Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pompée Vaux.jpg

File:Pompée Vaux.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 00:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me, except the sculpture -- Jebulon (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is not really sharp, which is obvious when comparing with the razorsharp background removal; too much white space in the top part. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taste is taste. It is very sharp IMO. But there is no white space in the top part, there is voooooid. A previous version was declined in QI because of too soft masking. Lol !--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the other picture with the black background has a bit better quality and a special pizzaz to me, but this one with the afterwards inserted white background hasn't the featured feeling, sorry. How you said: „Taste is taste“. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But a black background was impossible because of the black marble... You are welcome if you have a good idea for a valuable background. And I don't understand the words "Wuality" and "pizzaz", sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - yeah, here is a black backgrong not good. But the white has not the pizzaz (--> Flair, Atmosphäre). I corrected my mistake with the «wuality» ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I understand now. I'll try something as suggested below--Jebulon (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Something like a reddish coral or burnt sienna background would be better than white. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You've gone overboard the other way now Jebulon ;-). You have cut away parts of the statue with your masking. It's a tricky business... Lycaon (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a very beautiful statue and a good picture, and it's a shame I have to oppose. But Lycaon is right, the price for this masking to look so crisp was the sacrifice of some details. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without a comparison with the previous version, could you show me were details are lost, please ? --Jebulon (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - One immediately obvious example is the neck (right). Lycaon (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean. ~~But I disagree. What you see cut horizontally is not a part of the neck, but a plaster part of bad restoration ( sorry for my wrong words, technical words are hard to know and to use).~~To be honest, I really don't know, now...--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Anyway, ware you right, I think really (and respectfully) that it is not so "immediately obvious"--Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, do you think an improved version is possible, masked from the original file, the first one with original background ? Your comments are initiating a real challenge to me !! Theorical help would be welcome ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but sharpness (Plate) and masking (neck right, left ear...). Sry.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no problem with the left ear, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]