Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ear Wax on Swab

Ear Wax on Swab

 * Reason:This narrowly missed out on a previous nomination and in my view it lost unfairly. I believe this is an excellent picture and is of high quality, it is also striking and illustrates earwax in the best possible way. The fact that the object of the picure is an everyday thing does not affect its encyclopedic value.
 * Articles this image appears in:Earwax
 * Creator:Gregory F. Maxwell


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Ch ild zy  ( Talk 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support highly encyclopedic image. Mak (talk)  23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Nasty! 8thstar 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per previous nomination. The photograph does not illustrate anything particular about earwax. The swab takes up most of the photograph, and places the earwax in a very unnatural position. The earwax, which this photograph tries to illustrate, is just an amber spread of jelly tangled in the fibres of a swab, not to mention that the actual wax takes up far less than 1000 pixels in any direction. Just for example, perhaps a picture under a microscope might reveal something new, something words cannot describe as the picture can. The blown top is also a very minor portion of my oppose. I really cannot see anyway to take a photograph of earwax that is featured quality. Sorry, but this just doesn't cut it for me. Thegreenj 00:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC) check out the time!
 * Also it look nothing like the asian kind of earwax (the dry kind). --antilivedT 00:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Though it is high res, the pic is not decriptive of ear wax nor of cotton bud - I do not understand the subject more having seen the pic. As per user:Thegreen a microscope pic of ear wax would be a better representation. The pic is replacable, has an out-of-context subject and is uninspiring. Witty lama 01:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Anyone with a Canon 5D or better can take the same shot a million times. Maybe the only thing that makes it special is that the person hadn't cleaned his ear for years for taking this picture. As said before in previous nomination, If I take a very good quality of a urine in toilet, does it mean it's FP? Although I admire the quality of the photo, but the credit goes only to the camera. --Arad 02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the photographer, not the camera, who takes the picture. Admittedly, having good equipment helps, but even though I'm trying to assume good faith, your comment seems to place the credit of image quality in spite of the photographer. Please, don't make accusations that the only reason a photograph looks good is that it was taken by a good camera despite an inept user. Anyone with the money could buy a 5D, but not anyone can shoot a picture like this one. Thegreenj 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Arad merely sees it as an ordinary shot with a high quality camera. I don't think he's trying to belittle anybody, just state his opinion that the work isn't special.  So, zip-a-dee-doo-dah, and it's only a different view on what makes for good photos. gren グレン 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you gren. Of course the author is the one who created the photo. I just wanted to say that the picture doesn't have much artistic value IMHO. As mentioned above I really don't want to belittle the author. I admire his contribution of such a good quality photo to Wiki. It's just that this pic is not special enough IMO. It's certainly a QI though. --Arad 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have mostly stopped contributing images now due to comments exactly like the above. It's simply not worth doing high quality work, and doing low quality quick work isn't personally fulfilling. Leaving a computer running an unattended pywikipedia bot gets more appreciation than careful photographic work. For most of my macro work (including this one) I machine custom mounts for the object, backdrop, and lighting... I shot well over a hundred exposures trying numerous variants on the image, subject, lighting. For each exposure I captured a color calibration target (well, except for the UV sources, since thats somewhat meaningless). It's easy for people to criticize the image "oh you should have tried X". Well guess what, for any X I probably did, and it didn't work for me. Under a microscope? Did it, totally uninteresting. In someone's ear? tried it, couldn't manage to find a composition where you could both see the wax and tell what you were looking at (which is incidentally why I had the high brightness UV sources, I was hoping it would make the wax in the ear more obvious). The cotton specimen swab was recommended to me by a nurse, and I wasn't able to find anything better... although it never was as cool as I'd hoped, it at least has yuck value. In any case, I don't much care if you feature the image, but could you at least spare me the "anyone can do as good/better". At least when I've said things like that, I've gone out and done it. --Gmaxwell 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right about "anyone could do it". I tried to get a nice image of pralines and you can see the results.  I think part of it is a lack of understanding of what it takes to do good photography (at least on my part) but my only point was that while it may be misguided, it isn't meant to be impolite.  Back to the subject, earwax is one of those things that it's almost impossible to find a good context for... unlike Image:Oktava319.jpg which is an incredible shot--even if it's only because you have a good camera :) That is definitely FP material. gren グレン 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gmaxwell, I understand what you're saying and that the technical quality it very good. And that's all because you took the measures needed to take the picture. No doubt about that. But still the image is not special. And I think, the quality is much because you have a good camera :-) (not to discredit you) + you have experience. Nominate it for QI and I support. --Arad 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, although I am admittedly unsure what FP quality earwax would look like. gren グレン 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - But I might consider to promote a photo of ear wax inside the ear... Alvesgaspar 07:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support and - I'm struggling to find adequate words to support not just the nomination but the sentiments expressed by Greg above. I find this selection process a HUGE disincentive to uploading top quality work both here and on COM:FP for the simple reason that it suffers from this unbearable "photo-critique website" factor. The first oppose for this image is simply astonishing in its inappropriateness. Really, photoSIG and the like are great (recommended, in fact!) for those wishing to hone their skills, either as photographers or photo-critics, but Wikipedia is not the place for either of these things. This should be a place to recognise the best in encyclopedic illustration in as objective a way as possible, period. Who cares if you don't like to look at pictures of ? Criterion 7 has such a lot to answer for.. By any criteria, this shot is clearly the best we are likely to get of this subject - well-lit, carefully considered, sharp and well-resolved, with great colour balance and accurate exposure: generally, a well executed illustration of an extremely difficult subject, cleverly