Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/surfacemount closeup

Surface-mount closeup
Self nomination. A closeup photograph of a printed circuit, showing various kinds of surface-mount technology. Used on the article surface-mount technology. The angled view allows us to better see the heights of the various components, but unfortunately introduces a (hopefully acceptable) limited depth of field - John Fader 22:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Weak support. While not technically perfect, I like this photo, especially the reddish tint. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Shows the surface mounted components very nicely -- Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe it would be interesting to have a version where the components are described with text on the image itself, would be quite illustrative. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I added a glowy annotated version to the image page.  I'd welcome comments as to how this might be improved. - John Fader
 * Neutral I like the idea, color and composition but I don'lt like that the top of the picture gets blurry. I can imagine that it's difficult to take this sort of picture perfectly. Maybe it just looks blury when I look at the big version... [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 02:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't like the blurry bit either, although I agree that the rest of the photo is quite nice. Enochlau 01:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. It'd be nice if the out-of-focus area had a bottom counterpart, but this is a good picture anyway. Rhobite 05:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice and something different - and a very detailed description too. -- Solipsist 07:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak support... The depth of field issue might be solved a little bit by getting a little further away and using a zoom. Sometimes a little fuzziness can be good though (see Image:Soda bubbles macro.jpg). A very illustrative and interesting photograph nonetheless. Matthewcieplak 02:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The light and the field of depth are not in the featured area. Still great for an article though. Janderk 23:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q &#8734; 22:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --Fir0002 04:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Fredrik | talk 16:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not sharp enough as a still photo for FP inclusion. - Bevo 16:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've seen sharper macro photography. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  17:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not promoted. +8/-5 assumed support vote from nominator. (+7.5/-4.5 counting "weak" votes as halves). ed g2s  &bull;  talk  17:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)