Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Soap bubble ggb.jpg

Golden Gate Bridge reflection

 * Reason:In the terminology of, this image satisfies not one but three of the sufficient criteria: it is beautiful, impressive, and informative:
 * It is a truly striking image; moreover, its secondary depiction is of an object of great beauty;
 * It is impressive by virtue of the technical skill required to capture such an image;
 * And it is informative to the extent that it demonstrates to its viewers the depth of field available in a soap bubble.
 * Articles this image appears in: NONE
 * Creator:Mila Zinkova


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Soobrickay 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I dont mean to sound suspicious but why is there no evidence of something behind the soap bubble? I cant imagine you taking a black background to the golden gate bridge. But even if you did, you yourself, holding a camera, would show up in the reflection. And given the lighting there would be some parts of the scene, both in front of, and behind the soap bubble. Because of that it doesn't even look as though you cut in out in photoshop. Maybe there are other explanations but this looks like a fisheye shot with alterations more than an actual soap bubble?? -Fcb981 01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was cut and pasted to a black background in a photo shop. Nothing else was done with the image.Here's one of original images: [[Image:Ggb_reflection_in_a_soap_bubble.JPG|thumb|200px|the Golden Gate Bridge, as captured in the reflection from a soap bubble]]. My reflection sometimes was seen and sometimes was not. It is just how soap bubbles are working. Below is, for example, half bubble with my reflection:[[Image:Ggb_in_soap_bubble_3.JPG|thumb|200px|the Golden Gate Bridge, and my reflection in a half soap bubble]]--Mbz1 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

MER-C 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Yeah, it does look pretty suspicious.  Maddie   was here   02:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know if "suspicious" is the right word, but your concerns are valid. Is the nominator the creator of the image? --Iriseyes 05:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. The creator of this image is Mbz1. I've already left him a note. J      Are you green?  15:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, primarily for unnatural background... and while it may be cool... you don't need a bridge to represent a soap bubble (and the background obfuscates the fact that it floats, etc.) and it surely doesn't represent the bridge well. gren グレン 06:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't represent the bridge well. Who would try to represent GGB in a soap bibble? The thing is I took so many pictures of the bridge that I'm looking for something new all the time. Here's the  image, which shows reflection of the Bridge in the rain drops on my car window. Does it represent the Bridge well? Of course it does not, but I believe it is a fun picture.--Mbz1 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Come on! This certainly is no soap bubble. Atleast not one made from soap and water, flaoting in the air. The reflectance is much to high, sthe surface structure is off, it does not even look sprerical (the perspective is wring for the dark blotches bottom left), the edge looks fuzzy, there is no reflection of the photographer. What also makes me wonder is the reflection around the edge, it looks like a window frame. --Dschwen 08:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the article. --Dschwen 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the creator of the image and I do like it enough to be nominated here, so I guess I'll Oppose it too. Still I cannot agree with user Dschwen. He says:"Come on! This certainly is no soap bubble. Atleast not one made from soap and water, flaoting in the air." Well he was right only in the last sentance. That soap bubble attached itself to a nearby building and did not brust. Did it stop to be a soap bubble? I don't think so. By the way, if somebody knows how to make a soap bubble with no soap and with no water I'd be really interested to learn the process. I like to play with soap bubbles. Here's the image, which shows how soap bubbles were made:[[Image:Ggb%29in_soap_bubble_2.JPG|thumb|200px|the Golden Gate Bridge, as captured in the reflection from a soap bubble]] As you could see it is a normal process of making soap bubbles. Here's one more example [[Image:Ggb_in_soap_bubble_1.jpg|thumb|200px|left|the Golden Gate Bridge, as captured in the reflection from a soap bubble]] of a soap bubble with GGB reflection. That bubble was floating. Any more questions? By the way I put the first image back to the  article, but you could remove it again or better yet request it to be deleted. I care no more.--Mbz1 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Ok, my assessment was based on two things, the soft edge and the odd transparency. On the unmanipulatied pic it looks like a soap bubble, but the manipulation ruins the pic for me. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who was confused by it. So, do we want such a picture to illustrate the soap bubble article? --Dschwen 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the picture from article. I've also removed 3 other pictures of mine from the article too. --16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Relax, log off, drink a beer, log back on, readd the nice bubble pics, and don't give a crap about what I think about the nominated pic :-). --Dschwen 19:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose With respect to the nominated image and not the others; it looks somewhat artificial. Chris Buttigieg 11:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose i dont understand what its supposed to illustrate? and if it is in none of our articles, then its somewhat unencyclopedic
 * To understand what it illustrates you should have imagination, which only lucky few have, but, if you read all posts maybe you'd understand what it illustrates. Yet I see you were in such a hurry to oppose that you even forgot to put your name at the end.--Mbz1 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1