Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors

The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2014 at 03:31:36 (UTC)

Original – "The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles, 28th June 1919 is an oil-on-canvas painting by Irish artist William Orpen, completed in 1919. It was one the paintings commissioned from Orpen to commemorate of the Peace Conference at Versailles in 1919. The work is held by the Imperial War Museum in London." (From article)

Reason: High quality scan of a notable painting, useful for Armistice Day celebrations
Articles in which this image appears: The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors +8
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: William Orpen

Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — A bit on the small side? Sca (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Give or take 2px per mm. Not too too bad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Badly photographed. There are lots of scattered reflections on the glaze, especially on the right side of the photo, and on the left side is a vertical shadow (from a frame?). If images of the signing are needed, surely there are plenty of photographs around? Also a ghastly amateurish-looking painting imho - faces look like they are stuck on and copied directly from photos (and the architecture too - look at the slight curve in the horizontal of the architectural moulding under the "le govern...", suggests it was copied directly from a photo in which a wide angle lens has imparted a slight curve to horizontal features). Artist's reflection isn't even depicted in the mirror (maybe he too didn't like the painting). A modern artist would have made something more with those mirrors: a fractured post war reflection of a pre-war establishment trying to shape the future, a future now mostly out of its hands. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a photo, it's a painting. Hafspajen (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he/she means that the painting is badly photographed, but anyway ... there's something funny going on for me with this. When I click on the image here I am taken to the file page here, and when I click again on that image to go to the full-size view I get taken to a completely different and degraded rendition which has lots of white speckles all over it. 86.169.36.214 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The white speckles are in the original Google Art version too. It appears to be from their photographer/scanner. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been badly lit when photographed and the speckles are tiny reflection spots caused by whatever lighting was used. The speckles are so small they disappear when the full size image is reduced in size. There is a thin shadow along the right side of the painting as well - suggests that two overly-strong floodlights or flashlights have been placed at each side of the painting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]