Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/AntinousPalazzoAltemps

AntinousPalazzoAltemps

A bust of Antinous, from Rome's Palazzo Altemps Museum (background recreated, edges cleaned up, shifted left and the missing tip of the shoulder and shadow retouched in).

The same image, with more advanced retouching,by Benjamin Gatti

A beautiful and striking bust of Antinous, this image graces the Antinous article. I am the photographer.

Nominate and support. - RyanFreisling @ 03:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks too ... Can't describe it. The wall and the bust have too much of a similar color for the bust to stand out. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I did a level adjust on the background - a bit darker, to accentuate the bust. Also higher-resolution, from the original. How does it now strike your fancy? :) -- RyanFreisling @ 14:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the new version that is lightened for contrast, it looks better.Voice of All(MTG) 18:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

support. Gzuckier 16:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

support. Good topic and good image quality. These kind of things look great on the front page of encyclopedia's. :) Voice of All(MTG) 16:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

support. Robert McClenon 02:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a critic to make, I'd say that the dark corner in the upper right tends to attenuate the volume of the photograph, and also brings the attention from the statue; it's be intersting to try and attenuate the background, or blank it completely. Apart from this, a very godd photograph indeed. Congratulations. Rama 16:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait with your support votes until it's in the voting period. I'm still wondering if I find this featured material, but the edit has stopped me from opposing it, even if I may not support. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'll support the top image as a featured picture.--MONGO 20:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Very poorly framed, the flash lighting is unflattering, and if it were feature-worthy on its own merits, you wouldn't have needed to spam a dozen of your friends' talk pages. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] -- User:Cryptic 15:53, 23 August 2005

Is asking for comments here spamming? I don't think it's at all bad faith to elicit comments. Thanks for your opinion, though... it's as valid as anyone else's. And also - they are not all my friends - some are, some are users I just met in recent talk, and some are users I've disagreed strongly with before - to get as many valid comments as possible. On your original point, if you'd like better cropping, let me know... -- RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted another variant, with the bust shifted left, and the tip of the shoulder retouched in. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have updated the user pages above with the correct image under consideration. I hope you do not take offense. -- RyanFreisling @ 07:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the top image but the photoshopping is a little too obvious - the black areas around the edges look obvious if you look at the high-res image. I'm not sure what the criteria are to make this a featured picture. --csloat 21:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sloat. The available criteria from the main pages are:

"images and charts that we find beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, incredible, or in short just brilliant. It is the visual equivalent to Featured articles and, as such, even more subjective." Featured pictures
"Featured pictures is a list of images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. " Featured picture candidates

Regardless of your opinion, thanks for your opinion. And I'll see about doing a better mask on the level adjustment, to get rid of any visible 'halo' or 'glow'. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 21:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed this retouch/remasking, it's the current 'big' thumb. Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 06:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a problem with it. Retouching in this way is just like recompensating for poor lighting when taking a picture with a camera. Support. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppoose. I have a minor in art history so don't think i don't appreciate the work, i just think there are way beeter busts and statues out there that are more striking and impressive. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with ScottyBoy900Q. Enochlau 05:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you folks point a few of them out to me? Are they on Wikipedia? I do not mean to challenge your votes by asking. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not saying it's a bad picture...on the contrary, I think its very nice (especially the touched up version). It just doesn't stand out to me as especially striking. I couldn't really even find one that I would consider a stand out among the bust pictures on Wikipedia. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, that lack of gorgeous bust pictures was something I too noticed (I have been getting a few more ready, mostly of Italian statua). and thanks for your opinion, regardless of pro/con. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 02:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looks very anonymous at first glance, so it must have a great story behind to be worth featuring -- in other words, it would need a featured article for support, which is obviously not the point when picking a featured picture. Of course, just my 2c. --Gutza 20:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (late vote lets just pretend I did this like 3 days ago) --kizzle 15:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Sadly, I think that ship has already sailed. Although the image technically met the criteria as stated, two other users have concluded it shouldn't be promoted, and I respect their opinions and don't want to appear the sore loser. Thanks for your vote, though. I'll re-list it, and refrain from posting comparative images or otherwise introducing imprecision. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image not promoted, 6-3. Neutrality^talk 23:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)