Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Droplet

Water Droplet[edit]

Splash caused by a droplet falling from about 1.2m of height. Not perfect but pretty good.
Other versions: 01, 02, 02, 03, 04, 06, 07

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 07:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you tell us more why it should be an FP? I probably have the same bias as others here - it looks pretty, but it's currently only used to illustrate Water, for which it's not the best photo. Technically there are certain obvious deficiencies - bottom left out of focus, awkward lighting, looks like your reflection just right of centre at the bottom, a reflection of an overhead light etc. For such an "abstract" photo (illustrating a concept, rather than some concrete in the world), these things are distracting. All in all, neither this nor the other versions of the photo really "do it for me". I have to admit that I like most of the other photos at Commons [1] better - they're sharper, have more detail, more interesting shapes, and more interesting backgrounds than the vague blue wall well and truly beyond the depth of field. Stevage 11:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It just doesn't work. I don't really know why, but it isn't very striking. --Pharaoh Hound 15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This picture shows the waveform(s) created. Aesthatically, it's striking in that even a mundane occurence as a drop of water can be beautiful. asnatu 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Takes something relatively simple and makes it striking, don't see any major technical problems either. --Scot ^t 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice picture of a water droplet. Illustrative too. Mikeo 20:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't like the lighting. I think that the light is too uneven with a burnout on the bottom left and is too dark around the drop itself. I find some of the other, similar, files in the Commons to be better photos overall, although they also exhibit lighting problems. SteveHopson 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Support Well captured. --Aled D 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Aled D, I like the state of the splash in this one. --Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 21:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not that special. An image this easy to reproduce should be perfect, and even if it were, I'm not sure if this is FP material. If you compare it to lets say the dripping faucet animation the encyclopedic value of this image would rate rather low. --Dschwen 12:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Pel99 (talk • contribs) .
Oppose - in the end, I don't think it's good enough. It's not especially encyclopaedic, and there are too many flaws when compared to some better examples out there. And I bet you can get a better one, Fir0002. Stevage 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Dont like the lighting difference and I don't really see it as very encyclopaedic.say1988 02:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd be happy to support this on Commons FPC, but it's a little uninformative, given the animation as mentioned by Dschwen. enochlau (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. no reason to put this on FPC! --Songloed 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first and only contrib. enochlau (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As SteveHopson. Froggydarb 10:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]