Support as nominatorLaitche (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite being a good example of image distortion also is a very good picture.--St.danielTalk 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Either the glasses or the lens (or both) are dirty. There are red and blue spots on the out of focus glass, and the stem of the right-side glass seems to be chipped. The bowls of the glasses are also very dirty as well. I'm not sure what the out of focus glass adds to the picture other than confusion. In a nutshell, it's a good picture, very interesting, but should be easily reproduced at a higher quality. The freddinator (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that spots are not glasses nor the lens. It's a LCD screen. :) -- Laitche (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This small image tiled on a 22" LCD screen constitutes the background of the picture. :) -- Laitche (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you mean. I'm seeing a red and white dot in the black space on the blurred glass where the bowl meets the stem. And in the same vicinity, a blue spot as well. And while these flaws can be corrected pretty easily on photoshop (since they are over black space), the bubbles, etc. on the stem of the in-focus glass would prove a more formidable task.The freddinator (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Ahh, nevermind. I get it. The imperfections on the stem of the glass still remain the same, however...unless you sprayed water on that part of the screen? You can fix up the spots on the blurred glass easily, the stem, not so much...The freddinator (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but maybe you're right. This is not my work then I can't ... -- Laitche (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per flaws above. Easy to reshoot. --Janke | Talk 08:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to reshoot? I need evidence. Please take and please upload the more higher quality photo, more higher than this one. -- Laitche (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't promote an image just because no one has yet produced a better version. Pstuart84Talk 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we shouldn't refuse to promote one simply because you believe, without proof, that you can take a better one. Especialt since this is one of the highest quality examples of Image Distoriton that I have ever seen.--St.danielTalk 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by Laitche, it's two glasses placed in front of an LCD monitor with a repeating image. I don't see where the difficulty lies in any of that. It seems the most difficult part of the process is making sure everything is clean/undamaged. The freddinator (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good demonstration of the effect and fits very well in the article. An endlessly fascinating picture showing great original creativity. (I think it is the resemblence to eyes in the base of the bowls that captures attention). And the honeycomb effect conjures up a warm sweet image which goes with the wine glasses! Forget those petty quibbles (the in/out focus actually adds value and where are the smudges?) Top marks. Motmit (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why is this image encyclopedic for image distortion? I can't see what makes it superior to any picture in which an image is distorted by a curved piece of glass. Pstuart84Talk 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Left half of the image is dominated by an out-of-focus glass. However, I like the idea behind this image-- my suggestion would be to frame the shot in such a way that the top and bottom of the glass can also be seen-- this may help the viewer understand, at a glance, that what is causing the distortion in the background dots is a wine glass (as opposed to a partially-seen object). Spikebrennan (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spikebrennan. crassic![talk] 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This small image tiled on a 22" LCD screen constitutes the background of the picture. :) -- Laitche (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
