Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Christopher Columbus

Christopher Columbus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 16:39:16 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus, completed by Sebastiano del Piombo in 1519, is thought to be a post-humous portrait of the Italian explorer Christopher Columbus, who was long considered the first European to reach the Americas. His voyages initiated the Spanish colonization of the New World.

Reason: Considering I named myself after him, I can't really turn this down. High quality scan of a useful image. Note that no contemporary portraits of Columbus are known, allowing this to have high EV in his article.
Articles in which this image appears: Christopher Columbus, Catholic Monarchs, History of Puerto Rico, Liguria, The Last Voyage of Columbus.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering, perhaps?
Creator: Sebastiano del Piombo

Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. ^{By the way -Sebastiano was born 1485 - Colubus died 1506 - Sebastiano was 21 than. And text in Latin say it's Columbus.-- too.} Hafspajen (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but it could've been added later. Would be interesting to look into. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Met has some information regarding the painting on their website. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. Hence my comment on the writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, my addition of the image has been reverted and replaced with something which is a third the size, and in PNG, and artificially lightened. I'm not going to edit war, but if people feel we need to revert, go ahead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a discussion with the user on his page, User talk:Paine Ellsworth#‎Colombus. I think he is bothered about the frame and likes the other one. I am affraid I didn't convinced him. I imagine that that frame could be cropped, though. Hafspajen (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to do, but we'd be removing part of painting itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no qualms about the frame – in fact, I now feel that the frame adds value to the image. I am really concerned about this image's darker appearance and lower contrast. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (edit conflict) I would never oppose this type of nomination, although as the one who reverted this file's inclusion in the article on Columbus, I have serious concerns about this image. It is darker and grayer with less contrast than the status quo image in the article. Since most of Wikipedia's readers are non-experts in the worlds of art and professional photography, they probably won't grasp the aesthetic value of the "inner beauty" of this candidate and would opt for the "better appearance" of the existing .png image in the article. I very much appreciate the high values of Crisco 1492 both in terms of this choice of candidate and his distaste for an unproductive edit war. I would welcome that contributor's launch of an RfC on the talk page of the Columbus article. That way we would be better able to determine which of the two images is more appropriate for that encyclopedia article, and perhaps for any other article as well. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs are a bit of overkill for anything like this. The issue with digital manipulation (which the PNG has, for certain) is that it almost always modifies the color of the work to an unrealistic level. There are no pure whites in the real world, certainly not 255/255/255 like Columbus' collar. The loss of detail there is frightening. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, and no matter how hard I tried with Corel, and for all the improvement in other areas I made, I could never get the collar detail right. The rest of it looks really good though; here's a gnarly screenshot. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 00:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not it. Short of having the actual painting at hand, it would be nigh impossible to get a reasonably accurate edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I never realized it was you who edited it, Paine. Hafspajen (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started the enhancement from scratch again and uploaded the result here. I felt it necessary to do this because another editor reverted my reversion. Any who would like to compare the three images may do so on my talk page. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- This should not fail..--The Herald : here I am 11:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--I deserve it as featured picture because that's got undoubtedly much EV and is member of high quality portraits group. __ Alborzagros (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Alborzagros (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this should pass, but it needs to be used in articles, and in this version. Conditional support on it being lead image in at least one article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Adam, it is used in plenty of articles, anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course it is used now as the "lead image" in the Christopher Columbus article because you reverted my inclusion of a better image. Even Chris has stated that the image you reverted "is, IMHO, the right direction...". So I wonder, Adam Cuerden, if you would be so kind as to tell me precisely why you feel that this darker, low-contrast image of this great painting is superior to the image you reverted? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 03:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: The Google Art Project is a reliable source for information on what paintings look like. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We cannot actively mislead readers on the actual appearance of a key early document, any more than we could arbitrarily change the text of an early source while presenting it as the original. It is never, ever an improvement to actively mislead our readers: Paintings are one-off objects; They aren't like photos where different prints can have radically different levels. Where are you seeing Crisco saying you're right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said "right direction", not right. I much prefer the (presumably accurate) Met scan, but if Paine insists on having an edit, something that doesn't blow out the highlights is indubitably "the right direction". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the right direction, so you agree that there is a better direction to go. I don't feel we're misleading readers if we highlight with discretion so they can at least get a better view of the subject, in this case a great painted portrait of who is most likely Columbus. I suppose the point is moot, now. Joys to all! – Paine 17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image was (at the time of the closure) used as the lead image in Christopher Columbus, and therefore Adam Cuerden's condition is met. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]