This image is sufficiently large and detailed. It is a perfectly iconic image of a candle. The article appears in candle, Plasma (physics), and Template:User_AI. This image was not created by a wikipedia user but has a stable and verifiable copyright tag.
Nominate and support. - Vicarious 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo, significant size and resolution and looks good. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The inner structure of the flame is invisible due to overexposure. I'd like to see the different zones in the flame clearly. --Janke | Talk 15:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Janke; lacks detail where it's most needed--ragesoss 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it. KILO-LIMA 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ACK Janke Mikeo 16:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Janke. Its a fine image in composition but the exposure is off. In opposing this, we are encouraging a superior photo to be produced. Best not to forget that. It isn't a difficult photo to replicate or improve on. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ack Janke, Diliff. Another photo challenge? --Dschwen 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like it is not that easy. This image is shot at 3 stops under, and there is still a little burn-out, while the blue edge at the bottom of the flame has all but disappeared. Might need a composite image of several exposures. Anyone? --Janke | Talk 09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such a picture is in fact not easy. If overexposure in the core parts of the flame is avoided, everything but this core disappears. But it is possible to make the area of overexposure smaller, so that the parts of the flame with lesser radiation density become better visible. Another objection to this picture is the distorted shape of the flame, probabely caused by the photographer's breath. Calderwood 21:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the one thing I like about this image is the shape of the flame! Isn't it amazing how people see things in different light! ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, for me this is a very familiar experience, but each time amazing nevertheless Calderwood 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Regardless of the difficulty of doing better, it's clear that better can be done. I'll grant a support vote to a better image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good photo of a not so good flame Kessa Ligerro 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image AImage B
Comment There are now two new images of candle-flames where colour-shift is deliberately applied in order to enhance the visibility of the colour-zones Roger McLassus 12:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC):[reply]
Good try, but for scientific reasons I'd really prefer a drawing over these two images. --Janke | Talk 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me manipulated photographs are a better option for scientific purpose, provided they are manipulated uniformly. By the way, Roger, did you already consider nominating these two pictures here? They might be useful for some articles. Calderwood 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, do these manipulated photos show the correct outlines of the zones in the flame? I.e. where are the unburnt hydrocarbons, where do we have plasma, where soot, where carbon burning? --Janke | Talk 09:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo, significant size and resolution and looks good. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
