Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kenyon Cox nude study
- Reason
- Kenyon Cox was an outspoken opponent of abstract art; his artistic theory emphasized drawing from life, allegory, and classical themes. This study for a mural at the Library of Congress is a good example of his priorities and style. Restored version of File:Kenyon Cox nude study.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Kenyon Cox, Figurative art
- Creator
- Kenyon Cox
- Support as nominator --Durova332 22:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per EV to the article Figurative art. Nezzadar ☎ 23:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support; a solid restoration and seems to be a good example piece in both articles (though I'm no expert). J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Question. I raised this question below, but it seems appropriate to the majority of the restorations I've been seeing so I'll raise it again here: since there appears to be no reliable source for the original image and paper colors or the effects of aging on the different combinations of image and paper, how do these "restorations" beyond removal of obvious digitization artefacts constitute anything other than original research? 82.251.140.156 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, okay I'll try this. Original research is me going to China, watching the government for five years, then writing a Wikipedia page about it. This isn't research, its restoration. It's based on the skill Durova and the others have developed over hundreds of edits. It's designed to make things more viewable by adjusting the contrast, adjusting out red-yellow color damage, and resetting the black balance. If you look at the edits, you will see that these aren't dramatic changes, and last I checked, the Library of Congress itself has thanked us a few times for this. Nezzadar ☎ 13:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Adjust contrast by how much? Adjusting out red-yellow color damage towards which color? resetting the black balance to what? A significant part of the work of restoration is to precisely determine the original appearance, often by chemical analysis of the remaining pigments or reference to historical documents detailing their fabrication. When the substrate's average color changes from #f0efee to #fefcfd as part of the restoration, the question is "why?" And if the answer is "because that's the color I think it was originally", then the follow up is "do you have source for that?" otherwise the modification cleary is original research.82.251.140.156 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Normally, questions of a general nature regarding FPC standards and policies would be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates rather than at several individual nominations. Durova332 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Adjust contrast by how much? Adjusting out red-yellow color damage towards which color? resetting the black balance to what? A significant part of the work of restoration is to precisely determine the original appearance, often by chemical analysis of the remaining pigments or reference to historical documents detailing their fabrication. When the substrate's average color changes from #f0efee to #fefcfd as part of the restoration, the question is "why?" And if the answer is "because that's the color I think it was originally", then the follow up is "do you have source for that?" otherwise the modification cleary is original research.82.251.140.156 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, okay I'll try this. Original research is me going to China, watching the government for five years, then writing a Wikipedia page about it. This isn't research, its restoration. It's based on the skill Durova and the others have developed over hundreds of edits. It's designed to make things more viewable by adjusting the contrast, adjusting out red-yellow color damage, and resetting the black balance. If you look at the edits, you will see that these aren't dramatic changes, and last I checked, the Library of Congress itself has thanked us a few times for this. Nezzadar ☎ 13:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support to get things on topic. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm running out of trouts. Nezzadar ☎ 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support, per nominator. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Edit 1 uploaded, Oppose original, Support Edit 1 Shoemaker's Holiday Over 214 FCs served 16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Original and Edit After seeing the edit I think that neither of these are right. Shoe's is too light and line detail seems to be lost. The original, however, now seems too dark. Nezzadar ☎ 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support either - slight preference for the edit. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Do remember this is a graphite drawing. The paper should look somewhat grimy/pencil-y as in Durova's original. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Kenyon Cox nude study2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)