Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hail

Hail


Hail, up close... and personal! ... fractured to reveal the internal structure. If anyone wants to improve the sharpness/lighting/contrast, the source TIF is linked on the image description page.


 * Nominate and support. -  BRIAN  0918 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Some of the other magnified images you've put up are wonderful, but sorry, this does nothing for me. I find the image neither attractive nor particularly informative about hail. --jjron 09:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Jjron. -- AJ24 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See Jjron. Maybe I'm too used to SEM images, so the novelty factor doesen't exist for me. Also these kind of images are too detached from normal people's reality. It might work with a fly at 50x, but with this pic it is hard to make a connection to hail. --Dschwen 17:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? The picture even includes an inset showing the balls of hail that were magnified. I don't see how it's "hard to make a connection". I could understand if it was something 10,000x magnified, but not at only 250x. There is even a scale. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-24 23:39
 * I think what he is saying is that with a fly, you can usually recognise which part of the fly you are looking at, but when you look at this SEM of the hail, it is difficult to know exactly what you're seeing. Is this a tiny fragment of the hail? The entire hailstone? Why are there two similar objects next to each other? Are they two halves of the same hailstone or is that the symmetry of the hailstone as-is? What is the inset showing me? Four hailstones? (they're basically unrecognisable as hailstones to me) All these questions remain in my mind, and I would imagine that a lot of others would have similar questions. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)