Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Focus stacking microscopy

Focus Stack Microscopy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 09:26:59 (UTC)

Original - Focus stacking (for extended depth of field) in bright field light microscopy. This example is of a diatom microfossil in diatomaceous earth. Top left are the three source image slices at three focal depths. Top right are the contributions (black is no contribution, white is full contribution) of that focal slice to the final "focus stacked" image. Bottom is the resulting focus stacked image with an extended depth of field. Extended depth of field by focus stacking is a powerful tool for light microscopy as at high magnification the depth of field can be extremely shallow, down to around 1 μm.

Reason

Great EV, high res, really interesting. Note previous successful nomination for focus stacking photographs Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Focus_stacking_Tachinid_fly.jpg. IMHO, this nom explains the technique much more clearly.

Articles in which this image appears

Focus stacking

FP category for this image

Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

User:Zephyris

• Support as nominator --Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous related nom [1] Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Quality isn't really up to date, but it illustrates the subject well. --Niabot (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- The leading picture in the article (the fly) illustrates the concept much more clearly. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And? They can both be within wikipedia's best work... The fly is already a FP, btw. PS. I don't agree that the fly illustrates it more clearly, but you're entitled to your (wrong) opinion. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Of course they can both illustrate well the concept and reach FP status! But I find this picture unnecessarily complicated and aesthetically poor (an important component). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Adam, if they both serve to illustrate the same thing, they should not both be FPs. Just because one portrait of an actor (for instance) has high EV, does not mean that they all do. Of course, the actor at different stages in his or her career, or at important moments, or in character, or whatever, could be featured in addition to the initial portrait, but pictures serving the same encyclopedic purpose... I'm not saying that that is the case here; I have no opinion on this image at this time. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was bit flippant with my remarks, I agree with you 100% that 2 images with the same EV should not be both FPs. But this image shows a differnt a application of focus stacking - namelt micrographs (vs photographs for the fly image). I think there's heaps of room for both as FPs. Also I disagree, respectfully, that the fly is the better image. I feel it's misleading how images are pre-blended, and I really like how this image shows which parts of each image are used for the final product. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Gabeguss (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Interesting and informative. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:FocusStack BrightFieldLightMicroscopy DiatomaceousEarth.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 03:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)