Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:HMSPinafore.png

Image:HMSPinafore.png, featured

•  Info created by A.S. Seer's - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 09:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden 09:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis 10:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Nice, but why is it a png? I don't see any reason this shouldn't be a jpeg. --Calibas 20:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why would JPG be better? JPG is a lossy medium, PNG lossless. Also, JPG artefacts badly at sharp transitions, which lithographs and engravings are largely defined by. Adam Cuerden 00:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose low wow, mediocre reproduction, png???. Lycaon 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a lithograph, which by its nature is defined by sharp transitions - note the frequent contrast between dark and light elements, particularly in the middle section, with the sailor uniforms. PNG handles sharp transitions just fine, whereas JPEG cannot handle sharp transitions without artefacting. On a chiariscuro image like this, JPG is thus a bad choice. Adam Cuerden 12:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, lets say there is an extreme example of a photograph critic who was obsessed with artifacts, then png would be the best choice? What I learned that were the differences in the different formats and how they handled images, the thing that made jpeg so good for photographic use was the artifacts. Has this changed? -- carol (tomes) 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

JPG is optimised for photography of natural scenes and so on, not necessarily of artworks, particularly not chiariscuro ones. Adam Cuerden 17:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support per Adam Cuerden -- "PNG for diagrams, JPG for photos" is a guideline, not a rule. -- Korax1214 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)