File talk:0001Bulbasaur.png

Update request

I did some color correction on the highest res previous version to match how the art appears in other media and in press releases. [1] There's also a slightly lower res file from an actual press release I found, a downsized version of which is being used right now as the file. The issue is, it has some odd artifacts near the bulb and on some other areas. Actually, there is MUCH higher resolution versions of that art from the press release, but they all have the artificats, and a lot of them require color correction. They can be seen here: https://www.google.com/search?q=bulbasaur&safe=off&sa=X&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS491US491&tbs=simg%3ACAQSEgk7sTkIK-XuxSHEfMCL00hbpw&tbm=isch&ei=IG4_UqHuF8W-4APWtoGYCQ&ved=0CAYQhxw&dpr=1&biw=2133&bih=1010#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ZCZeQoF8Rb__pM%3A%3BzHRRvbg70gn2-M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fonlyhdwallpapers.com%252Fwallpaper%252Fpokemon_bulbasaur_desktop_1587x1505_wallpaper-246734.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fonlyhdwallpapers.com%252Fcartoon%252Fpokemon-bulbasaur-desktop-hd-wallpaper-246734%252F%3B1587%3B1505

I'm not sure how this should be handled, so, yeah. Jabberwockxeno (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

While I'm of know status to judge about this, and I'm not saying 'don't upload it' because the staff can make the decision, but the artwork I previously uploaded came straight from a TPCi press release. All I did was make it transparent, so it's the exact colouration etc. of the artwork. Your file has several things edited (such as the markings on the bulb) that are present on the official artwork provided by them. --S2daam (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is, those bulb markings are actually errors, most likely from compression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact . They are not present in the art in my guidebook nor on the official site. Jabberwockxeno (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Which official site are you referring to? Because the official XY website includes an image of Bulbasaur and the markings are present and on the official Pokédex, while the artwork is small, feature the markings too --S2daam (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed that! Interesting. I'm still pretty sure they are artifacts, though. I double checked my guide, and they are not present on there. I'll check some other official materials later, and I sent an email to the press site asking if they could investigate the matter. Jabberwockxeno (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The official Black & White Pokédex guidebook also has every marking that exists on the file we're using. They are not artifacts, they are a normal part of the artwork and are supposed to be there. - Kogoro - Talk to me - 20:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, as stated, the platinium guidebook does not have it. I don't mean to start an argument. If we are going to use the one with the markings, Should I go ahead and color correct a higher res version (as there are some), or do you guys want to continue to use the current art? Jabberwockxeno (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well seeming the artwork already uploaded is straight from the source, I see no reason for it to be edited, but that's just my opinion --S2daam (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it comes down to if you guys want a 100% accurate (I still don't think those marks are supposed to be there, though) image, or a larger, but not 100% accurate image, color wise. The color difference would really only be noticeable if you put the two side by side and looked really closely. Jabberwockxeno (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, can somebody explain to me why the image was scaled down again? Jabberwockxeno (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)