The picture shows three rare and beautiful Atmospheric Optical Phenomena: Fog Bow, Glory and the Spectre of the BrockenIt is a different picture taken a few minutes before the nominated picture. In my opinion it shows the glory a litlle bit better than the first one does
Reason
The picture shows three beautiful Atmospheric Optical Phenomena It is quite rare to see even one of these phenomena. It is much more rarer to see the three of them together. The picture also shows an interesting Fog, which, as you could see, formed below the Bridge, leaving the Bridge alone. Please notice that the picture was taken in such a way that the North Tower of Golden Gate Bridge is seen, that gives a viewer a prospective view of the phenomena against the Bridge. The picture has strong encyclopedic value.
Support as nominator — Mbz1 21:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It's a very good fog bow, but the Brocken spectre is very hard to see, and the glory is small. Still, nice work! Adam Cuerdentalk 22:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the Fog Bows in general are so huge that a fisheye lens is needed to capture one. That's why the Glory and the Spectre seems to be small. That's OK. The idea of the nominating that picture was to make the Wikepedia readers to learn more about the phenomena with the hope the next time they'll see one they would know what they are looking at.--Mbz1 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Comment. IMO enc or value of the pic do not increase with the number of phenomena depicted. On the contrary, I'd prefer pictures with one single phenomenon each, that makes it much clearer to see what's described. --Dschwen 22:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aga,I see, you are a specialist not only in soap bubbles, but also in Atmospheric Optics. Well, you are mistaken. The encyclopedic value of the picture is increased dramatically because all three phenomena are present.The scientists prefer to see the three of them together because it helps them to measure the size of the water droplets. These rare pictures are studied and analyzed by many scientists because the origin of some of these phenomenas is still not well understood. On the other hand, if it is confusing for you to concentrate at the three of them together (you probably are still confused by Golden Gate Bridge reflection in a soap bubble), maybe you could try to concentrate only at the Fog Bow. The Fog Bow is the most prominent phenomena at that picture.--Mbz1 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I don't think so. Thanks for the bringing my soap bubble image back to life. It is a nice image after all and it was really hard to capture.--Mbz1 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
The Brocken sprectre does not allow droplet size calculations, but both the Fog bow and the Glory provide enough information on their own. Calculation of the dropletsize is not what the primary concern of an FP should be. It should illustrate its articles well. It does show a nice fog bow, but for both the Brocken spectre and the glory there are better images in the respective articles. By the way, the Brocken is only 40mi from where I live :-). --Dschwen 07:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you live close to Brocken? How interesting! I've always wanted to visit the place. Have you ever seen the Spectre yourself? Any pictures? OK, lets go back to the nominated picture. Let's say 2 people are looking down and see a bright, beautiful fog bow. Let's say that one of them knows, that if he sees a fog bow, he should try to look for a glory and maybe hard-to-see spectre, so he looks, bents his head dawn and eventually sees one. They are not bright, but they are still very interesting to see,especially for the one, who's never seen them. On the other hand the second person has no idea that he could see something else, except a fog bow, so he looks at a fog bow and goes away without ever seeing the glory and the spectre. I could have taken a picture of a fog bow only, I could have cut a glory out in a photo shop,but I will not. I do not want to deny people the knowledge that all three phenomena could be seen together. I want people to know, if they see one, they should look for the others. The nominated picture does not intend to introduce all three phenomena at the equal level, it does intend to introduce the knowledge that they could be seen together. By the way the ones, who ever seen any ot these phenomena know that they are ever changing in their appearance. For example, that glory A Solar Glory was photographed few minutes before the nominated picture. You could see how much brighter it was, yet a fogbow was not bright at all. Now, would it be even more confusing, if I told you, that when I saw a fog bow, a glory and the spectre, I turned around and saw a corona too? So , if you see a fog bow and/or glory please turn around and take a look at the sun. You could see something else, yet be very, very careful with the looking at the Sun. It could hurt your eyes. I hope I answered all your questions,Dschwen, and now you're going to support the image:) (just kidding , I know you will not)--Mbz1 13:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Hm, yeah, you do make kind of a compelling argument. Never say never (about supporting...). --Dschwen 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is very low, and I don't say why you had to use a focal length of "0mm" to get this - it's distorted the image horribly and it looks like you could have easily got the full bow in with say a 17mm lens --Fir0002 22:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I've used 8mm fisheye. I do not have 0mm (does it exist at all?). I tried to get Golden Gate Bridge in view to show a fogbow compare to the Bridge to give the people, who are interested in atmospheric optics the knoledge that the rare phenomenas could be seen from Golden Gate Bridge. That fogbow would have never ever fit in 17mm. I assume you've seen many fogbows, glories and the Spectres of the Brocken and you sure know how they look in a real life to talk about the image quality. What? You have not seen any? I'm not sure what is your policy, but I usually try to avoid opposing the subjects I know nothing about like house flies, for example. I've also would have never oppose a nomination in the last few hours. Support yes, but never oppose. Thanks for stopping by. --Mbz1 02:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose per Fir. I agree that a 17mm lens would be plenty wide enough to capture this phenom and would reduce the distorsion significantly. As Dschwen commented on another candidate: "Lack of votes = lack of interest = not an interesting picture = not FP material". I also think that sometimes it is a good thing to not be a subject matter expert when voting on an image. Cacophony 08:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have changed your equation:Lack of votes = lack of interest = voters, who are not interested in atmospheric optics and are not eager to learn something new. You see one of my fogbows pictures was published at APOD, my other fogbow picture was published at Spaceweather.com, one more of my fogbow pictures was published in a very big magazine "Sky&Telescope".Each and every one of these sources are much more reliable than Wikipedia is in the matters concerning atmospheric optics. I wanted to evoke interest in a broader population. Well, I failed, but once again not because the picture is not interesting , but because Wikipedia readers are not interested in the picture. I feel sorry for them. I'm glad you are not one of them. I saw you were interested enough to visit the fogbow page and even make unnecessary changes in the titles under my pictures. It also looks as you were interested enough to vote. So, thanks for your interest in fogbows and my pictures of them.I also wish you good luck in capturing a fogbow with 17mm. It is of course, if you'll ever see one.--Mbz1 13:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Comment I guess Dschwen was right after all and I should request all Fog Bow page to be deleted for the lack of interest.--Mbz1 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted, I just don't think it is among the top .01% of all images on Wikipedia. Just because it is not FP quality does not mean that it should be removed. Thanks for your contribution and have a nice day! Cacophony 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that right? You really don't think fog bow page should be deleted? That's great! Thank you very much. I guess now I really could have a nice day. By the way the quality of the nominated picture is as good as it gets with fog bow pictures.--Mbz1 16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
No consensus --Peter 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is very low, and I don't say why you had to use a focal length of "0mm" to get this - it's distorted the image horribly and it looks like you could have easily got the full bow in with say a 17mm lens --Fir0002 22:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)