Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A small flower refracted in rain droplets.jpg

File:A small flower refracted in rain droplets.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 08:08:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A small flower refracted in rain droplets.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A small flower refracted in rain droplets.jpg

•  Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by ברוקולי - nominated by ברוקולי -- Kooritza (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kooritza (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Trongphu (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - pretty, but I see limited educational value. --Claritas (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  Really? Dr. Andrew Young from San Diego University believes otherwise. Here's his discretion of the image: "What a lot of beautiful effects are illustrated here! Images formed by reflection; both real and virtual images formed by refraction; and some fine examples of the contact angle where the droplets meet the plant surface. In some places, the plant cuticle is waxy, and the contact angle is near 90 degrees; in other places, the water wets the surface, and the contact angle is small. The picture is a real museum of physics, in addition to being a beautiful image. Thanks!"--Mbz1 (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Very little information is actually conveyed to me concerning the optical phenomena by the image, and the species of plant is unidentified. --Claritas (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

    This is what differs you and the professor :-) I added ID to the plant.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

    • Thanks. --Claritas (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Nice to see your new work! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you,Michael.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Support--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing fancy พ.s. 09:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  What a highly intelligent reason to oppose the nomination :-) especially after I provided the description made by a person who really knows what he is talking about versus lycaon, who usually does not. BTW, lycaon, I meant to ask you how come that your sock user:biopics asked your sock user:Wetenschatje do not edit his user page? I mean when one is talking to himself, isn't it better to do it in private? No worries, I will not ask for an interaction ban to renew because after the first time instead of one lycaon we have got 3 :( Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't it be better to crawl back under your stone instead of spitting venom all over again Dr. Young/mbz1 ? พ.s. 23:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

    Lycaon, what did you mean under "Dr. Young/mbz1"? Ah, anyway... It is silly to try to understand a talk of a person who talks to himself in public as you did or supports the nomination of the leaves in the forest after the rain because it is "something different at last. Gentle pastel colours. Not your run-of-the-mill church or pano", and then opposes a similar, but more interesting image with the reason "nothing fancy". BTW I do not mind you poison. I kind of missed it, but could you please add something smart and/or funny to your "poison" the next time you are to spit it? Oh, yes, could you please say "hi" to Estrilda for me? --01:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

•  OpposePer W., your other pictures are better. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per description of the image written by Dr. Andrew Young.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose DOF to low. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is low, like it usually is in macro shots.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It is also the setting you used. At f/4.5, it's no wonder DOF is shallow (I don't say it's not appropriate...). - Benh (talk)

Well, in the image I linked to F number was 2.8. That's why I linked to it - to demonstrate how such images are taken by a much better photographers than I am.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose -- Mostly out of focus, due to shallow dof (automatic exposure was probably not the best solution). I don't like the tight crop and the distracting background either. I suppose it won't be difficult to repeat the shot. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena