Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:14, 20 July 2014

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)

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.)

Comment. The painting is not attributed to Raphael and is no longer thought to be a portrait of Jeanne d'Aragon(just 18 years old and unmarried when Raphael died). It is rather attributed to Raphael's pupil Giulio Romano and is thought to be a portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enríquez de Cardona-Anglesola - see this Louvre webpage. The subtle and beautiful image there is by Hervé Lewandowski and later this evening I will upload it as a file in Romano's category at Commons. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles in which this image appears

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

FP category for this image

Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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 at La Petite larousse or here att the www.larousse.encyclopedie. And the gown was probably clear strong red - much much more reddish 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 when Raphael made it this picture looked like this kind of strong colours - like HERE - 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)

• I've removed the two images that were not being discussed for FPC (left Coat's as a link). Ladies, gentlemen, art lovers, and bystanders (choose your own category): let's please try to be civil, and try to avoid overpowering the page with images.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• The point about the image of the Raphael restoration I uploaded was its subtlety, quite unlike the chocolate botox kitsch of trusty old DCoetzee's restoration nominated here. I've told Hafs that in future I will oppose these kind of nominations as "inauthentic WP?#8". If he can't handle an editor opposing his nomination stating a valid reason citing the guidelines and makes an issue of it, then he must expect a response. If he tries his hand at wit and subtlety, then he must expect me to respond in kind. No lady, no gent moi BTW. Got that quite wrong. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• And I told you I don't agree. The WP?#8 say - Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive - a picture should:

1. Avoid inappropriate digital manipulation.
   • Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive.
   • Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.
   • More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text.
   • Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
   • Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.

• None of the above criteria forbidden applies on the Original, no manipulation that caused the main subject to be misrepresented. You made your point - and it is now enough. Let other editors have some space too. Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the nomination. The only changes I made to the image were to adjust levels (manually using the Curves function in Photoshop), and solely because some parts of the original were dark and difficult to see when surrounded by whitespace in the context of an article. I don't think it's more authentic or better - C2RMF's images are very authentic professional works - and when viewed fullscreen or surrounded by black space, I think C2RMF's images look better as well. Again, this image was really just intended for use at thumbnail size in articles, not for any other use. I am not a professional in restoration or art history and no special trust should be placed in me. Dcoetzee 14:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Cheers DC. Thanks for this. A fan of yours by the way. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hints on this appreciated by the way. I can't make any of the JPEG 2000 viewers I see on Google work for me. Email me if you like. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Dcoetzee for passing by. I was now checking around in all kinds of screens - for a while; and Alt1 is simply too dark on most small screens. The picture is going to be displayed on all sorts of screens - and unfortunately not Alt1 is not very visible, too dark. It is a quite valid reason for Dcoetzee edits, since we use this on Misplaced Pages.

Also I think this kind of language used in this nomination like: horrible, a kind of art botox, just silly, inauthentic, and derisory, and you're wilfully not going to get the point , Chto xudshee sanskrtiskee akkcentee ya kagdee-libo slishal and the rest of similar expressions as: chocolate botox kitsch of trusty old DCoetzee's restoration and other personal attacs like he tries his hand at wit and subtlety, then he must expect me to respond in kind - should not be alowed to be used more in any nominations, not here, not anywhere. It is framed in with red: Please remember to be civil, ...+ to comment on the image, not the person. Which is why we have "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image." right at the top of this page. If civil comments would have been used, I doubt there would have been any comments regarding said oppose. But no, we've gotten this kind of expressions five or six times. It's just plain disrespectful; and this kind of behaviour is seriously wrong. Hafspajen (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

1. See, for example Honour, Hugh; Fleming, John (1982). A World History of Art. London: Macmillan Reference Books. p. 357. ISBN 9780333235836. OCLC 8828368.

• Featured picture nominations
• Featured picture nominations/July 2014