Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vitrification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vitrification

Molten glassy vitrified material poured from a crucible.
Molten glassy vitrified material poured from a crucible.
2nd version, removed scratches and marks
2nd version, removed scratches and marks
3rd version, auto-levelled
3rd version, auto-levelled
4th version, background to black
4th version, background to black

A striking image of an experiment at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in which radioactive waste materials are heated and "glassified" into obsidian-like insoluble ingots for eternal disposal. High detail and conrast with the depth of field just shallow enough to fix the viewers attention on the perfectly focused subject. Also nicely shows the viscous undefined phase transition of amorphous materials, I think. --Deglr6328 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support.--Deglr6328 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I liked this image, and so couldn't resist cleaning it up. I took the source TIFF and ran it through photoshop (maybe I went overboard?). So, now I submit a 2nd, cleaned-up version. And, sure why not, a 3rd version that's been "auto-levelled", which adjusts the contrast, shadow, and highlight. Support any of them. -- BRIAN0918  05:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I like the 3rd version better now. I contemplated doing that crop myself before submitting. Though I don't like that it's smaller than the original I'm sure this is an unavoidable consequence of the edits. Also, the contrast adjustment appears to have made the glass lighter in color, giving it an apparently higher blackbody temperature. Definitely NOT a big deal though. Very good work! Thank you! :o)--Deglr6328 17:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- I like them both, so either one will do. Nice shot. I like the third one best. TomStar81 05:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, any of them, slight preference for third one. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Actually, I like the first one best Junes 11:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It appears that originally, the only difference between 1 and 2 was some spots. Ehm. But I think the non-cropped version is better somehow, it's 'calmer' or something. I still support all versions though. (EDIT: prefer fourth Junes 11:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Junes 11:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support beautiful picture. FirstSecond one is best. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 14:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The only difference between the first and 2nd one is that I cleaned up the spots in the background, and several of the surface marks on the photo. You like those marks? -- BRIAN0918  15:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • D'oh. Half asleep there. Sorry. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 16:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. First and second images are miscropped, and the colors in the third are inferior to my eye. (Png is inappropriate as well, for the latter two - a jpg would be a third the filesize, with no visible loss of quality.) —Korath (Talk) 16:39, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've attempted to crop the 2nd and 3rd images. If it's still not right, be more specific. -- BRIAN0918  16:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Support 2nd or 4th version now. I'd meant the beige border around the edges, though I agree that the bolder crop now in place makes for a better picture. (And, my, that was quick. Glad I checked back here before doing it myself.) —Korath (Talk) 17:03, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support version #3. Fredrik | talk 18:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support second version. ed g2s • talk
  • Support second version. The colours are about right in this one. It might work slightly better if the black edge on the left were extended a little so that the top of the drum is centred, but it probably wouldn't make much difference. Hmm, perhaps not. The first version is centred on the drum and the composition looks a little unbalanced to the right. -- Solipsist 07:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support fourth version. In photoshop, i lightened the picture a ton, and there are fingerprints and scratches and dust all over it. I believe it is a scanned in photograph, and it appears that the background was intended to be black. So I took the whole background area and made it pure black, instead of slightly off, which 1) removes the scratches Brian0918 was worried about, and 2) improves the visual appeal of the image. I also took the liberty to remove many dust motes and scratches from the main part of the image. I left the color almost wholly untweaked, however, only slightly boosting the white (there were no 255 value pixels in any channel before). I also cropped this image a bit, but not as much as the 2nd and 3rd versions. Someone else should feel free to crop more or less. Now it's easy, as the background is just black. Oh, and I removed a small distracting blue thing from the right side, halfway down. --jacobolus (t) 05:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I never realized how bad it was until I touched that little "gamma" setting. :o) Thanks much for the work, this is obviously now the superior image in every respect.--Deglr6328 05:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply gorgeous. - Seth Ilys 20:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted second version. +10/-1. ed g2s • talk 14:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)