Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Emblems of USA 1876

Seals of the U.S. states 1876



 * Reason:Illustrates a historic concept in an interesting and dynamic manner, of a large size and high apparent quality (there are minor flaws, but these are with the original rather than its reproduction).
 * Articles this image appears in:Seals of the U.S. states
 * Creator:A.J. Connell Litho.


 * Support as nominator --Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose How did this version get featured on Commons? Would support the one with paper grain.  Intrusive restoration: emblems at top appear to float in air and pixels not fully removed.  I don't see the logic of this approach.  Durova Charge! 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the unrestored version. I wasn't able to compare the two simultaneously, as the size of the files made my computer quite unhappy! But you're right, it is the better of the two. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support unrestored version. Durova Charge! 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose *Support Unrestored - High EV ,but I still think there is some graininess there. -- Meld    shal   11:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to prove me wrong but along with ragesoss below I can't see any graininess which isn't from the original print - which is certainly less than perfect (It seems fine for it's time for me, but that's outside my specialised knowledge, and I'll defer to others on that point). Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Low quality scan Clegs (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support unrestored version, which is larger and retains paper grain, although I don't see what's so bad about the restored version. All the graininess I see looks to be from the original printing technology, not the scan.--ragesoss (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Unrestored - Firefox didn't like me opening such a huge image and it took a while to open but it's quite clear that the restoration had been overdone (high frequency detail all smeared out). I would also support an edit that simply whitened the background. --antilivedT 12:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)