Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Refraction of GGB in rain droplets 2.jpg

File:Refraction of GGB in rain droplets 2.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 02:07:39

•  Info created, uploaded by and nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info The image is not downsampled. It is cropped.
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great eye! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

*  Neutral I don't know what to do. Its quality isn't that good, but it isn't the point in the photo. Confused about the whole purpose of the photo. —kallerna™ 14:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the image was to show w:refraction of GGB in rain drops that act as lenses. The image has high EV and educational value. The similar image, but of a smaller resolution, is used in 4 Wikipedia articles, and is FP on English Wikipedia. Please take a look at discussion page for the image. I got many requests for a higher resolution image, so I tried to do my best. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Ok, I see. —kallerna™ 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Cool idea, but I don't see the quality in it. The blur does not look cool here. It is high EV, so it may be a good VI candidate. If it's FP somewhere else, my $0.02 is it shouldn't be for quality. Not saying it's an easy shot. Thanks for taking it. --Specious (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a blur, it calls distortion. In some of the droplets you could actually see the cables of the bridge. Just think about this such a huge structure as a bridge's tower and its cables fit in a rain droplet... Anyway thank you for the vote. I did enjoy reading your oppose reason.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the bridge in the drolets, and it's fine. But the droplets themselves are blurry everywhere by the centre. The image is particularly blurry towards the corners. I understand that achieving a deep enough DOF may be impossbile. Sometimes, it's impossible to make a quality image. So, I'm not bashing the execution. --Specious (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is a macro shot of windshield of my car. It is all, but impossible to have all droplets sharp. First of all because it is a macro and second of all because the windshield has some lean of course. It might be interesting to know that depennding on the angle of that lean, one might see droplets in some cars models, while in others there are no droplets seen. Please feel absolutely free critique the execution. I do not consider myself to be a good photographer, but sometimes I take rather interesting pictures IMO. Anyway thank you for your interest in my image.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my Jeep Wrangler had a flat windshield. So did the Hummer I stumbled upon today. Not criticising your car, but perhaps it wasn't the best instrument to use here. A set-up could be constructed. We're talking about featured pictures here, the best of the best, cream of the crop. --Specious (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Nice idea, good execution :-). @User:Specious I will vote on that hypothetical better execution when it is submitted ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong  Support. Your cleverness in composing this photo was extraordinary. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose A photography that isn't really featured picture quality. --staka.^talk 04:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's an interesting effect; beats another bug picture. I'll support until a better one comes along. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Tomás on the 'eye': the effect is cute, but unfortunately execution is poor. Lycaon (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with Fioreze Conan (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It shines out --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Goosta (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose  Support Great but not valuable --Pom² (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • May I please ask, if you read my explonation above that the lower resolution similar image is used in 4 wikipedia article and is FP on English Wikipedia. This image has a great Enciclopedic Value.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

    • Ok, I didn't figure out this kind of usage --Pom² (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not too keen on abstract photos when I don't see any meaning to it (Do not take it personaly though, just a personal understanding of it). Benh (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

and I think there are better ways to show refraction phenomena. Benh (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Benh, your oppose is fine. If you opposed for quality or no wow, I would not have said a second word, but...I like to point out that the similar, but lower resolution image has been the top image in w:refraction for a year. Do you really believe, that if there was a better way to show refraction, the image would have been allowed to be there for such a long time? It is also used in three other articles. You know how much I like atmospheric optics. May I please ask you to share with me what are better ways to show refraction phenomena that it would be both beautiful and scientific? Please do not take it personaly, but I believe, if you said that there are better ways, you should have had something in mind? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I like the mood. --Lošmi (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry - not enough in focus. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)