Support - Well-known, quality image to illustrate both its own article and that of the artist.--
Godot13 (
talk) 03:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - Good, but do you think to have some quality increased till it makes up to
this level? I say about the color, forget the resolution The herald 11:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Are you sure you think that's an improvement? Looks like someone threw it in Photoshop and cranked up the saturation by 15 or so. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Its not the saturation am talkin' about buddy. Its the quality and color. May be above par in your eyes, but better in mine.Think about it. The herald 13:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You mean the discolorations along the bottom that look like a cheap art book scan? No. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Millet was like this - he wanted to paint with "boring" colours. He called that realism.
[1]Hafspajen (
talk) 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Yep, Hafspajen got it right. I'm not criticising Crisco, but as a human, I feel the colored one better. Hate realism...The herald 07:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Eh, can't say I like it either. Let others nominate those...
Hafspajen (
talk) 17:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Iconic. My granny had a reproduction on her wall, colors looked just as "muddy" as this. --
Janke |
Talk 20:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support -- the original looks pretty nice to me. I am not a fan of colors but I do color paintings ;)
Bellus Delphinatalk 09:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Actually surprised this isn't Feature status already.--
Mark Miller (
talk) 20:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Jean-François Millet - Gleaners - Google Art Project 2.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply