Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/:Bismuth crystal
- Reason
- encyclopedic macro photography of a bismuth crystal with scale ratio
- Articles this image appears in
- Bismuth
- Creator
- Micha L. Rieser
- Support as nominator --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I've been meaning to make some bismuth crystals myself sometime. Because this is a studio shot I find it fair to demand near perfection. The colour cast in the background suggests a while balance adjustment is in order. Compared to the other image I have added for comparison I find the fine detail lacking. I think the image needs a contrast adjustment, perhaps some sharpening and also some noise reduction in places. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see your points. The crystal is constant sharp not like your comparison. All details are there. There is a big scope of brightness and darkness and a big scope of colors. The background is a nice gradient. The picture looks very natural because of not two much image processing. That was the point it became featured picture in the german wikipedia. Sharpen and conrast adjustment would destroy the clear impression of that picture. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, the second shot is better with higher resolution, I like that one. --Pstanton 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Comment I don't think "the second shot" is up for vote. Omnibus (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support original. Has much more snap than comparison image. Omnibus (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I have to agree with Noodle snacks... If it's a studio shot, I think the background should be a consistant colour, not dark-to-light, etc. SpencerT♦C 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Alephalpha (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Spencer. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per myself, The other specimen is of a much less impressive size, that is why the depth of field is narrow, the peak sharpness is much higher though. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Fir0002 10:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)