Girl with a Pearl Earring
_-_The_Girl_With_The_Pearl_Earring_(1665).jpg)
- Reason
- Our featured pictures are short on paintings by the old masters, partly because many museums make it difficult to obtain high quality digital files and assert spurious copyright claims. After considerable research I located a cache at a Dutch website and chose one of the most famous images, then discovered that an even better quality version was already featured on the Spanish and Turkish Wikipedias.
- Articles this image appears in
- Johannes Vermeer, Girl with a Pearl Earring, Girl with a Pearl Earring (film)
- Creator
- Johannes Vermeer
- Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 10:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment anyone know if the blue headscarf accurately reflects the painting's real color? Because in the
other version it looks more turquoise. The painting itself looks to be in pretty bad shape, sad to say.
Fletcher (
talk) 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The two versions are very different. Obviously it has faded with age and its always good to have clarification on whether the digital copy is representing the painting as it is now or whether an attempt has been made to correct the colors or contrast towards what the image originally looked like. I think the nominated version is the correct one color wise, looking at other online resources like these
[1]
[2] and that the yellower versions
[3] have just been shot under tungsten light and not corrected.
Mfield (
talk) 17:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I believe I saw this during the Vermeer exhibit at the Smithsonian about 15 years ago. Your linked version is _much_ yellower than the actual painting.
de
Bivort 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- This version is very close to the balance of the version I have. The painting has been through restorations and "correct" versions probably have a different balance depending on when the photograph was taken.
Durova
Charge! 17:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The current version on the right is the accurate version concerning color (and everything else by the way). The painting you linked to us is to yellowish. Massimo Catarinella ( talk)
- This version is very close to the balance of the version I have. The painting has been through restorations and "correct" versions probably have a different balance depending on when the photograph was taken.
Durova
Charge! 17:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Mentioning the difference in blues is somewhat major in my view. I read a book about Vermeer, and it said that his paintings had a certain blue colour. See
Image:Johannes Vermeer - Zittende Klavecimbelspeelster (1673-1675).jpg,
Image:Clio.jpg,
Image:Jan Vermeer van Delft 012.jpg, and
Image:Vermeer - The Milkmaid.jpg. Now obviously in the images given and in the one above, the blue differs a bit, but the original base paint was the same (The paint came from
Lapis lazuli, I believe). I would hope that colour will remain in the same tint, but I can't tell.
Spencer
T♦
C 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Would you like me to upload the other version I've found for comparison? It's from a Dutch government archive and was provided by the museum itself. Slightly smaller, slightly different hues.
Durova
Charge! 18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- If it helps, the colour in question, made from LApis lazuli, is Ultramarine. I have some paints in that colour (though almost surely *not* Lapis lazuli) and the blue looks right to me. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Would you like me to upload the other version I've found for comparison? It's from a Dutch government archive and was provided by the museum itself. Slightly smaller, slightly different hues.
Durova
Charge! 18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I believe I saw this during the Vermeer exhibit at the Smithsonian about 15 years ago. Your linked version is _much_ yellower than the actual painting.
de
Bivort 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The two versions are very different. Obviously it has faded with age and its always good to have clarification on whether the digital copy is representing the painting as it is now or whether an attempt has been made to correct the colors or contrast towards what the image originally looked like. I think the nominated version is the correct one color wise, looking at other online resources like these
[1]
[2] and that the yellower versions
[3] have just been shot under tungsten light and not corrected.
Mfield (
talk) 17:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - iconic. de Bivort 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support either - although I can't quite make out exactly what the difference between the two is. Cacophony ( talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Either The second one is brighter. Rj1020 ( talk) 07:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why it is important not to alter other editors' posts Papa Lima Whiskey struck through part of an image caption I had written.
[4] Actually my comment about aspect ratios was correct and an image name conflict caused the confusion. Right now there are two different files by the same name hosted on Commons and Wikipedia. It wasn't apparent until I logged in from a different computer because my system wasn't flagging a notice when it displayed a different version from what the rest of you were seeing. When I log on from my main machine I'll fix it directly. Until then, please refer to
Commons:Image:Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg, and please leave me a comment in the future instead of altering my edits.
Durova
Charge! 00:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please sign your captions in future if you want this rule to apply. Thank you. And just as an aside, you didn't notify me about your comment, either.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 10:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Signing captions is unnecessary; you should simply exercise better judgment. Except in the most uncontroversial situations, don't hide other people's stuff, don't edit other people's stuff, or
more succinctly....
Fletcher (
talk) 13:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- LOL Fletcher, you were recently telling me about self-parody. You make a good candidate for a drink from the cool cucumber. :) Other than that, I can only point out that the essay you linked to is a corollary to
WP:IAR, which lists as a "closely related guideline"
WP:Be bold. I can hear windmills.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually my first thought was to contact PLW directly, then I decided it was better to post to the nomination discussion for three reasons: first, I happen to be at the wrong machine to correct the problem directly; second, people who had already based their decision upon the en:wiki file might want to re-review; third, this situation really could happen any nomination of a well-known historical image. Commons doesn't flag the uploader when a new filename conflicts with an existing filename on another project and my main system displays the unflagged Commons cache. I figured out the filename conflict because the strikethrough happened while I was online from an alternate computer, but I don't use this secondary system very often. The difference is significant--it changes the length of her face--and the version I uploaded originates from an official file at The Hague. The main goal is to present the intended alternate files for review, and it's more likely we'll catch the occasional developer-level issue by posting comments instead of by striking through existing captions.
Durova
Charge! 18:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to leave that discussion there. I think we've all shown ourselves fallible. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 03:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually my first thought was to contact PLW directly, then I decided it was better to post to the nomination discussion for three reasons: first, I happen to be at the wrong machine to correct the problem directly; second, people who had already based their decision upon the en:wiki file might want to re-review; third, this situation really could happen any nomination of a well-known historical image. Commons doesn't flag the uploader when a new filename conflicts with an existing filename on another project and my main system displays the unflagged Commons cache. I figured out the filename conflict because the strikethrough happened while I was online from an alternate computer, but I don't use this secondary system very often. The difference is significant--it changes the length of her face--and the version I uploaded originates from an official file at The Hague. The main goal is to present the intended alternate files for review, and it's more likely we'll catch the occasional developer-level issue by posting comments instead of by striking through existing captions.
Durova
Charge! 18:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- LOL Fletcher, you were recently telling me about self-parody. You make a good candidate for a drink from the cool cucumber. :) Other than that, I can only point out that the essay you linked to is a corollary to
WP:IAR, which lists as a "closely related guideline"
WP:Be bold. I can hear windmills.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Signing captions is unnecessary; you should simply exercise better judgment. Except in the most uncontroversial situations, don't hide other people's stuff, don't edit other people's stuff, or
more succinctly....
Fletcher (
talk) 13:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please sign your captions in future if you want this rule to apply. Thank you. And just as an aside, you didn't notify me about your comment, either.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 10:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Original per RJ1020's comment, the alternate does seem brighter,
with harsher lighting on her forehead and right cheek.Fletcher ( talk) 13:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC) - Support alternate. Much sharper, even shows every crack in the paint. Other version has interesting detail sink into shadow, loses detail in the girl's eyes. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 09:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support alternate although the original is great also Intothewoods29 ( talk) 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support original - alt looks washed out to my eyes. de Bivort 20:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Promoted Image:Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) - The Girl With The Pearl Earring (1665).jpg MER-C 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)