Strong support for encyclopedic value and quality. Muhammad(talk) 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already a FP on wikipedia just like this here. --Digon3talk 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two images differ significantly, although the subject matter is the same. Regardless of previous similar images, this image is still of high quality and illustrates the effect of total internal reflection. J.T Pearson (talk)
Oppose Of course the subject of the image has little to do with the turtles. It is more about total internal reflection, but... *Support I got the message from the nominator of the image. Yes, it is a good point to have a higher resolution of the turtle image as FP. I would support delisting of the current FP, if somebody cares to nominate it to be delisted. I would have done it myself (I already did it once), but I was blamed by user:OhanaUnited that I was trying "to discredit somebody else image in order to promote my own image." The guy never said he was sorry even after he at least (he's very hard to understand simple things) understood that both images were taken by me. Anyway to make long story short, if somebody whould nominate my own current FP for delisting I'll support the nomination.Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like it much better than the other picture similar to this one. -- 24.26.221.10 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the nominated image is of a much higher resolution and taken with a much better camera than the current FP.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current FP is nominated for delisting. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The resolution is only modestly larger than the current FP, the composition is much weaker, there are blown highlights all over the place (the water surface, the shell, and it looks like in the green channel on much of the background), and corals all look marred by compression artifacts.--ragesoss (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the total internal reflection removes almost all of the EV for the turtle article; the shell is obscured by the reflection! true, it does illustrate total internal reflection, but the image of a beam of light in Optical Description does a much better job at illustrating the concept. I agree with ragesoss that it has many flaws and few, if any, unique qualities. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMO it is always better to illustrate the subject without staged images, but instead with something natural. IMO the image of a turtle would be more interesting for the kids and students than the image you pointed out to.Yes, the image has some flaws , but it is an underwater image taken with point and shot camera and IMO it is still a good image, which illustrates the subject Total Internal Reflection well. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it doesn't shot the subject fully.--Avala (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the subject?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Intothewoods29, if it is to illustrate Total Internal Reflection, then most underwater shots with camera facing upwards can illustrate. I don't see how the technical quality is outstanding. Judging the image at a 4R size, I still can see artifacts. Also, if only the upper part is cropped, the "resolution" is large but the "detail" is less. --Base64 (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I could see you are not only a great specialist in the selecting the right aperture, but also in underwater photography. How nice! I hope to see your underwater images, including images of "Total Internal Reflection with the camera facing upwards" soon. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am judging based on the image itself. The artifacts and quality I see are the truth. I am reviewing according to WP:WIAFP criteria 1b, aren't I?. Please do not make such a comment. You are the one who had the opportunity to do underwater photograhy, this doesn't mean that others who comment on the image must have much better skills. You seems trying to say "If my images were bad, then you try taking it." May I ask, why are you replying my vote? Is it related to WP:FPC? I have a feel of being attacked because I only see the words "I" and "you" but not "the image". Making the above reply would not alter further reviewer's decision. If you are questioning my oppose vote, you may post above reply here, and I will answer on THIS page. If you are posting a comment on ME, please kindly do it on my talk page. --Base64 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the user only discussed the quality of the image, I would not have responded the way I did, but the user said: "if it is to illustrate Total Internal Reflection, then most underwater shots with camera facing upwards can illustrate" . This comment is irresponsible to say the least. The other comment of the user (on one of my commons nomination) was irresponsible and false too. The user said " Comment If you have used f/10, much quality is lost." without knowing what lens I've used. Later on the user admitted on the user talk page that the user was wrong, yet the user have never bothered to say it at the image nomination page or at least cross out the user's false comment. It looks to me like I see a pattern of false and irresponsible comments by the user. That's it.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The keyword of the sentence is "can illistrate" but not "be a FP". Internal reflection is present is everyday life, this is a true statement. This is a separate issue, since this discussion is between users. I responded in your talk page. --Base64 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close I have been asked by the original uploader of this image to close the FP nomination and to never attempt to nominate another image of his again. He has now retired from Wikipedia. Thank you for your votes. J.T Pearson (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
