Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Le Violon d'Ingres

Le Violon d'Ingres

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 04:21:31 (UTC)

Reason: In May 2022, Le Violon d'Ingres sold for $12,400,000, making it the most expensive photograph. Beyond that, this is one of Man Ray's most famous works and for surrealist photography.
Articles in which this image appears: Le Violon d'Ingres, Alice Prin, List of most expensive photographs, List of photographs considered the most important
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
Creator: Man Ray

Support as nominator – GamerPro64 04:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to clean up the specks a bit. Give me a day. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 23:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that makes sense? This is an original Man Ray print, with his stamp on the back--it is not a scan of a negative like some of the photographs in the Featured Pictures collection. If the print is being treated by the museum as a distinct work of art (and, as the nominator notes, another print of it proved extraordinarily valuable), then shouldn't it be represented as it exists? blameless 03:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It's still a print, one of many, I presume. I feel prints should be a theoretical best copy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 03:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Quite likely, as a photo of a photo, the specks are part of the original and certainly reflect the quality of the original process. I'm strongly against cleaning up. If that needs cleaning up then where does one stop - do you edit out the cracks in the Mona Lisa? ProfDEH (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I really doubt dust specks on the scan and fingerprint smears are intent. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 16:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I prefer the specks removed per Adam Cuerden. Bammesk (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: I'm not going to bother if people are going to go to war over it. Don't think it should pass, though, as it's not a fantastic copy, and almost all uses I can find are better looking. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 02:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. More detail on her skin in this print. I wouldn't mind the nom version becoming FP though, with or without touchup. Bammesk (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the print is unique or there are even a few copies, all with specks, we shouldn't be trying to imrove the original. Restoration here should be about restoring a print artwork to how it was. Not trying to improve the original. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. ProfDEH (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nominated version; I'd consider supporting a scan of a different print. It is clear that the various prints of this photograph are valued and contextualized distinctly by their owners and others (hence the enormous value of one of them cited in the nomination); therefore, I think our FP should correspond to an identified print, not an idealized representation of a putative "original." blameless 19:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Le Violon d'Ingres (Ingres's Violin), 1924, Man Ray.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]