Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1.jpg

Paper Clip Surface Tension

 * Reason:Inspired by a recently delisted image. The lighting perfectly allows the person viewing it to see what the surface of the water is doing. It also demonstrates There are also some interesting optical effects going on. This is a focus stack, there is an alternate on the image page that isn't stacked, and another with different lighting. It was a bit of a pain to get the paper clip to float, and the glass was not perfectly level, so it floated to one side, but the surface tension is also shown on the edge of the glass as a result. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles this image appears in:Water (molecule)
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Congrats on getting the clip to float and technically it's not bad but it's still leaving me a bit... unsatisfied. I'd really like to see this with much higher magnification at much lower angle so that you can really see the water "walls" of the valley the clip is making. --Fir0002 11:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to oppose... until I tried it myself. Getting a needle to float was quite easy but showing the water bending quite difficult. Could you take another try with the end of glass not showing and the image cropped in such a way that only the clip and water show? Is the water coloured to show the bending? Good shot BTW ;)--Muhammad (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention it in the caption. But the water level is higher than the edge of the glass (you can see that at the front), so the edge of the glass also demonstrates surface tension, and gives information as to the colour of the glass. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The size of the clip in picture is small and cropping reduces the size to less than 1000px as per requirements. Also, the stack is not perfectly done. So overall IMO good picture but not FP standards, sorry. --Muhammad (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the image is surface tension, which is also demonstrated at the edge of the glass. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know but still size is small when the out of focus (IMO unnecessary space) is cropped out and quality not so good. --Muhammad (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Fir0002. The inconsistent background at right distracts from the technical merit of the demonstration.  Durova Charge! 17:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Attached an edit that desaturates yellow entirely, making the background shades of grey. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Conditionally weak support (that is, weak support, but could become regular support) - Why does the water look so blue? Is it colouring to emphasise the surface, diffraction from the coloured glass, or some other aspect? Clarifying this in the captions and on the image page would be sufficient to upgrade this to regular support. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Its in a blue glass, it helped get some contrast over the contours of the surface. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support, and I agree with everything said above. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Initially, I had a difficult time convincing myself that this was actually water. The color seems unrealistic (even though it is really blue from the glass), and I actually thought it was a rubber topper (almost like a stretched balloon) on this glass. But then I wondered how such a light object could put such a dent in rubber like that. It almost looks like an optical illusion and should probably be redone so that the color isn't an issue. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 23:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually tried some with a clear glass (deleted now). It is difficult to show really clearly what the surface is doing without a bit of colour. See this for a clear glass example. Noodle snacks (talk)
 * Oppose - Although its a tricky shot to pull off, I would prefer something with fewer distracting elements. Maybe something similar to or . I'm not convinced we can't do better. Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anyone seen File:Surface_Tension_01.jpg? It's a cleaner (although perhaps not clearer) illustration, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - After looking at the image found by Kaldari, I believe it is possible to do better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I decided to put my money where my mouth is and try to get a better shot myself. It took me an hour to get the damn paperclip to float, but I finally did it! I can't say I'm overwhelmed by any of my attempts (I'm not a great photographer), but I thought they might give Noodle snacks some ideas for improvement... Kaldari (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Neat trick here. Fletcher (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1: Much better without the yellow band.  The other offerings aren't, in my opinion, as clean, clear, interesting, or pretty as this one.   Mae din \talk 16:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - One hour? I did it at first try! Here are two more pics in the gallery -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fairy muff on some of the angles. But the lighting in any of those images isn't even close to as clear. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess my paperclip was too heavy :P Kaldari (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question - what's the significance of using a paperclip for this? just wondering... might be easier objects to use to give same or better effects...   Gazhiley (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Theoretically you could use a lot of different things. Paperclips are one of the heaviest things you can easily float on water though, so they provide a good demonstration. No one's going to be impressed by a feather floating on water, for example. Water striders provide a good example as well, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * fair enough... Just curious as it seemed entirely random object...  :D Gazhiley (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Fir0002. For what it's worth, my attempt has joined the ranks above : ).  It's good at thumbnail, but I was having problems with DOF and camera shake so it's rather unsharp at full size.  Time3000 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - this is excellent. I disagree with editing out the yellow, I think it adds contrast to the photo and the one without just looks so gray and bleak. The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for edit 1.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support E1 Colors and composition seem a bit odd but I don't think the alternatives show the deformation of the water as well. Fletcher (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support edit 1 per nom.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 01:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 10:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)