Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Abstract blue background7.jpg

Fractal Flame

Quite a different sort of image to what is usually posted here, and certainly quite different from what I usually put up for FPC! Created this abstract image of swirling blue lines recently in Apophysis and was quite pleased with the way it came out.

Appears in: Apophysis (software) Blue and Fractal flame

Support Self Nom --Fir0002 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support My new desktop! If only Apophysis wprked on a Mac!--Here T oHelp 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - I don't think it illustrates fractal flames very well, as it lacks the iterative/self-similar look you usually see (as in this paper or front page), and it doesn't illustrate Apophysis at all, since that software's controls aren't visible. I agree that it's blue. Even there, I think it makes more sense to have a real-world object that's inherently blue, as this image is just a prettier version of having a #0000FF rectangle. --TotoBaggins 05:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful image Booksworm Talk to me! 08:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC) - I also support the second image Booksworm Talk to me! 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is indeed beautiful if moderately un-encyclopedic. However, someone should crop out the thick black vertical line on the left of the picture. Theonlyedge 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose as per TotoBaggins. There are far better examples or fractal flames on the Apophysis. Centy 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Support because it nicely illustrates the given article. --Phoenix 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but rather boring, not an impressive fractal flame example, and putting this in blue... well lets just say a plain blue square would do a better job than this image... --Dschwen 18:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate Oppose While nice I don't think it is very descriptive of blue and isn't the best fractal flame. -Fcb981 00:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK I can understand if this particular flame isn't to everyone's taste - but the alternative, I'm sorry, but it's rubbish! That is the kind of flame you can get by just opening Apophysis and clicking on the randomize button - whereas this one actually took a significant amount of time to construct. Anyway for those who don't really like this one I've actually uploaded several to Stockxpert (don't ask why my user name there is marty8801 it's a long story) and if there are any there you particulalry like I might be willing to upload them to Wikipedia as well. Personally this one is my favourite --Fir0002 06:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is your username marty8801 there? ;-) --Dschwen 06:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm gonna pretend I didn't read that! :-) --Fir0002 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (wet blanket warning) I think we should be pretty wary when considering submissions like this one that are generated from software programs. Unless we actually have expertise in the particular software, it's very hard to judge whether a particular image is good, excellent, mediocre etc. It's a bit embarrassing to showcase an image as being particularly fantastic, only to have some user of that software show up and point out how easy it is to produce. Stevage 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well I'm not going to claim I'm an expert, but I've used it for a while now and the image I put up was quite difficult to produce and wasn't just a result of using the "randomize" button as the alternative is. So personally I'd be pretty happy to pit it against other fractal flames confident that it's not gonna be mocked as really easy and basic to produce. But that's just my thoughts on this --Fir0002 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make another comment. This image is not a good chioce for the blue article at all. Everyone who can see color should know what blue is (for the few that don't a plain blue box will do the job). For people who are color blind some nonm arbitrary real life object (like a ocean and sky scene) should be used to provide an association. The fractal flame is in no way specific to the color blue. --Dschwen 09:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks great, to someone not familiar with fractals. But I know that it is very reproducible and can be far more interesting. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a screensaver ca. 1996 and – more to the point – explains absolutely nothing. ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An ordinary-looking computer-generated image which doesn't add to the Blue article. Not a bad illustration of Fractal flame though. Kla'quot 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support First two are exceptional pictures although the third is just mildly irritating --St.daniel ^Talk 23:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You mean the 2nd is mildly :) annoying, correct? ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]