Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Girl with a Pearl Earring

Delist and replace: Girl with a Pearl Earring[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2014 at 03:13:27 (UTC)

Reason: This new file has better colour fidelity (from the museum) and much higher resolution. It has universally replaced the old file.
Articles this image appears in: Girl with a Pearl Earring etc.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Girl with a Pearl Earring
Nominator: — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist and replace — — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace - Much better, indeed. Lovely eyes to gaze into on this one ... Hafspajen (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace - The new image is the restored painting and should replace the current image as it is not just outdated...it no longer represents the painting fairly!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if it is the restored painting, shouldn't both be in the article on the painting? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that is a question to be posed on the talk page of the article as that constitutes a content issue. The question here is whether to delist the original and replace it with the restored version. I could see how including both would have good encyclopedic value but, that is not a discussion for here, I would think. :-)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In any case, D&R Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace - It's an image of the restored version, whereas the original looks like the pre-restoration version heavily discoloured by varnish (though it's hard to understand the cropping). The Maurtithuis actually set up a special observation platform to watch the progress of the restoration. It was fascinating to observe the meticulous care with which the painting was treated - already heavily restored incidentally. It was badly damaged when first discovered end 19th century (bought with a few pennies, literally - twenty guilders or something). There's an issue with a number of Mauritshuis images on Commons. It appears that in a number of cases ultra-high resolution images normally available only on license may have been uploaded citing spurious sources. That in itself is problematic from a contractual point of view regarding the uploaders, but it's compounded by the uploaders adjusting colour values. It's difficult to see how that might be resolved. And a pity because the medium resolution images (of which this one is an example) the Mauritshuis have released on its website following its revamp are exceptionally fine. Marinka van Dam (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And again you show your lack of understanding of how sweat of the brow works. US copyright law does not recognize it, and so these "licensed-only" images are considered free on Wikipedia — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I understand that. I said the problem lay with the uploaders' contractual obligations. I'm not competent to comment on what Wikipedia's responsibilities might be in that case. Please stop putting words in my mouth! And the problem as far as subsequent editors is concerned is that they can only offer medium resolution images, even although they are in fact superior regarding colour fidelity to the derivative high resolution ones uploaded from spurious sources. I should like you to confine your observations to the issues in future. Marinka van Dam (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uploaders contractual obligations after purchasing "a number of Mauritshuis images on Commons" are not related to the issue of this nomination either, as this scan was not purchased; there can be no contractual issues with no contract. If you take issue with digression, then do not digress in the first place. If you have issues with other images, discuss them on Commons, the appropriate forum. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Firstly I really must ask you to be rather more polite and less imperative in your remarks. I am surprised an administrator sets an example like this. Secondly, looking at the upload, I see that it an upload from you, but that you haven't uploaded the medium resolution version the Mauritshuis make available (as linked in your admirable notes) but a high resolution version available only on a commercial basis, as far as I know, and after paying a fairly hefty commission I would imagine for the kind of web publication Wikipedia offers. Are you saying you got it for free (based perhaps on your position as a Wikipedia adminstrator)? If so there's loads more I would like you to similarly arrange . I had better add that I accept you didn't change the colour values, as far as I can see. Marinka van Dam (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        There was not a single sentence in my reply that was intended to be imperative. It is a simple statement of fact: where a contract does not exist, neither do contractual obligations. No, there is not yet a collaboration between the museum and Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marinka van Dam is blocked indefinetly as Coat of Many Colours sock. See here. Disregard any comment per FP voting rules: however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. Hafspajen (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aesthetically I prefer the original. 86.160.82.218 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it gives a different air to it, but maybe just because we are used to see old pictures dark. Here, read this - about darkening of this painting. Hafspajen (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace – The original painting has now been restored, so this vastly superior scan shows the artwork as it is now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Meisje met de parel.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]