Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Shroudofturin.jpg

Shroud of Turin

Original - Full-length negative of the Shroud of Turin. A negative image is being used as the chracteristics of the man can be seen more clearly, compared to a positive image.

Reason

Reasonable high resolution, one of the most important artefacts in human history, not to mention Christianity.

Articles this image appears in

Shroud of Turin

Creator

Many claims; file uploaded to Commons by Butko, apparently from an original upload to the Hebrew Wikipedia whose changelog is not preserved at Commons

• Support as nominator --diego_pmc (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - fascinating object, but resolution is rather low. --Meldshal 14:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Can be replaced with a higher resolution image if necessary; similar dimensions to some of our panoramas. High EV. Durova^Charge! 16:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support, per Meldshal. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support for its huge EV. How did they scan this into a computer?! ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Question is this a scan of the original or a replica? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a negative photo. If you look closely, in the lower left corner there is something that looks like a table, on which the shroud was standing. diego_pmc (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The question remains: original or replica? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, didn't understand at first, sorry. It most probably is a photo of the original, as for some reason an exact replica can't be made, especially one that would have the property of being clearer in negatives. At least that's what they said in a documentary. diego_pmc (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I dont know much about it except that there is a replica on display to the public (thought I could be off there too) which is why I was asking. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't feel comfortable supporting an image for which there is no source information. How can we be sure of the copyright status? I know what you're thinking: You can't copyright something 2000 years old. However, how do we know that the image hasn't been heavily modified or edited, thus creating a new copyright on the image? Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We can compare it to other images...? diego_pmc (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Shroudofturin.jpg --jjron (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)