Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Meisje met de parel.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Meisje met de parel.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 23:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

*  Support Girl with a Pearl Earring has always been the painting by Vermeer I like the least. It should be featured anyway, of course. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC) per discussion below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Support Daphne Lantier 06:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   oppose The image we have here is not the one in the source, and nowhere near as good. The source image much more closely matches File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg which claims the same source. That file is 178 megapixels, though I suspect it is actually upsampled (if downsampled 50% it looks much better and is still 45 megapixels). Major differences are that the background in the source is brown with clear cracking; the colour of her headscarf is different, and the dark patch in the scarf near her left eye is not crushed blacked but still shows colour and detail. Further the cracking on the picture shows signs that the image has been oversharpened. So I think this image has had significant colour adjustments, strong contrast enhancement that has crushed the darker areas to black, and strong sharpening. I think the larger image has merit for FP, but needs some analysis to confirm whether its very large size is justified, and if not, what degree of downsizing would restore it to correct sharp proportions.
I have discovered why the source does not match. An earlier version of the Commons page linked to the source JPG (in addition to surrounding information pages) but this was removed by Crisco for some reason. Looking at the link through the Internet Archive here gives a file that is visually similar to this one, though quite a bit smaller. So I wonder if the museum has improved the copy they display on the website since Crisco first uploaded it. I'll drop Crisco a note. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the best of my recollection, this was uploaded exactly as I found it on the website (as can be seen by the archive link). However, rather than use the automatic download resolution, which was downsampled, I had loaded the image at its full resolution in viewing mode, then downloaded from there using judicious screenshotting. It may have loaded at 125% or something similar as its "maximum resolution"; I suspect the MET's website does the same thing.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for why I removed the direct link to the JPG: to the best of my understanding, we are supposed to link to the host web-page rather than the image directly, to ensure any licensing information or similar is readily available. Hence the removal to the direct JPG link.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris. So I suspect the image on the web page has changed considerably since you screenshotted it. I think the current version on their website is better is better and the other high-res file (File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg) a better place from which to create an FP (if downsized). This file here is the one used by all the Wikipedias and has been featured, etc. The other file, although from the same museum source, is really quite different. It isn't an obvious case for simply overwriting this one per Commons:Overwriting existing files. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Meisje_met_de_parel.jpg&oldid=242473946"