Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aerogelbrick.jpg

Aerogelbrick
Shows the really nice comparison between an old brick and a sample of aerogel, which looks like a diffuse gas, but is indeed the world's lowest-density solid. Used currently in Aerogel. --Bricktop 23:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support (now the third version). Thanks for improving the pic! --Bricktop 23:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Another of the many images I was thinking about nominating at some point in time. I might clean up some specks and adjust the balances later. -- brian0918  &#153;  00:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Some cleanup sure would be usefull on this image! --Bricktop 00:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see a higher resolution. Then I could come back and support. Until then, neutral. (A vote that really doesn't mean a thing, does it?) Jonas Olson 06:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find any better resolution. At the source they only have an additional TIFF version, which is of same size and cleanness as the JPEG. --Bricktop 07:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional support to cleanup. Circeus 01:57, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Greatly exceeds expectations of an aerogel photograph.  --SEWilco 02:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Edited version. Amazing stuff! --Fir0002 07:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to support third version. If its alright with everyone else I'd even suggest removing my version. --Fir0002 11:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

+10 / -1 / 1 neutral with preference for #3 
 * Support Great picture! - Adrian Pingstone 07:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's my obligatory version. I used the original uncompressed TIFF, and tried to clean it up so that the edges on the brick remained sharp.
 * Support third version. -- brian0918  &#153;  09:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support third version. Enochlau 10:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Now =this= is cool. Denni &#9775; 02:18, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * Support Graphic, interesting and I learnt something. -- Solipsist 16:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too dark, and the lighting is fake. The whole image looks like it's trying too hard to be dramatic. - Pioneer-12 19:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's usually how good photographs are made. -- brian0918 &#153;  19:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good photographs are made in many ways--setups are just one way. Fakeness is not a virtue. A photograph can be an obvious setup but not appear "fake".... the chosen elements can be absurd, and the arrangment ridiculous, but it will appear as an honest expression of a desire to communicate a message through visual means. This just looks like a phony (see Catcher in the Rye), done to impress others for PR purposes. Furthermore, it is not particularly attractive or clever. Thumbs down. - Pioneer-12 22:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support third version. James F. (talk) 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)