Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Arnolfini Portrait

The Arnolfini Portrait

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 20:25:03 (UTC)

Reason: Very famous painting. Much debated and discussed by art historians. See "Arnolfini Portrait." I believe this to be a good representation of the painting, despite it coming from the Yorck Project.
Articles in which this image appears: Arnolfini Portrait, Jan van Eyck, Early Netherlandish painting etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Jan van Eyck

Support (high res) as nominator --P. S. Burton (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whitdraw - Was not aware of the previous nomination. Based on the many opposes to that nomination, I think its best to withdraw this one. Something that didn't pass 2008, should certainly not pass 2010. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Implore otherwise Keep this open. That was them, this is us. Gut Monk (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since we now have a high resolution file, I withdraw my withdrawal. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - PS, wanna un-strike your support vote? --I'ḏ ♥One 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very mild support I am not taken by this image, but the article has a lot of discussion. I don't get this style of art? Gut Monk (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an incredibly famous painting... I don't really think we can be opposing based on the fact we don't like the art style. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen it. Fascinating. Gut Monk (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's something up with the dimensions. The image page and article say that this is around 82 by 60 cm, but, surely, that would be a landscape painting, not a portrait one? Or am I missing something? Is it different in art? Also, note that this has been nominated before, but it failed due to a low quality of reproduction. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The composition is correct by algebra, things are described in terms of rows by columns in algebra. Furthermore, anecdotally, you have people standing up; portrait is the meant composition. Gut Monk (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is art, don't assume anything... But yeah, this looks right and stuff, I was just a little confused. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the version at right which I recently uploaded. It is significantly better reproduction. Helms2 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed, the details are far more visible. However, the colours are different, and it's not currently used in the article. Are they both from the original? Both seem to come from fairly reliable sources, but part of me wants to trust the National Gallery a lot more. Could the image's source be stated more explicitly? J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The color accuracy of the Yorck images are usually less than stellar, particularly, they tend to have a red cast. Kaldari (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I would also trust the National Gallery over the Yorck reproductions, which generally are not great. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support high res --I'ḏ ♥One 22:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support high res Fine reproduction of important artwork. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support high res. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support high res version. Avenue (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High Res JFitch (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Van Eyck - Arnolfini Portrait.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]