Wikipedia:Picture peer review/3D Glass Organic Chemical Model
Appearance
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Glass_ochem_dof.png/401px-Glass_ochem_dof.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Glass_ochem_dof2.png/400px-Glass_ochem_dof2.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Glass_ochem.png/400px-Glass_ochem.png)
Looks pretty, and has some EV too.
- Articles this image appears in
- Depth-of-field,V-Ray
- Creator
- Purpy Pupple
- Suggested by
- Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comments
- My thoughts for depth of field is that a photograph does a better job for Depth-of-field (because the subject would be less abstract for the reader). I'm not so sure that EV is particularly strong for V-Ray too. You can always give it a go though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- A photograph probably does a better job for depth of field but the caption for this image in that article reads, "Digital techniques, such as ray-tracing can also render 3D models with shallow depth-of-field..." so I think that it does have some EV in that respect, in informing the reader that depth-of-field can be simulated as well. However, it seems that previous nominations for similar pictures have been shot down pretty badly, so I'm not sure if I should nominate this. Purpy Pupple (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is a fair point (and one I'd mention during the nomination). There is only one way to truly determine if it will pass or not (give it a go). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nominated! :) Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is a fair point (and one I'd mention during the nomination). There is only one way to truly determine if it will pass or not (give it a go). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- A photograph probably does a better job for depth of field but the caption for this image in that article reads, "Digital techniques, such as ray-tracing can also render 3D models with shallow depth-of-field..." so I think that it does have some EV in that respect, in informing the reader that depth-of-field can be simulated as well. However, it seems that previous nominations for similar pictures have been shot down pretty badly, so I'm not sure if I should nominate this. Purpy Pupple (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Alt 2 looks better --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seconder