Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hafnium 2

Hafnium edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2010 at 22:04:28 (UTC)

Original - Hafnium crystal bar

Reason: This is another gorgeous and detailed element image by Alchemist-hp. The first nomination didn't get promoted due to not enough votes.
Articles in which this image appears: Hafnium
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
Creator: Alchemist-hp

Support as nominator --~Nerdy Science Dude 22:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~oppose~~ the image is cookie-cut at the bottom. 70.170.117.40 (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose because I now created an account. The unwelcoming of anonymous users was a disgrace though. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support so what it is cookie cut at the bottom? It can be photoshopped by somebody willing with a bit of experience. wink, wink. Nergaal (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is there, it does suffer from some unfortunate reflections of the photographer, as in he was obviously wearing a bright red shirt, not sure you can eliminate that entirely for something like this though. Not sure if this one is on the table to be reshot with a cube or not... hopefully Alchemist weighs in. Otherwise I think it's good and I have a soft-spot for elements anyway. Oh and striking the anonymous vote like above per rules. — raeky t 05:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The visibility of the shirt is good actually, since it does not give that desaturated feeling like other rock pictures. The subject is obviously pasted and it looks to apparent unfortunately. It is too ridged andat least a smoother cut would have been better. You are right, I can't vote, but you all very know that it is true. 70.170.117.40 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image wasn't cut out from it's background, it was photographed on a white surface. It's not a "rock" but an elemental metal, these are it's crystalline structure, a smooth lump of metal is far less encyclopedic than one showing the natural crystalline structure of the elemental metal. Your comments are nonsensical. — raeky t 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to be cut from the background though - there is aliasing along the bottom edge - not something you would get from a DSLR due to its anti-aliasing filter and bayer algorithm sensor. Certainly, there should be some sort of post-processing explanation for the aliasing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short of Alchemist saying so, we can only assume, but I do see your point, it COULD be, but irregardless is this enough to oppose on? — raeky t 10:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the absence of Alchemist saying anything on the subject either for or against my assertion, we are free to make educated guesses. :-) I think his withdrawal notice below implies that I was right though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as creator Sorry, but I can't reshot this sample. It isn't longer available. It is very difficult to take a photo from 1001 mirrors. Conclusion: we have only this and an older image in its history. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, if possible then I withdraw this nomination. I think it isn't good for FP. VI perhaps.~~ Diliff infos are right. I try to take a photo from an other sample incl. a 1cm3 cube :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you need to withdraw just yet. Just mention on the image page that the natural background has been removed. People are less likely to oppose if they don't think they are being deceived. 14:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Info the shadow is photoshoped. It was in the past simple to dificult for me to take a good image with a real shadow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Removal of the background and the reflections in the metal are negligible issues. upstate NYer 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff the distracting and unprofessional aliasing between the hafnium sample and the shadow is mitigated, or if the shadow is entirely replaced. (I hope you weren't winking at me, Nergaal XD) It is otherwise technically very good. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like it except for the photoshoped shadow. Maybe you can work on that and present an alternative version? SMasters (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe Alchemist will upload the original unedited version for us to compare? — raeky t 09:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only for a view: hafnium crystal bar without the shadow. Do we need it too? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That one looks cutout from the background too ;-).. if you plan on making another Hf image in the near future (within next year sometime) then we could just close this and wait for a better Hf image, if you don't have access to good samples of Hf in that time frame, then maybe we can do some photoshop magic on the original to make it less obvious it was cutout of a background. — raeky t 11:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Or we can renominate the new image again ;-) The background was a white glossy paper sheet, the lightning from all sides to the sample. My plan: I think I take better from all the other elements photos at first. Later ... I'm not a clairvoyant :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hf-crystal bar.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]