Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ferrofluid Magnet under glass edit.jpg

Ferrofluid Large Spikes


This picture, by Gmaxwell, already a Commons FP, is not only quite beautiful and surreal, but also very informative. While the previous nom for different picture of ferrofluid gained a lot of support, it ultimately was not promoted due to bad quality, which this one doesnt lack. It appears in Ferrofluid.


 * Nominate and support Original or Edit 1. - Nautica Shad e  s  21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support SOADLuver 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I remember this appearing on the talk page, so clearly either could pass for FP. Why don't you add the other version as another picture to consider in either a new nomination or on this page? -- Tewy  04:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Nautica Shad e  s  06:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I really like the alternative version but isn't it overly dark? Lighting could be a lot better - its hard to make out the shape (apart from the spikes contrasting against the background). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for encyclopedic value I also prefer the alternate version, since it shows the magnet, but I share Diliff's concern about the lighting. --Dschwen 13:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose both Neutral for original, oppose alternate version and edit 1. I find the out-of-focus edge of the glass to be quite distracting. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose both. I'm sure this image has encyclopedic and scientific interest . But it also suffers, as a photograph, from obvious technical and aesthtetical drawbacks which I cannot ignore. - Alvesgaspar 22:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand technical drawbacks, but aesthtetical? Do you mind explaining? Nautica Shad e  s  07:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, it has been said already: too dark and glass unfocused, in both versions (I think technical drawbacks affect aesthetics). But I've just seen the third version, which seems much better. Please give me some time... - Alvesgaspar 08:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose original, Very weak support alternate . It's a bit of a Catch-22 situation. The original is a close-up on the ferrofluid, and shows more details, but doesn't show the magnet. The alternate is further away, and shows less details, but shows the magnet. The original is overexposed while the alternate is underexposed. But overall, I think the magnet is important, so I'll go with the alternate version for my support. -- Tewy  22:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support alternate version edit 1. A nice improvement, but nothing can correct the out-of-focus area between the magnet and the ferrofluid. -- Tewy  03:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support alternate version edit 1 - Better now. - Alvesgaspar 08:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 1 Encyclopedic, showing the magnet, even if not overly aesthetic. --Janke | Talk 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * original - The only thing I can see that is an improvement with the alternate version is the inclusion of what I'm assuming is the magnet. Otherwise, it's an ugly photograph with poor composition.  I think the first one is impressive.  drumguy8800   C   T  05:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From an aestetic point of view, the first one is clearly superior, but from an encyclopaeidic point opf view the alternate is better. Though I am unsure if the small amount it is better over-rules the advantages of the origional. I would have to weak support either the origional or Alternate-edit 1. say1988 06:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for alternate version edit 1. The original is visually appealing, but revealing the magnet helps explain the structure, and showing the surroundings instead of a mirror image provides clarifying information. T Steinway 12:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support version 1 as per Fir0002; the profile of the glass table in the edits is just a blur. • Le  on
 * Support for alternative version edit 1. I have to say, it illustrates the situation very well. I don't care if it's not 100% problem-free. It's eye-catching and it's encyclopedic. &mdash; Ultor_Solis (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great picture...very intriguing. Buphoff 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support any, I'm glad Gmaxwell reconsidered freely licensing these images. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tariqabjotu (talk • contribs).