Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/LT-SEM snow crystals

LT-SEM snow crystals.jpg

Reason: I ran across this picture while adding some content to the article on Snow. I was very impressed with the wuality and detail of this image.
Articles this image appears in: Snow
Creator
Nominator: -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)

Support — -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting but appears to be out of focus, and also has many JPEG artifacts throughout. — Arjun 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Arjun. Perhaps there is an uncompressed version available somewhere? --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
opppose compression artifacts. Also, shouldn't the crystals be hexagonally symmetrical, rather than cubically? Debivort 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment why nominate this pic of all in snow. The artificially colored pics and are aesthetically much more pleasing. --Dschwen 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You gotta forgive me. This is my first feature picture nomination. I thought it was interesting because of how different it was than traditional plate or dendrite formation. It also had fairly high resolution. Well, guess I was the only person that impressed with the strange structure of the snowflake! Thanks for the feedback I will heed before nominating another picture for featured picture. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh no, please don't feel intimidated! I can understand your reason for nominating this picture, and for a first nomination it isn't so far out :-) --Dschwen 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seriously don't freak :D. It happens too all of us, for future reference consider watching other nominations so that you get a clue of how certain things will be judged. — Arjun 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Edit conflict!) Arjun...you just said what I was going to say... :-) ("It really isn't so far out; this is featured pictures, representing the very best of Wikipedia—the standards are high. This image is impressive in the thumbnail, but it has technical problems that prevent it from gaining support. A good way to learn what the standards are here is to participate in the voting, and to take a look at some of the already featured pictures.") --Tewy 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the encouragement! I will try to get into this area a little more, participate a little more in voting and understand a little more about it! Thanks again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think it is focus issue but rather the original resolution (useful resolution) is low and had been upsampled. Sidenote: How can SEM images have such a huge DOF compared to optical microscope or even macro images? --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a scanning microscope. The resolution is determined by the beam size which scans the object, and the beam size is independent from the object distance. If you will, the SEM has a reversed lightpath compared to an optical microscope. While the object distance is extremely short in an optical microscope (you almost push the lens on the object) the beam collumn in an SEM is a few feet long. --Dschwen 07:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Joe 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support . For the encyclopedic value of the image. Some times the images have to be evaluated in the context of subject it belongs to. In other words all the images can’t be rated on the same scale of ‘beauty’ the way conventional photos are measured for its visual pleasure. For example a surgical image would be treated precocious for the info content and it’s rarity than say for its gleaming image quality or colorfulness. I’m no crystal physics expert to rate how great this shot is, but this appears to me us an image with high technical value than the sheer aesthetical quality. That despite, the ‘image aberrations’. Pratheepps 12:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But issues were raised on the technical quality too. I have created a fair number of (albeit not low temp) SEM images, and think I can judge the technical quality aspects. And while SEM images tend to have a certain novelty factor just being an SEM image doesn't guarantee enc. We can argue about the aesthetical quality, and I agree my comment sounded a bit superficial :-), but the question that should be asked is whether the depicted crystal lump is representative of snow. --Dschwen 12:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I must agree with Dschwen that those picture he had were much better of an angle. Why1991 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Support This image really catches my eye. Fascinating, thought-provoking. Not something you can see everyday. However, it should be explained why the crystal structure looks cubical: are you sure this is snow? --Coppertwig 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]