Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - The Nut Gatherers (1882).jpg

The Nut Gatherers

I was browsing through artwork images, found the FA of Dante and Virgil in Hell, and then came upon this gem. The painting is by William-Adolphe Bouguereau. It's quite the image, from its realism to its eerie sexuality. The softness of the full-size is from the artwork, not the scan.

Nominate and support. - --Iriseyes 18:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The softness is partly due to the scan, I can't see the brushstrokes clearly. There are also blown highlights in the sleeves... --Janke | Talk 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please try to address the unsharpness problem of this image because I like Bouguereau very much. Alvesgaspar 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It isn't in the Bouguereau article the last time I checked - is it in any articles? Also, I reckon the blown sleeve unfortunately reduces its worth compared with other ARC images Leon 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's in The Nut Gatherers. By the way, "eerie sexuality?" Is this painting supposed to allude to childhood sexuality or something? I don't know how you can read so much into her glance --⁪froth^{T C} 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've been corrupted by art classes. But when going over his works, a huge emphasis in our texts and lectures was the sexual and provocative side to his works. Or maybe that was just my school? --Iriseyes 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'm a computer science guy so I can't say I'm too schooled in art :) I guess I should stick with technical issues with FPCs --⁪froth^{T C} 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<inappropriate> I think it's inferred from the title of the piece. </inappropriate> Debivort 05:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's holding nuts. And they're female. --⁪froth^{T C} 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others. The blurred/soft nature is slight, and only really visible on full size, but still enough to knock it off, given standards for FP paintings. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure how much of the 'blurriness' is just Bouguereau's soft style of painting. The man sure did have a foot fetish didn't he? Anyway, it's a high enough res and color quality, and illustrate's this artist's style exceptionally well. --Bridgecross 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very high res makes up for potential softness of scan. Do we know that the image isn't softly painted? Debivort 05:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Avlesgaspar below. Since it is not a faithful reproduction, encyclopedicity is lacking. Debivort 16:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If we look here [2] we can confirm that the softness of the image is just the result of being out of focus (or, maybe, of resampling from a smaller picture), that is not Bouguereau style for sure. The same with the blown highlights in the sleeves. Alvesgaspar 08:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh that one is much better. Support that one if someone can get their hands on it --⁪froth^{T C} 14:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. --Bernard 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad jpeg artifacts though. --Bernard 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Alvesgaspar 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along the sharp edges, like the arms of the right girl. I am quite confident it's jpeg artifacts. --Bernard 00:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or in the left girl's left check - there's some checkering. :-( Debivort 08:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose alternative version too. It's a pitty but you are right, the artifacts in the sleevs and cheek are too visible. Alvesgaspar 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's only in the article about the painting itself, which is a stub, so I can't see its encyclopedic value. An image being used such a little amount would have to be flawless on the technical side to be featured. --Arctic Gnome 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]