Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tantalum single crystal and 1cm3 cube.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Tantalum single crystal and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A high purity (99.999 %) tantalum single crystal, made by the floating zone process, some single crystalline fragments of Tantalum, as well as a high purity (99,99 % = 4N) 1 cm3 tantalum cube for comparison.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes! --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 07:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course. --Mylius (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I was not to review this kind of images, because I do not find this recurrent thema very interesting (only my personnal opinion), but a support of course sounds strange to me. Why "of course" ? It's for me the occasion to say this. Maybe the technical method used to obtain this metallic sample is rare or hard to use. Maybe the subject or the object are rare. Maybe it has a high educationnal value, but I'm sorry, and I know here that I'm not politically correct, and that I will maybe break a taboo, but I have to oppose because of two reasons : I do not see a real difficulty to take such studio pictures (ware it so difficult, we wouldn't have always two (sometimes three) current nominations of metallic samples here). Furthermore, may I say that I don't feel here any "wow" effect, as usually said here ? If I have an "of course" to say, it is : of course, the work of the scientist and photographer is very conscientious and has (as far as I'm able to judge) a real scientific value, and is very respectable. But I think that, maybe, and respectfully, all of these productions are not FP. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm, :-( OK, your opinion. But try to think about the following: you can say it for all the macros, panos and so on images. My images have a high resolution, the not simple focus stacking technique, the composition, the rare samples and the high value and education. I take photo for the wikipedia projects. What's missing else??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Please have a look on your talk page for another explanation. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry Jebulon. This picture has a thought-out composition and a very good lighting. Also focus stacking is not the easiest thing. Are you really sure it is so easy? --AngMoKio (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe not, but now I'm sure that following reviews for this sample (and maybe for nexts...) are more careful...--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ah, forgott my support too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ra'ike T C 17:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment some technical issues : I see something "brown", is it the natural color of the metal, or a disturbing reflection of the labo ? Furthermore, it seems to me that the "vertical parallelepiped" sample is too close of the "cubic" one. Would be better if a little of the background could be seeable between them. Then the composition looks not very good IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The tantalum rod is a round and high reflective mirrow. The "brown" area is a reflection. "vertical parallelepiped" sample is too close of the "cubic" --> yes, but I saw it first after my fifth stacking session. It was enough work for me for this sample. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It looks like this one is going to go through ... There is a new category under objects : Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals. Please place there, thanks. --ianaré (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Tantalum_single_crystal_and_1cm3_cube.jpg&oldid=40503090"