Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma 1250575.png

File:The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma 1250575.png, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cropped

Original

Tineye search

Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Nevit -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally, PNG format for a photograph is no-go for me (9 MB for 4 MPx), but the transparency is put to good use here. I can see a lot of interesting ways this photo can be used in print media. Reproduction quality is quite high. -- JovanCormac 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Durova's version is better quality-wise. I'd support that version if it was masked like the original candidate. -- JovanCormac 06:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Thanks... --.ds m. 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image but the trimming isn't successful. Takabeg (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question I wonder your trimming idea Takabeg. What should be done to do better? --.ds m. 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shapes of mosaic have to be kept in edge part. In short, this is Mosaic and its characteristic features must not be destroyed. Takabeg (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trim parts of photo aren't included in mosaic. The original parts are missing. I think the picture is sufficiently characteristic and succesful. --.ds m. 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Oppose per Takabeg. Would love to support this with a better edit. Durova (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to full oppose; see below. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Offtopic: What is it Zeugma? Please write it in image description. --Umnik (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, link added. Wolf (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't a perspective crop have been preferable? Durova (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWhat's wrong with the trimming? I'm supporting until someone can show me something wrong. 99of9 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is Mosaic and its characteristic features must not be destroyed. Takabeg (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did notice that! It's in the filename. I can't see any tesserae that have been deleted. So which characteristic features were you referring to? By "original parts", are you talking about the mortar behind where some of the original tesserae were originally in place? --99of9 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Durova's lighting argument. I still prefer the idea of transparency where there are no tiles, but it's nice to have Durova's natural colours as a more accurate base from which the erasing begins. --99of9 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 12:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-edit from the original with perspective cropping, very extensive brightness and contrast corrections, and curves adjustment.

Comment Seeing the original and the nominator's crop makes a big difference. There are several problems with the nominated version in addition to Takabeg's comments above. Uncorrected perspective distortion is worth noting, but more important is the failure to correct for uneven and highly directional lighting. It stands to reason that the background tiles above the subject's head ought to have been made from the same stone as the background tiles behind her hair at far left, yet in the nominated version the former are nearly blown whites while the latter are quite dark. Also there's an unexplaned overabundance of red in the balance on the version nominated (no edit notes at all were provided on the hosting page, although significant digital edits to historic artwork should always be annotated). Here's hoping it doesn't offend the good intentions and hard work of the nominator to say that the result is not very successful: it really is necessary to correct for perspective and lighting before attempting that sort of edit. Have uploaded an alternate (displayed at right) which endeavors to address those issues. Over 100 layer masks were used to create this re-edit; could possibly tweak it further if people agree with this assessment. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Support the version by Durova only.--— Erin (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Are you opposed to the one currently nominated? --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Oppose the current nomination, but I would support the version by Durova. --— Erin (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background has not been extracted well. --Manco Capac (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]