. BUT, regardless of the accuracy of the painting of the stone, this is how the runestone looks like today and it is a notable object (with articles in 5 languages already) and I want to remind you that this is not a candidate for Valued Image for runestones in general. It clearly has value according to the Featured picture criteria just in documenting this object as such. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the effort to talk to the Heritage Board. My comment was based on discussions I've had with the paint restoration expert at Gotland Museum regarding their rune stones (or rather picture stones) so it's scholar against scholar. I linked to that other image to show how paint/pigments using non-modern biding materials looked, that has not changed over time. As for VI, I was suggesting it could be a VI for this particular stone (and I really think it should be that too), not all of them. BUT, as you say, this is a photo of the stone today and I still think it is far from the artistic photo that is a requirement for FPs here with the wow factor and all. FPs on different language Wikipedia is another thing, where a photo is more judged on its strictly encyclopedic value. Perhaps you could ask ArildV to take a photo of the stone, he is a master of good lighting and would do this beautifully, I'm sure. --cart-Talk 08:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Picture stones are different things (and usually much older), so it's not really scholar aginst scholar, rather two scholars talking about separate phenomenon. Runestones : a colourful memory is recommended reading which supports that runestones were painted this way (but now we are really far off topic for the FP discussion, all this should be irrelevant for how votes are casted). Ainali (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- We stray off topic all the time. ;) Anyway, I've nominated the pic for VI. --cart-Talk 11:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- The nomination hasn't been made visible at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Ikan, I fumbled the last step. This is probably one reason you shouldn't edit at work... you get distracted. ;) --cart-Talk 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per cart. From my own minimal experience with Swedish runestones, I recall them being sparsley painted compared to this, and for that they actually looked better on cloudy days ("Viking Disneyland"
... yup, that's about right). In fact it seems like this picture was punched up a bit much—it's not oversaturated, but it still seems like it's trying a bit too hard. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- The image has not been digitally manipulated but is scanned from an analogue photo. It is taken by Bengt A Lundberg in his service of the Swedish National Heritage Board with the purpose of documenting it so one should expect it to be a faithful representation and not an artistic rendering of reality. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- A scanned print ... OK, that explains it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results: