Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Native copper

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 08:17:28 (UTC)

Reason: Beautiful picture, interesting to see how copper looks like in native form; even though not 1000px, still excellent (quite high resolution). Before cropping from File:Native Copper Macro Digon3.jpg, was 4000 x 2688 px, but too much whitespace. Alternative FP File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG isn't as interesting as this, and this picture is considered more encyclopaedic than Cu-Sheibe.JPG. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in which this image appears: Copper, Native metal, 2000s commodities boom
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
Creator: Materialscientist

Support as nominator --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –- sharpness is very poor. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea, but the depth of field is too low. Parts are in focus, and other parts are not in focus. You could try some focus stacking. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now it is > 1000x1000 px. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality isn't up to our normal element pictures, Copper is super easy to obtain so getting a high quality image is achievable, third, we have copper FP, although it's a crystal pattern. And finally this isn't pure copper, it's native copper, so it should not be in the infobox for the element page. — raeky t 16:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great potential; I like the specimen (if that's the right word?) and it has clear EV, but I just don't think the photo is up to scratch, technically, as above. It doesn't really compare with our other element FPs. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]