Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Imperial Russian coat of arms

Great State Emblem of Russian Empire

 * Reason:In my opinion the most representative coat of the empire out of several others. Actually, was unaware of it until now.
 * Articles this image appears in:National emblems of the Russian Empire
 * Creator:


 * Support as nominator --Brand[t] 21:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first line of the article it says "Quite often the Russian state emblems are incorrectly called "coats of arms"." How should we understand the caption then? Is it that the caption is not good, or the image is misplaced in that article?  franklin.vp   23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Whatever it is that Russian emblem is wonderful.   franklin.vp   23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first line of the article it says "Quite often the Russian state emblems are incorrectly called "coats of arms"." How should we understand the caption then? Is it that the caption is not good, or the image is misplaced in that article?  franklin.vp   23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Whatever it is that Russian emblem is wonderful.   franklin.vp   23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I understand now. the national emblems should not be called coat of arms but this is the coat of arms that lies in the center of the Great State Emblem.  franklin.vp   04:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Brand[t] 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for comfucing you with my comfution. In the great state emblem it sas that it contains the coat of arms in the middle. So this is the coat of arms as you said in the begining. In any case you added the picture to the article, you can check in the refference you used.  franklin.vp   18:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There seems to be a crease across the middle of the image. Does anyone know if it looks fixable? Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Kaldari that the crease is too obvious. Also, the corners are obviously corners. It would be much nicer if they faced into white (especially since most of the background is white anyway).  upstate NYer  06:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The crease looks fixable to me, but it would mean a little bit of cloning (hopefully indistinguishable). &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've had a go at editing the background and crease line. -- Silversmith Hewwo 10:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my Photoshop has expired, while MS Photo Editor distorted the colors. Brand[t] 11:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Photo editor would be a nightmare for editing this sort of thing with... Edit 1 is a decent attempt but I'm not sure if I like the abesence of a background texture, and there are some patches that were missed which stick out like a sore thumb. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added edit 2 which I think removes the horizontal band a bit more cleanly than edit 1. I'm not sure of the best way to remove or fade the background (or even if it is a good thing) so I've left it untouched. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a matter of taste, the original version looks like a scan. Brand[t] 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is a scan, but that's neither here or there really. I agree it's a matter of taste, but it's hard to tell if the shading around it is part of the illustration, or aging of the paper. The other issue is that if the background is faded away, the texture of the paper is lost and I think it look peculiar. As it is, the texture is patchy though, which is why I was unsure what to do with it. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The bottom right corner of the original background looks like an aging (yellowing) to me, so are probably the other parts. Brand[t] 18:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * support Although not sure if I prefer edit 1 or 2.©Geni 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * comment. In some ways it seems a bit pointless having the background since it is almost completely white, and there are lots of random speckles all over the page. I don't mind the background being left with the shading, but I can easily edit my version a bit more to clean up patches I missed, if people do prefer a version with a totally white background? And Brand, you can download GIMP for free which is what I use. -- Silversmith  Hewwo 02:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not fussed if you think it's important to remove the texture on the background, but the edit of the horizontal band wasn't done quite as well (IMHO, sorry), so I'd ask that you remove the background from edit 2 if you were to do that. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a good deal is the whitening of background in edit 2, while original version could be just uncreased. Brand[t] 20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support edit 2. Although I would like no background. For some reason the nice golden color got damaged in edit 1. I don't know if it is important for FPC or Wikipedia, but if I want to use the image for something else (as many kids do for school projects) the background can be a problem. Maybe some blur can be applyed to the background to at least eliminate the speckles, which can be ugly in some printers. I can do that if it is not a bad practice in these cases.  franklin.vp   18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any changes to the colour or contrast or anything so I don't know why there would be any difference in the golden colour. :/ I think it's probably best not doing more editing until a consensus is formed on which option would be best. -- Silversmith Hewwo 07:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What I think they might be referring to is the fact that you saved Edit 1 in PNG format. Aside from it being about four times bigger than the equivalent JPEG, it tends to have an effect on the thumbnail as Imagemagick does a poor job of scaling PNG thumbnails and they tend to look less 'punchy' as a result. I'm only guessing though. You can see it in the thumbnails but there shouldn't be such a difference when viewed at 100%. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good guess. My bad for not looking the full size again.  franklin.vp   12:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I chose PNG because I've heard that every time you save in jpg you lose some quality due to compression, whereas png is lossless compression. It certainly wouldn't be hard for me to go and save it in jpg though if png is an issue. -- Silversmith Hewwo 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, it was requested that the previous version should be superseded by PNG, which is reserved for coas. Brand[t] 08:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that in theory you can loose some quality with compression but it's so minor that you likely wouldn't notice - especially if you set the quality high when saving the JPEG. There are times when PNG files are superior (for diagrams and the like usually, and even then, SVG tends to be superior again as it's scalable without loss of quality), but when dealing with scanned images or photos, where there is a lot of texture, then my preference is for JPEG. Just because one person has requested PNG, it doesn't make it the best format to use. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Edit 1. Looks the cleanest to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, Edit 1 has some minor image damage where the crease was cloned away. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 –blurpeace (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

--Caspian blue 03:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)