scale-referenced (you don't know how big a q-tip is?) with top encyclopedic value. That's what makes it "special". mikaultalk 10:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. And a great camera alone doesn't take good pictures, it just enables a good photographer to make the best out of his skills. Support, like last time. --Dschwen 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I went to the previous nomination and everything has a line through it - is this what should happen to past FPC pages? Pstuart84 Talk 12:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, someone forgot to close a &lt;strike&gt; tag. ~ trialsanderrors 07:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I'm aware that Greg sees the opposition to this image as an indictment of the FP process. For what it's worth, I've had a look at his Commons contributions and there are a lot of great images there, many of them featureworthy in my opinion. Grenavitar has highlighted one above. To me, though - disregarding the yuck factor - this one just doesn't say 'featured picture'. It's technically good and I appreciate that a lot of work went into it - maybe it is the best possible representation of earwax, although I doubt that: the cotton bud dominates the image and the cotton strands lend a fibrous texture which is misleading. I'm inclined to think that a top-down, neutrally-lit view of the earwax on a lightbox background might be a good way to shoot it. I don't have access to a lightbox so, before you say it, I can't fix it. Even then, would it draw the reader's attention, inspire curiosity? I think Greg hits the nail on the head when he says "Did it, totally uninteresting". Some subjects just fundamentally do not possess the visual excitement needed to make a great photo. Decry the injustice of the process if it rejects genuinely interesting images for being aesthetically unpleasing, but I don't think that's the case here; only a few days ago there was a minor controversy because the main page FP was someone undergoing what looked like fairly horrific eye surgery. That's never going to be nice to look at but it does grab the interest of passers by, in a way that no earwax photo is ever likely to. AFAIC, that's a large part of what Featured Pictures are all about. --YFB ¿  19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. I don't see that people don't want to support this image as an bad mark on the process, rather I see the "oh anyone could do that" as a mark of broken and harmful culture. We should expect people who are saying "anyone can do this/better" to step up and actually do so... W e  Seperatly I also think we have a systemic bias in favor of "gorgeous" images vs ones with encyclopedic merit, after all FPC is our best images not pretty-photo-gallery.com's best images.  ... but I would probably select a different image than this one to make that point. As far as your suggestion... we have such an image, look at German Wikipedia. I think it's without scale and confusing, but perhaps you'll like it better? From a get people's attention perspective, I think this one does well. Opinions are expected to differ. --Gmaxwell 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, I think the bias issue is important too, since it over encourages people to create 'beautiful' images rather than really excellent images that we need.. but it's not what I was complaining about here. --Gmaxwell 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't very clear either. I was referring to this discussion where you mentioned that this picture was originally nominated as a 'test case' to see if opposition was based on wallhangability rather than encyclopaedic merit. I totally agree with you about "anyone could do that" comments and it's true that there have been a distasteful number of those, particularly on nominations of 'everyday' subjects. Equally, we need to be very careful that "OK, go take a better one" doesn't become an acceptable reason to disregard an oppose vote.
 * I find your comment about the de.wikipedia image somewhat disingenuous; it's not backlit (which would illustrate the translucency), it's poorly photographed and we both know that with the right equipment, a much better example could be produced. A scale reference could easily be provided - maybe your cotton bud, or perhaps something smaller for a closer viewpoint - without it becoming the main subject of the photograph. I still wouldn't necessarily expect it to be featureworthy, but it might be closer to 'the best possible photographic representation'.
 * As far as 'getting people's attention', this is subjective and opinions will differ. Wikipedia is built on consensus and if the balance of opinion is that something isn't all that eyecatching as a representation of its subject then that's not a reflection of a broken process/culture/whatever, even if the consensus turns out to be that the subject is inherently not eyecatching.
 * I don't know if I agree with you about systematic bias in favour of 'beauty'. We don't actually have that many 'pretty flower' FPs and nominations of that sort tend to get a very picky reception. Nature provides a vast array of potential subjects so there's bound to be a lot of nature FPs, but by no means are they all beautiful by conventional standards. --YFB ¿  20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "I find your comment about the de.wikipedia image somewhat disingenuous" gah! I haven't looked at it in many months. In my mind it's perfectly a perfectly backlit image. :) In any case, my own reason for not posting an image like that is because I though it was uninteresting and useless without scale. For more detailed subjects that works but here? I dunno. --Gmaxwell 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gmaxwell, I can assure you that if I had your expensive camera, I would have stood up and try. --Arad 11:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a German Wikipedia image of earwax. Pstuart84 Talk 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the one I was talking about. --YFB ¿  21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 06:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For lack of relevancy, not particularly illustrative of the subject. High quality is not enough. Alvesgaspar 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)  You've already voted! --MichaelMaggs 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, sorry - Alvesgaspar 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I can't believe users are citing lack of relevancy. If an article is on earwax, and the nominated picture is of earwax, then it's relevant--especially since it's Google's #1 hit for large picture searches of "earwax." Rant's over, but this picture is (1) of high quality, (2) encyclopedic, and (3) in the form most observed by everyone (on a swab).-DMCer 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support A technically difficult photograph to take, in spite of some inaccurate implications to the contrary. Highly encyclopedic in my view, although admittedly not pretty. --MichaelMaggs 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This article is very illustrative of its subject, high quality, and actually visually compelling--not an easy feat for a picture of earwax. Calliopejen1 00:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as last time. I realize Greg put a lot of effort into making the image, and I appreciate that effort. But the amount of work that went into making an image is not a criterion for judging feature-worthiness. -- Moondigger 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)