Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ornamentglas B - Ansicht 1.jpg

File:Ornamentglas B - Ansicht 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2021 at 08:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ornamentglas B - Ansicht 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ornamentglas B - Ansicht 1.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
•  Info created and uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Info It is a picture of opposites: straight lines and indefinable surfaces, complementary colors, sharpness and blurring. --XRay 💬 08:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay 💬 08:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you very much, XRay, for the nomination! – I guess you may wonder what you are looking at ;–). The photo shows a detail of a window, ca. 8.5 × 5.7 cm (3.35 × 2.23 inch). The window pane is made from a simple kind of so-called decorative glass (a.k.a. patterned glass, textured or obscure glass); it looks like this product, and the vertical stripes in the photo are produced by the fluted structure of the glass. The decorative glass acts as a diffuser. The colours you see in the photo are actually an image of the outside world, but heavily diffused or “abstracted” by the decorative glass; the red comes from the roof of a house, the green from the plants in the garden. Because the glass works as a diffuser, everything in the photo consists of smaller and larger gradations. IMHO it’s amazing that something as simple as a fluted window pane, if you only look closely enough, shows these complex gradients and creates an abstract image. --Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Andrei (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Abstract beauty! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Very striking, nicely spotted and captured! --Lambda (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 07:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I do not see here anything interesting from encyclopedic point of view and also from art of photography. IHMO, the photo of this material inside building (this product in the text of Aristeas) looks much better. -- Karelj (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• And again and again: Not every image has to be primarily suitable for Wikipedia. An encyclopedic value is not required. However, my imagination does not go that far to rule out a possible use in this context as well. It would be good if we could concentrate here on one look through the eyes of a media library and not always indulge in the limitations of the encyclopedic value. --XRay 💬 11:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• And again and again: This image is IHMO out of category FP. -- Karelj (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• For example, this could be an excellent cover image for a textbook, such as a book on optics; or it could be a good illustration of the aesthetic value of decorative glass in architecture. Commons is not simply a repository of media for Wikipedia, it is an open content repository for any educational media, whether it is appropriate for use in an encyclopedia, textbook, news, reference, or anything else. And of course, it can be used as an illustration of the obscuring properties of decorative glass like this; even if it's possible that an image which shows both the glass and the scene behind it would be better for such a purpose, featured picture is based on "wow" factor, not necessarily peak illustrative value, and this particular image does have that "wow" factor. --Lambda (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Strong support I thought when I first saw this that Cart had returned to nominate another of her own images . And I, too, can see many educational uses for it, such as illustrating diffraction. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Daniel, this isn't diffraction. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: Looks like it, though ... well then what is it, optically? Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Aristeas describes it already. Diffraction is a lightwave interference effect, best seen with light of one wavelength such as a laser. -- Colin (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Like an op art painting -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Poco a poco (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Others