Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Las Meninas

Las Meninas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2012 at 00:15:52 (UTC)

Diego Velázquez's Las Meninas

Replacement from Google Images

Reason: Image has been universally superceded by File:Las Meninas, by Diego Velázquez, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Meninas
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist and replace — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist and replace~~ One has to wonder a little about the difference in saturation, and comment in passing on this being yet another image that Google have made too dark, but if we're going to keep either of them, it clearly should be the high resolution one. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC) I'm going to suspend my vote for the moment to see what emerges from discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Replace per above comments. Clegs (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist but do not replace. Google's version is really dark. The Prado's version isn't nearly as dark. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which, if any, is an accurrate reproduction? Only an accurate reporoduction should be FP regardless of resolution. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I think the sad truth is that we've established no reliable criteria by which to assess which reproduction is accurate, or to what extent. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Accuracy is not quite the right word in my view. This painting is photographed accurately, but it is not lit properly. It's not hard to tell: there are details visible in other versions that aren't in this one. Chick Bowen 16:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not replace. This is much too dark. The content of the paintings on the back wall should be visible; you can see that in almost any reproduction. Here they're just brown squares. I still do not understand the internet's adoration for Google Art: ridiculously high resolution is useless if the subject is poorly lit. Chick Bowen 16:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The google reproduction is provided by the museums and it's safe to assume these new digitizations are done as accurately as possible. The darkness of the photograph is VERY likely accurately reflecting the darkness of the painting. The original is likely been altered with like Photoshop to increase the brightness which would be INACCURATE to the original painting. In the past we've relied upon the faithfulness of the museums reproductions over any other, they shoot them in proper studio environment with high quality cameras and experienced professionals. So for my two cents, I will assume the painting is actually that dark which isn't unthinkable that it would be. So... Delist and Replace for me. — raeky t 02:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The old photo was also provided by the museum. Why should we assume this one is more accurate? (Whatever that might mean anyway--the dynamic range of the eye is greater than that of a photograph, so there's no way a reproduction can reproduce what the painting looks like to someone standing in front of it.) Since various blemishes and scratches are visible on the old one, I believe, on the contrary, that this one was shot with less light on purpose, to make it look better. Chick Bowen 03:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. Neutrality^talk 09:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been noticing for a while now that high resolution images from museums are routinely on the dark side. Check out the Rokeby Venus above for another example. I would be astonished if these paintings were actually that dark under normal lighting conditions. Kaldari (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right, and I believe that it's done to minimize the appearance of craquelure, which would otherwise be very prominent at high resolution. Chick Bowen 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not replace Per chick, I think that the Google reproduction is far far too dark. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept —Julia\^talk 10:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original kept as FP, not replaced. Only one voter stated a preference for delisting without replacing. For those who voted "delist and replace", it is not clear whether that applies to delisting as well, if a replacement is not made. If opinion is such that the original should be delisted, a separate nomination can determine that. Julia\^talk 10:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]