Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ajanta Painting

Ajanta Painting

This is one of the best photos available anywhere of the paintings in the Ajanta caves in India, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. These paintings were made between 2nd century BCE and 6th century CE. The image is in public domain worldwide, and was uploaded on Wikimedia commons by File Upload Bot (Eloquence). It adds meaningful information on various articles including Ajanta, Fresco, History of India, Painting, Gupta Empire, Arts and entertainment in India and History of sex in India.

Nominate and support. - deeptrivia (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Would also be different from other POTDs and thus bring in more variety. --Gurubrahma 07:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a version that is a bit sharper, with more color. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-19 16:58

Sharpness is a good idea, but I like the yellowish tinge (PS: and softness ^_^ ) that the original image has. Is it just my personal preference, or some general aesthetic principle? deeptrivia (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~original~~ version 3 Nice picture and unusual, and doesn't rely on any single article for its contribution. Brian0918, I find your edit a bit too drastic. Do we have any reason to believe that the photographer got the colour wrong when he prepared this image for The Yorck Project? I suspect we are looking at truer colours in the original ~ Veledan • Talk 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The "true" colors are those that were originally used in the painting, not the colors that remain after years of wear. By trying to bring out the colors, I am simply trying to undo the wear, the same way that a damaged photograph is repaired, by removing specks of dust or creases. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-20 03:33

This is a philosophical question. Some would hold that the wear does become inherent to the aesthetic value of the artwork of antiquity, and the Ajanta painting sans its wear simply isn't complete. deeptrivia (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, if you could, would you repair the Colesseum? - JPM | 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. We're talking about an informational photo of an object, not the actual object. Even paintings get restored, and the Colosseum does undergo repairs so that it maintains its present condition--otherwise it would just get worse. But back to this image; the original photo was blurry, likely smeared out the colors, and did not represent the painting very well. I'm sure my change was too drastic, but it needs to be enhanced to better illustrate the article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-21 05:29

So you're saying it needs to illustrate the article better? The caption reads "Fresco from the Ajanta caves." If this is the current condition of the painting in the Ajanta cave, then doesn't it represent the article perfectly? I think these "informational photos" should try and be as close to the actual object in question as possible. I'm all for making the image more clear, or brighter - but tweaking the colors is a no-no, in my opinion - JPM | 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer himself likely screwed up the colors in the first place. Camera flashes don't simply make an image brighter. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-21 14:40

But this is only an assumption of yours, and since I was not there when the photo was taken, I will not make the same assumption. - JPM | 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should not assume the colors are correct. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-21 23:38

You're right, but since the original picture is what's presented to me at first, I have to throw my trust at it. - JPM | 03:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~My support only goes toward the original, unless someone uploads a less drastic edit.~~ - JPM | 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Janke's third edit, or any similar derivative edit. - JPM | 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no vote yet. The edit maybe went a bit too far, but I think something inbetween might be good. The original is murky, and it's hard to see details. --Janke | Talk 15:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 3rd version: Since no-one else did, I took the original, corrected exposure only (not the color), reduced the size to 1600 px (original is fuzzy, so no info is lost). There are a few white spots of the undelying wall showing through the painting (armpit, breast) which tells me that the painting indeed has a yellowish color, which must not be changed. --Janke | Talk 16:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 3 looks fine to me. I'll raise the question about how the original looks like on the Indian noticeboard. Maybe someone's been there. deeptrivia (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support third version. This picture, by the way, is one of 10,000 reproductions of public domain paintings donated by Directmedia to the Wikimedia Commons. Janke, if you're having some free time, many other pictures in that category could use some editing. ;-) --Eloquence * 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original and third version. I haven't been there to say which among the above reflects the current state of the image. By the way, I do not want the second image deleted or unused, but when used, it should clearly state what has been done to the image. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support third version. Saravask 00:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 or 3. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support third version. svnitbharath

Promoted Image:Indischer_version3.jpg Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: promoted image has been replaced with Image:Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae - Alchemist's Laboratory.jpg as exact duplicate - see here. --jjron (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]