Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portrait of George Washington.jpeg

Portrait of George Washington.jpeg

Reason: Striking, near-photographic portrait of Washington, much better in these 2 regards than the existing portraits of him in uniform currently in use on Wikipedia or on Commons, which are full-body; resolution is 972 x 1184, so it still fits within the size guidelines.
Proposed caption: Porthole portrait George Washington in military uniform, by Rembrandt Peale
Articles this image appears in: George Washington, Man, Revolution, 18th century, 1789, Continental Army, Rembrandt Peale, among many others; this portrait is used in Template:US-poli-bio-stub, so it appears in more articles not directly relevant to Washington, albeit drastically reduced in size and at the bottom of said articles
Creator: Rembrandt Peale

* Support as nominator BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 07:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - has it been cropped, or is it the painting? As it is now, the crop is rather tight I think. -- Chris.B 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it is from the source, but that version is a crop; the original is wider and taller. This is a 1200 x 1200 version, but isn't as rich in color and seems to lack the vitality of the nom; it may be possible to get the full version from here, but I can't figure out how to seperate the image URL from the Flash/Java coding, if that's possible. Otherwise, other copies I've found of this portrait are lower res and not as good. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is an alternative. It has taken me about an hour to do, but I think it's ready now. I have stitched, piece by piece, the whole portrait from the last source you provided. The colours are amazing and it's far better now. And unbelievably all I have used is print screens and good old Microsoft Paint. -- Chris.B 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ~~support alternative~~ support alternative2 -- Chris.B 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's the same painting, but is it just me or does it look like Washington's expression is softened and not as severe/dour looking in the alt? Still, Peale's intent was the porthole effect, which the original doesn't convey adequately because of the crop. Therefore, unless a better 2nd alternative/version can be provided I'm going to switch my support to the alt for now. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose both ~~for now - the color ballance in the second is far too yellow for me, but its cropping is good. Debivort 01:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)~~ This color is better, but I would still prefer a less saturated version. That said there is a greater problem I didn't notice earlier - jpeg artifacting in all versions, particularly in the lower parts of the oval, one can see checkers and stripes. Debivort 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose both the colour looks wrong on the second and the frames being cut in such a way look distracting --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the yellow/green colour. -- Chris.B 11:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all The first has problems as above, and in the others the skin looks rather jaundiced. I find ther colouring of the original version more believable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically a non-cropped version of the original showing the porthole surroundings. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....and no jaundice or anti-wrinkle cream either. :) -- Chris.B 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, you do lose all the wrinkles on the alternatives. That's bad. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Would it be possible to blend the original nom into the better porthole of the other scans? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the original's porthole colors have to be replicated as well? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it'd be easier to get the porthole colours right than something tricky like skin tones. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]