Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cafe Terrace at Night

Cafe Terrace at Night[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 08:57:04 (UTC)

Original – Café Terrace at Night is a coloured oil painting of Vincent van Gogh on an industrially primed canvas in Arles, France, mid-September 1888.
Alt – Used on other articles on en.Wikipedia, but has a lower resolution

Reason: high quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Cafe Terrace at Night
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Vincent van Gogh

Support either as nominator – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Reproduction from an art book, hence the visible pixelation/halftoning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492:@Coat of Many Colours: Added alternative. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the alt 2, per Diliff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support either (prefer Alt) -- It's from the Kroller-Muller, who have a very tight images policy (a laugh really since they were bailed out by the Dutch government when the family firm went bankrupt). Unlikely to get a better image than this (although the Yorck for once is quite nice). I'll have a look, but I can tell you now it's not going to happen. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a nice Flickr version into the category using Flinfo and linked it the file, but I should think that's probably it as far as good digital images are concerned. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bother. It's a copy. I'll delink. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything about the museum it's in that means we couldn't, say, chip in to get Diliff a Netherlands trip, with mandatory visits to the Franz Hals museum and the Kröller-Müller Museum? (I realize it's not in the Franz Hals museum, but, c'mon, Hals is amazing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure KM doesn't allow photography. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about the colour fidelity, but the color halftoning (very visible) and the fact that, as this is a reproduction from a print, it's relatively flat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Alt looks pretty good to me, though I agree it's soft in close-up. But it's very nice I thinks. Isn't there something in the guidelines about a lower bar for hard to get images? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose original and alt as per Crisco, we have to at least get a reproduction of the original painting. The alt is just too soft (and also seems to have minor artifacts similar to halftoning, although it's hard to tell). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff and Crisco. Even if this is the best we're going to get for the forseeable future, I am not convinced that it "is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer". J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can understand that, and actually looking more closely at the two both can be objected to on the grounds of the crop, the one on the left cropped on the right and the one on the right cropped on the left. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw due to the above mentioned cropping issue. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]