Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:After first Communion (Carl Frithjof Smith, 1892).jpg

File:After first Communion (Carl Frithjof Smith, 1892).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2016 at 07:45:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:After first Communion (Carl Frithjof Smith, 1892).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:After first Communion (Carl Frithjof Smith, 1892).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Others
•  Info After first Communion (Carl Frithjof Smith, 1892). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 09:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lovely scene, it is a large painting and therefore very hard to photograph, but I think that an FP of a painting should have the same quality all over the canvas. In this case the angle + light makes the bottom of the painting smooth without any capture of brush strokes or thick paint, while at the top you get glares on the paint from the light, sorry. --cart-Talk 11:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Cart ; museum, light and oil on canvass - never ending problem. How much you get it, good question, you know, i am figuring out how to solve museum shot. First, up to the museum and their lights, this was placed near, and placed so good that reflextion wasnt problem, but you see more canvass paint brush, while others put light more back, and then reflexion is totally out, there you wont see brush so much. In that case, even pic is small, i move from the center of pic, and then adaptations after. Here, i was perfect in the center. By your voting, these pic wont get support in neither case. Unless you went to photoshoping of it. In paintings, i will stay out of that. --Mile (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• I know, it is terribly hard to photograph in museum light, but glare and such can be reduced if you treat the painting as a panorama. If you do this in perhaps 3x4 photos, move the camera over the painting and stretch your arms for the top row of photos (place the camera directly over each of the 12 sections), it will reduce the glare you get when the light hits at an angle. You are very good at doing stacked photos so I think you could do this. I used this technique when I did the photo of this large petroglyph (the photographed area is 2.5 meter long) since it was in the ground and I would have needed a crane to get high enough from it. The cliff was also uneven and slanting and I risked getting reflections from the sun on the rock or the small feldspar crystals in it, much like the light at a museum. Maybe other users will see your photo different than I do and think I'm too picky. ;) cart-Talk 14:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose While I approved this for QI on the grounds that it was pretty good work for just pointing a camera at the painting, unfortunately I am not quite convinced it has cleared the bar (admittedly set very high thanks to the Google Art Project's work) for FP-quality digitization. Cart has explained its shortcomings adequately enough without me having to repeat them. Daniel Case (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Cart and Daniel. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Will raise the level. --Mile (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)