Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hamilton Beer revenue stamp $2 Hogshead.JPG

Revenue stamp for beer tax, 1871 issue

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2014 at 00:46:22 (UTC)

Reason: Image offers definitive example of U.S. Revenue tax stamps used for beer in the 1870s
Articles in which this image appears: Revenue stamps of the United States
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: National Bank Note Company and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (edited by Gwillhickers)

Support as nominator – Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very nice. What are the chances of having this saved with less JPG compression? Or you can upload the raw TIFFs and I or Godot or someone can do the clean-up. Thing is, there's a lot of JPEG artefacts here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No compression was employed when I saved this image to disk. Are we talking about something that actually compromises the appearance of the image when viewed in 'full view'? In any case, if you think it will help I have no issues with anyone who wants to perform a clean-up. As I said, I don't have sophisticated photo-editing software, so any help is greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are talking about something that compromises the appearance of the image when viewed at full resolution. If you are using Microsoft Paint (apologies if I misremember), then compression is inevitable; the program automatically saves files at what, in Photoshop or GIMP (a free piece of software you may like) would be about 8 and 65, respectively - enough to cause compression artefacts to appear with just one or two saves. Take a look at the "B" in beer, for instance. Do you see the artefacts? Or along any thin lines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be difficult, but the entire image is composed of thin lines. I didn't see any that are distorted or otherwise compromised, but I'll take your word for it if you say so. Re: Freeware. On two occasions when downloading free software it came with 'Adware' and 'Malware', so I am really reluctant to download anything 'free' these days. Don't know if this is the place to discuss this, but if you know of a safe and secure cite to download a better editor than Windows' 'Paint', could you leave me the link on my user-talk page? I guess it's about time I come up to speed. In the mean time if someone could 'zap' these 'artefacts' that would be great. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added note :The 'B' in Beer, or any other lines, doesn't look any different, at least to me, than the ones in the Smithsonian's image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then your eyesight is not as good as mine. <Grin> Lots of jpeg artifacts in the candidate image! --Janke | Talk 06:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Janke. Try flicking between the two scans. Do you see how yours has a lot of very small specks around high contrast areas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All lines are crisp and virtually solid, save maybe paper or printing imperfections. The image is in focus, details are defined, color and tone are fine, not too bright, excellent composition and design. I don't see any white specks on any of the lines, and the paper is white, so if the white specks exist in the white areas then they are not apparent. It seems you're judging the image with a microscope, not in terms of composition, color, clarity, historical value i.e. the usefulness of the image to the readers and to the encyclopedia. I'm hoping these near invisible "white specks" shouldn't be anything that overrides all other considerations. In any case, if these artifacts can be eliminated with software then can we simply do that? Meanwhile I'll look around for other software so I don't have to keep bugging other editors to do this. Though not in entire agreement, I do appreciate the feedback. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional : Okay, when I view the image in full view here at Wikipedia I don't see any artifacts to speak of, but when I look at my own image file and zoom in (+ + +) these white anomalies finally become apparent in the white areas. How much weight should we be giving this, all other things considered? Again, if this can be remedied could someone do the fix? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose over it (there are just too many), but I can't support either. Others may have a different opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: -- Thanks for the explanation. I realize I have some tough acts to follow around here, me an my trusty ol' 'Paint' program. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 'support' from sock puppet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]