Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg

Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg, not featured

•  Info Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg was successfully nominated (see nom) as a featured picture in January 2005. Since then, a newer, much higher resolution image of this artwork was uploaded, overwriting the original version. Meanwhile, on the talk page there were numerous comments that suggest it be renamed. The file name is incorrect. This is not a tsunami. Also, had a request to do so. We now have Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg, which is appropriately named. The colors in "The Great Wave" are also slightly different. In my opinion, Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg is by far the better quality version (and correctly named). I suggest we delist Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg (see delist request), and making Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg the featured picture. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support ---Aude (talk | contribs) 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support suggestion. This is an admirable masterpice (though not a tsunami, for sure)! - Alvesgaspar 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • After the comments below - Alvesgaspar 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--MichaelMaggs 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Javier ME 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support Fg2 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support and delist the other. --Digon3 ^talk 23:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Please be aware of the discussion at Image talk:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg. There may actually be different versions of this print. The version here is not from the Met, but not sure where it's from. The en:The Great Wave off Kanagawa article and this link explains something about the different versions, [1] suggesting the Met version is a "copy". Also, that the final print had more "stunning use of color," possibly this version. I don't know. Don't know how authentic this version is. Also, maybe the Met copy is an older copy? don't know. But not sure where the final print is. Would be great to figure that out, and sort out confusion. I'm trying to get input from Japanese users who might know more. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment This version is apparently a print from a different woodblock (different cloud and sea-spray detail) than the 'Hokusai' woodblock that is part of the Monet woodblock collection - the existing FP appears to be (in detail if not colour) from the Monet woodblock. Anyone any info about the authenticity of the Monet bookblock, or info about the origin of the print depicted here? (maybe it would be nice to ensure our FP is the authentic version ;-) --Tony Wills 02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Monet collection has one of many impressions (the technical term) of the original print, as do The British Museum, Louvre, Met and many other collections. The other picture is a different print, a copy from 100 years later. Johnbod 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The British Museum and Metropolitan Museum of Art versions appear to be prints from the Monet woodblock. --Tony Wills 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressions of the same woodcut. The actual printing woodblocks (one per colour) vanished long ago. Johnbod 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support I'm tempted to make my own prints from this. Calibas 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong  Oppose The less-bright image is a C19 original, the brighter one a C20 reproduction, made from scratch using the same techniques, but different. We would not dream of making a copy of a Rembrandt by a painter a century later a featured picture, and we should not make this one. I think most people commenting above are not aware they are supporting what might harshly be called a fake. Btw, someone has incorrectedly added the narrative from the copy, explaining it IS a copy, to the file for the original - see the history. Also the licensing must be regarded as dubious. The original uploader, who I think knows what he is talking about, says it was made ca. 1930, by unknown craftsmen. The designer, Hokusai, certainly died a long time ago, but as their copy is created from scratch, I would imagine there is a copyright in the re-cutting too. Johnbod 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Reproduction or not the colors are so much better than the original. I'll renew my support if we can confirm this isn't copyrighted. Calibas 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agreed. Make sense of Johnbod's comments and I'm in. I love the work. JaGa 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose For not the first time, I am very bemused that people are willing to vote images as being 'amongst the most valuable on commons (or wikipedia for that matter)' on the basis of some idea of perfection, rather on the actual value of the image. Surely a copy of the original is of more value than a reproduction (just as well you guys don not deal in antiques :-) --Tony Wills 12:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Look how badly the sky is done on the fake one compared with the original. Nice picture bur original obviously holds more value. - Moravice 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Though I'm not an antique dealer ;-), I agree with Tony on this one. Lycaon 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose an image of the original with its flaws is better than an image of a copy(fake), what ever the reason we shouldnt be promoting fakes as our best work. Gnangarra 07:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Simonizer 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)