Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leaf trails.JPG

File:Leaf trails.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2009 at 05:54:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Leaf trails.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leaf trails.JPG

•  Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
•  InfoThere was an Image at Astronomy Picture of the Day.I wanted to take a similar image, but with no mery-go-round. I secured my camera at a chair that was able to turn, took it to back yard, put it under a tree, and turned it around. The picture was not processed. I believe, if a similar image was good enough to be featured at APOD, the nominated image should be good enoug to be featured here too :) So let's see...
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very creative and aesthetically pleasing. -- JovanCormac 10:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Phyrexian (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose "beautiful does not always mean valuable" :) nice experiment though :) --Leafnode✉ 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Info The similar Image was used at Astronomy Picture of the Day and at Spaceweather.com. The image was also used here. I believe NASA sites featured the image on their front pages because...well, because it is not valuable.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Too bad this is not NASA site and this picture contains no explanation of why it's so valuable. --Leafnode✉ 21:22, 2 Decmber 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, what I tried to say that IMO if three NASA sites felt the image is valued enough to feature it, to oppose for not being valued sounds kind of strange. The creator of the original image used it in children book to illustrate earth rotation for kids, for example. Kids read Commons too. At first I wanted to upload APOD image here, but it was copyrighted. So I ended up taking one myself. I provided the link to APOD image in my image's description. Besides everything else the image also illustrates rotation. There are very few images in that category. Besides the value of the image is in its uniqueness. IMO it is valuable more than enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose, but oppose. To oppose, or not to oppose, that is the question. Yes, the APOD is valuable. Yes, I would suport the APOD. Yes, the APOD is better - the swirl does not cover the entire picture, and that's why it can be used for the abovementioned educational purposes. Wolf (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand why because in APOD image "the swirl does not cover the entire picture" it is better for educational purpose. the star trails that the image is used to illustrate do cover the entire picture. IMO my images looks more as the real one than APOD does.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me parahrase: I believe the movement should be shown in relation to something, the foreground or the background. Wolf (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been nice, if it were possible in such a particular situation, but it is not, unless I am not to do "a bad photo manipulation" :) IMO the only difference between APOD image and mine that APOD image has some blown-out highlights and mine does not.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Very interesting way to visually analogize the circumpolar motion of the stars (caused by the rotation of the Earth relative to the effectively-static background) to the sort of rotation naturally seen when sitting in a rotating device like a chair or merry-go-round against the effectively-static background of the Earth. I dig it. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Can't see the value of this image. Even the colors are not realy my taste, what makes it bit borring. --Niabot (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt 1

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Now this is really, as JC said, aesthetically pleasing. Wolf (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose this version At full resolution, the original version looks better IMO. -- JovanCormac 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

*Support Very interesting way to visually analogize the circumpolar motion of the stars (caused by the rotation of the Earth relative to the effectively-static background) to the sort of rotation naturally seen when sitting in a rotating device like a chair or merry-go-round against the effectively-static background of the Earth. I dig it. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Struck because I meant to type that under the main nomination, not the alt. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Yann (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

The chosen alternative is: File:Leaf trails.JPG