Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

Portrait of Jeanne d'Aragon by Raphael

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 02:22:44 (UTC)

Original – Jeanne d'Aragon or Giovanna d'Aragona depicted circa 1518, wears a rich dark red robe and the wide, open sleeves are gathered in front with ornamented bands, and the texture of the gold and velvet is almost touchable. Every trade has its master, and Raphael is one of the great portrait painters of the Renaissance.

Reason

Raphael was an Italian painter and architect of the High Renaissance. His work is together with Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, considered as the best of great masters of the Renaissance. Giovanna d'Aragona (1502–1575) was a young duchess, a patron of the arts, in Naples during the Renaissance. The young woman depicted, Giovanna d'Aragona or Jeanne d'Aragon is the real-life Duchess of Malfi, her life ended in a tragedy.

This painting is one of Raphael's women portrait, showing the skill the master had accumulated in depicting textile, texture and portraits.

(Warning -some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution: This image has a large number of pixels and may either not load properly or cause your browser to freeze. Just click on the last resolution at 810 × 1,024 pixels.)

Articles in which this image appears

Giovanna d'Aragona; Duchy of Alvito; Ramón de Cardona;

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Raphaello Sanzio or Raphael Santi or simply Raphael

• Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - No way. I don't have enough computer memory to process these enormous images, but I did manage to get the retouching editor's last effort at FPC into Nikon X2 long enough to see that basically what's he's doing is "equalizing" the histogram (essentially pushing the "auto-level" button). That may be appropriate for a digital image, but it won't do for an art image. These images have simply aged, and they darken for a variety of complex reasons. Only expert restoration can bring them back to an approximation of their original appearance. This kind of processing is just silly, inauthentic, and derisory. The original still beautiful: " ... thy eternal summer shall not fade / Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st": but this is just horrible, a kind of art botox. Not on my account, sorry. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever. But please don't start changing the file. And if you think that your van Gogh you nominated or any other artwork has not been restaurated at the museums you are in error. Art botox, eh? All artworks are regularly restaurated, cleaned and messed with at all museums, all over the world, addressing problems of chemical and physical deterioration, and performing corrective treatment based on an evaluation of the aesthetic, historic, and scientific characteristics of the object. Latest and probably not so good example is Michelangelo's works at the Sistine chapel. Hafspajen (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2014(UTC)

Daniel, before and after restoration.

• Or maybe you prefer THIS or maybe THIS??? Here you can use your epitets: just silly, inauthentic, and derisory... Hafspajen (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about museum restorations such as the 2007 restoration of the Frans Hals I nominated at FPC. I'm talking about digitally processing an art image as if that could emulate such restoration.It can't. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that Adobe handles up to 30k pixels in each direction (at least, natively). Now how well one's computer can cope... that's a different story. My laptop (8gb RAM, Intel Core i5-3210M, NVIDIA GeForce GT630M) starts bogging up around 200 mp, like the scan of a banknote I made the other day. (Gets even worse once we add new layers, but then you weren't doing that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Coat, you'd need to use the large image viewer and/or download the image to see it. Browsers crash at this resolution, not owing to a lack of computing power, but owing to their own limitations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I trust Dcoetzee when it comes to this, although I agree that he should probably document his edits a bit better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  WP?#8 is fairly clear on the subject. We know from other examples that images like these are likely to be picked up and sold commercially as posters. Wikipedia shouldn't be placing a seal of approval on such images. They are inauthentic. Of course I have no objection to Dcoetzee uploading derivative files such as these, but I really can't see how they satisfy WP?#8, the basis of my objection. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT - But right, that has a FRAME. AND, I think that the original is probably much more like the one painting Raphael once painted, to be sincere. If Raphael would come back to look, he would recognize his work more when looking at original - and not Alt.

• That is your objection. I trust Dcoetzee when it comes to this, also. It looks to me like any other regular old Renaissance portrait made by Raphael. And you couldn't even look at it. There is no real difference beteewen this and the one presented att the www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/images. And the gown was probably red - much much more red than this one - when it was painted. And Dcoetzee is a trusted editor. Hafspajen (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's 'WP?#8's' objection. Why the passion? Here is the latest Raphael restoration and here a video of the restoration. Bit of a difference I fancy. Did DCoetzee use x-rays, cat scans and laser imaging as preparation before pushing autolevel? Enough already if you're wilfully not going to get the point. Nominate away. You're never going to get me to change my vote on these. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Why your passion? Gnothi seauton. And your example is about the Madonna of the Goldfinch by Raphael. Not nominated here. Hafspajen (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Boje moy! Chto xudshee sanskrtiskee akkcentee ya kagdee-libo slishal. Hope that's right, French was never my strong point. I'll try to beg, borrow, or steal a high resolution image of theMadonna with the Goldfinch, failing which (likely the Uffizi being what it is) I'll just upload a photoshopped version of what I would have done if I had painted this great masterpiece myself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Your French is not French. And I wan't to remind you that once upon a time this picture looked like something above - this kind of strong colours - or looked like THIS - just you know. Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sign language, whatever. Another recently restored version (thumb|upright= 2.0|right|Not the way I would have done it myself.). I'll let you have the last poke in the chest . Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please remove that picture, or I am going to do it. It has nothing to do with this and it is the same size as the nominations and frankly it is irritating. No need to make a circus of this nomination. Hafspajen (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Play fair Hafs. Reverting my upload of the Raphael wasn't a poke in the chest and it wasn't nice. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Alt (but not original) - Alt is lovely. 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please remove that oversized picture, File:Raphael - Saint John the Baptist Preaching.JPG that is visually disturbing or I am going to do it. It has nothing to do with this and it is the same size as the nominations. I don't want that picture in my nomination. You can link to it but you don't need to post it right here. Hafspajen (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)