Diffraction pattern could be seen in many situations, like, for example, on a surface of CD discs, yet the nominated image has much more to offer. Just think about it!This Diffraction pattern was done without men involvement just by a spider, his web and the Sun. It is still not completely understood how it works with spider webs. Diffraction pattern in spider web could be a fascinating learning material for kids. I've already was asked a permission to publish the image in a children science magazine.
Support as nominatorMbz1 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please notice the subjest is not a spider web, but Diffraction pattern in a spider web. here is the explanation why it is better to take such images out of focus. I've done more than this. The image shows different parts of a spider web with different ammount of out of focus volume in order to represent the subject better. In my opinion it is a very nice educational image.--Mbz1 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Diffraction, sure, but diffraction pattern? The pattern on a CD that you refer to is regular, rainbow-like. Here, however, I see no pattern, just randomly colored spots from the myriad of drops of "sticky stuff" on the web. --Janke | Talk 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That was also my doubt. This seems more like a random pattern caused by refraction in the web drops - Alvesgaspar 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your questions,Janke and Alvesgaspar. In my opinion every diffraction that involves drops of fluid has a pattern. Of course you cannot excepct to see a pattern as regular as on CD. A spider web is not regular itself. Yet, in my opinion the light waves traveling through a sticky web have no other choice as generate a pattern. Look, for example, at the right-hand side of the image. In my opinion it shows a definite pattern. Of course I'm not a scientist. That's why I added the link, which explains how diffraction works with a spider web and why it is a pattern.--Mbz1 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is Babinet's principle, if the threads of the spider web are small enough to cause significant diffraction - in this case about 5μm, but unfortunately the article on spider web doesn't tell me how thick they are. MER-C 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Actually, it is known why this occurs (you even linked to a page which explains the phenomena). Regardless, this effect can easily be seen even with a shot that is in focus. This photo is just far too unfocused and noisy for me. ♠ SG→Talk 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the noise could be dealt with, but focus... As you mentioned yorself I provided the link, which explains why the phenomena looks better at unfocused images. Would not it be fair, if you provide a link to an image, which shows the same intensity of colors at a focused image, just to support your statement? Maybe you could take one yourself? After all spider webs are everywhere. --Mbz1 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose In the right context, this image is valuable. However, unless the viewer has an understanding of diffraction patters, this image doesn't seem anything more than a spider web. That being said, it took me a few minutes to really understand this image, and once understood I think the image actually shows the diffraction pattern in a unique way. The pattern is simply the light coming off of the web, and I think this phenomena surely helps one understand not only diffraction pattern, but also helps us understand how a spider-web works -- by using its diffraction pattern to lure flying objects to it. I oppose because a better picture can be taken to illustrate this better. Puddyglum 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the vote, trying to understand the picture and the comment,Puddyglum. Of course I agree. A better picture could be taken of anything. Spider webs are very common. Maybe somebody would post a better picture today or in the next few days. Maybe you've seen a better image on the net somewhere? I'll be the first one to support a better image. Yet now we have this one nominated image, so could you, please, tell me what in your opinion would be a better picture? Thanks.--Mbz1 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The parts that I oppose are primarily that the pattern has flaws, and the pattern also doesn't stand-out as being the subject of the image. If I'm taking a picture of a glass of water to show refraction, then the refraction be the focus, not the glass. To get the proper focus of the subject, you might try making a tighter crop of the pattern itself (since that's the subject). No offense intended, but I think the point of FP nomination isn't "find me a better picture," the point is, "Wow! This picture is amazing!". I love your pictures, but this one simply isn't feature-able imo. Puddyglum 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just asking for a better picture because I've never seen one. I'm very much interested in atmospheric optics and I like to see good and interesting pictures on the subject no matter who took them. So, no offence at all. Thanks.I withdraw the nomination--Mbz1 01:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
