Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Christ Crucified
Christ Crucified[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 02:20:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and it is a painting of one the most important moments in Christianity
- Articles in which this image appears
- Jesus, Christ Crucified (Velázquez), etc..(theres alot)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Religion and mythology
- Creator
- Diego Velázquez
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: this image seems to be missing a bit of the left border. The painting includes some black space to the left of the crossbeam, based on the images here and at "hubpages dot com/slide/Photos-of-Velazquez-paintings---Prado-Museum---Barcelona--Spain/3157956". (I've obfuscated the second link because otherwise it fails our spam filter.) --Avenue (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- The image appears to be tilted a bit (visible at the top of the cross). Is that in the original? Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know, but a similar tilt can be seen in my first link above. A much smaller tilt is also evident in their online high-res viewer,[1] which I can only get to work intermittently. --Avenue (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes those are better quality images then this one. If anyone could fix it or something it would be appreciated beacuse I'm not good with restoring images. Spongie555 (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- They would be better quality, if it wasn't for the museum's watermark being sprayed liberally (albeit faintly) over them. I don't know how to undo that. --Avenue (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well can you upload the better quality museum image and well see if anyone can help fix it. Spongie555 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone can easily upload the image linked to directly above, but fixing it doesn't seem easy, and as it is only about 30% bigger in height and width, this may not be worth the effort. The image that can be examined through the museum's Javascript viewer seems much bigger, but extracting it seems difficult. I'm aware people have done this sort of thing before, but I don't know exactly how. --Avenue (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well can you upload the better quality museum image and well see if anyone can help fix it. Spongie555 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- They would be better quality, if it wasn't for the museum's watermark being sprayed liberally (albeit faintly) over them. I don't know how to undo that. --Avenue (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes those are better quality images then this one. If anyone could fix it or something it would be appreciated beacuse I'm not good with restoring images. Spongie555 (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know, but a similar tilt can be seen in my first link above. A much smaller tilt is also evident in their online high-res viewer,[1] which I can only get to work intermittently. --Avenue (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd probably just use the watermarked image and this one, resize them to the same size, align them, colour-balance to the one I trusted more, then use them to fix each other. E.g. One could slightly enlarge this one, and use it to remove the watermarks, or slightly shrink the other, and use it to fill in the missing information. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)