Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joukowsky-Pressure-Shock-01.jpg

File:Joukowsky-Pressure-Shock-01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 04:54:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Joukowsky-Pressure-Shock-01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joukowsky-Pressure-Shock-01.jpg

•  Info A float gauge of a separation vessel, destroyed by a Joukowsky Pressure Shock from an interconnected fluid pipeline. The pressure shock squeezed the symetric float gauge until it burst. It is a rare example for a material failure of a rotation-symmetric hollowware as consequence of external overpressure.
  All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Nice with something new. An otherwise boring object presented as well and interesting as possible. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral There is a shadow in front of the object and that makes an imbalanced composition, IMO. --Laitche (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral  Oppose I'm opposing, but really I'd be fine to see this FP, because it has wow. It's more so that my message has more impact :) Just that I agree with Laitche: noticed the shadow in front is recurring in your last studio shots. I have no doubt you carefully chose the lighting scheme but I think you should get rid of it somehow. An additional light source just on the shadow, perhaps? - Benh (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I could crop out the object from the background, but I fear, the object will lose depth without the shadow. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think you shouldn't remove the shadow. As you say, they help give sense of volume of the subject. This is a reason I like proper studio shots like yours and Alchemist-hp's, and not all those with the background removed. Instead I would try to adjust your lighting setting so that the shadow doesn't come so close. Easy to say and it's just my two cents. - Benh (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Info The object is back in the damage evidence archive and I don't have a hand on it now. However, if it seems helpful, I can reprocess the image and brighten the shadow area. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes maybe brightening the shadow with a gradient mask... I would try. - Benh (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I applied brightening of foreground shadows --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely an improvement. I'm in :  Support. Thanks for taking my suggestions into account - Benh (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Neutral Very good quality and high EV but not enough for me for the FP bar. I wonder why the shadow is in front of the object and would expect better lighting in the center of it since that should be the interesting area. Furthermore the subject is not really an eye-catcher. Poco² 08:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects