Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Musica by Oscar Pereira da Silva 1896.jpg

File:A Musica by Oscar Pereira da Silva 1896.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2016 at 10:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Oscar Pereira da Silva - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice painting, good reproduction. Yann (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done, sharpness and details could be improved. --Hubertl 12:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the white balance is off, IMO, it is too grey. Additionaly, I dislike this painting style very much.--Jebulon (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 21:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Hubertl. Given the apparent circumstances this is the best that could be expected, although I believe better digitization is possible. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Jebulon. I don't know, there seems a tendency to FP any painting. What's outstanding about this? -- Colin (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested that we really need to split off any painting noms as a separate "featured digitization" category. One can't critique the composition or suggest a crop or make any aesthetic complaints, because all that's a fait accompli and the one person who could do anything about that is often long dead. So, the most we can properly base a judgement on whether this belongs here is whether the digitization was achieved flawlessly. That's probably why paintings get almost rubberstamped ... we're here to judge the technical quality, not the art itself. Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we're here to judge the technical quality, not the art itself. I disagree with this. I could agree in QIC, but not in FPC, as long as we accept "no wow" rationales for a decline vote ... About the "digitization", I think there is a strong difference between a work of one of us (non professional photographers for almost all of us), and the photographs made by professionals or with "tools" like "Google art" or so. My support votes are very rare for these kind of pictures...--Jebulon (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Jebulon/Daniel, we should have a discussion on talk FPC about what the criteria are for artwork. The current criteria don't seem to be getting used at all. -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May be. For me, in this order: 1. painting from a known painter (in this case, has articles in 3 different languages); 2. the reproduction is very well made; 3. additionally here, the frame enhances the painting colors. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 00:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media