Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Virgin of the Rocks (Louvre).jpg

Madonna of the rocks[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2014 at 11:10:09 (UTC)

Reason: Iconic picture of Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo was an Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer and who knows what more. He is considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time.
Articles in which this image appears: Virgin of the Rocks, Leonardo da Vinci and more
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Leonardo da Vinci

Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The circle crop at the top was very poorly done. Very jagged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Yes, I had my doubts - but it seems like big mistake of us not to have a decent file on Wikipedia of this masterpiece. Hafspajen (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a pre-crop version I could probably do something, but we'd just lose information if I tried to use this as my source file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be nice. It is really a shame not to have this one. Hafspajen (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 and Hafspajen: Is this any better? Failing that, this? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't open the Russian site, and the second has painfully obvious cracks in the painting, such that I doubt it would last in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the Russian site's version is on Commons. Looks like it's based on a photograph and not a scan (I think I see noise here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Crisco sees noises that's not good. (^{And the Russian on commons has the same problems on top, I guess it might be difficult to fix a circle like that).} Hafspajen (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's the same gallerix.ru image as this Commons valued image which reached its status on the basis of a single vote from the nominator. The image in turn seems to be a processed version of of this point-and-shoot Canon PowerShot photo. On Commons you are supposed to indicate digital restorations, but I can't see any indication offered. I'm pretty sure what's been done here far exceeds WP:FP?#8. I rate the whole things as roughly on a par of those cam versions of the latest blockbuster films you see uploaded to Usenet the day after their release, and I can't support it. Too iconic for me I'm afraid, though I agree it's not displeasing: its authenticity another matter. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a matter of personal taste, in this case. But things has to be seen in context in art history. Considering how people were drawing and painting before Leonardo, one has to be amazed how outstanding this man was. Nowadays one can take things for granted, because many painters learned the techniques and even made them exagerated, like in Manierism. But Leonardo Da Vinci can never be too iconic, that is just not possible. Leonardo da Vinci is one of the few people one can without any problem say that that man was a genius, because he was. As we are talking about this, I do admit that there are certain paintings that are blown up by the market, and don't have the value in the same way, like - some of the van Gogh or Picasso pictures, for example, yes. (And van Gogh has wonderfull, light blue and pink pictures, that nobody cares for ... because are not considered regular van Gogh's-style). But not Leonardo... And we should really try to get a decent file on Wikipedia of this masterpiece. Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh blown up ... what heresy! But quite true of course. I had a look for images of the Louvre version of the Madonna of the Rocks and couldn't find any good ones. The Louvre doesn't allow flash photography, so any photograph would have to be taken in natural light. There are some Flickr versions, but they aren't very good and "all rights reserved" in any case. You can try Featuring the Coatzee bequest of the National Gallery version as restored a few minutes ago by yours truly :). Happy to support that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]