Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ballpointpen

Ballpoint pen edit

Original - A higly magnified image of the tip of a ballpoint pen.

Reason: Highlights the surprisingly complex technology underlying an ordinary, everyday object - a ballpoint pen
Articles this image appears in: Ballpoint pen
Creator: User:Lander777

Support as nominator hydrox (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the image doesn't meet the resolution standard (1000px) by 94 pixels, I think it still highlights a very interesting detail of a very mundane object - a ballpoint pen, an integral part of modern society in itself - that one doesn't pay attention to normally at all, and definitely makes one want to know more about the technology behind ballpoint pens. The photograph is of good technical quality and lighting is fine. Overall it illustrates the wear and tear brought about by writing the pen in an artistic and compelling way.hydrox (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Very nice closeup of what is normally a mundane object, I'd go as far as to say that opposing this purely on size grounds is probably a bit anal-retentive and a violation of WP:POINT at that. Cat-five - talk 08:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing this 906x650px image on FPC, when the criteria strictly state 'Still images are a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height', qualifies as disrupting Wikipedia? Sheesh, there is a cabal. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.Mario1987 (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent focus on the very tip, it's a shame the focus drops away so quickly but those are just the laws of physics. I would say you need to clean the tip of your pen! :) SGGH ^speak! 12:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose grainy, and doesn't meet the size requirements, and not a very compelling composition either --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per above. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very grainy when full-sized. And speaking of size, I would forgive the size requirements if this image were, say, 906px square, but not 906px-by-650px. -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not encyclopedic; we don't see anything that we couldn't see just by looking at the tip. Yes, it's big, but there aren't any new details brought out by the closeup. Matt Deres (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There are thousands of ballpoint pictueres out there, so the one that's unique is "not encyclopedic?" Under the logic of opposing the photo because it doesn't portray anything "we couldn't see just by looking at the tip," then we might as well get rid of all FP subjects that we can just pick up and look at.—DMCer ™ 07:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. If the picture doesn't illustrate something usefully, then it's not encyclopedic and not worthy of being an FP. As far as pens go, I'd sooner support a cutaway diagram that helped illustrate how the ball mechanism works or an historic shot of Bich's early models. Those would be useful; this picture, with all respect, is not particularly. Matt Deres (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to size. This is an easily reproducible shot that shouldn't be exempt from the FP criteria. Cacophony (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - way too grainy, too small, subject does not amaze or compel me one bit. Also per Mike. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size & quality are not good enough.. really.. this picture isn't hard to take, so quality should be good.. On 1 moment in a lifetime shots, lower quality can be accepted, but not on a normal pen >_> Yzmo ^talk 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent encyclopedic value and quality looks OK to me. Don't see how composition could be improved - that's just what the object looks like. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, substandard quality, a ballpointpen does not run away, plus I agree exactly with Matt Deres. --Dschwen 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Very high quality. Interesting to look at. -ComputerGuy890100 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this kind of extreme macro image must have a very shallow depth of field, the areas out of focus do not have to be grainy. Even if this image met the resolution guidelines, images that are close to the minimum size are expected to be sharp and lack image grain. - Enuja (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose size, grain, easily reproduced. de Bivort 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons above. Were it not so easily reproduced, I wouldn't so easily oppose. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-15 14:19Z
Oppose per above (grainy, etc.). But composition is fine and a sharper, non-grainy image (that, ideally, would also satisfy the size requirements) would be a welcome and worthy FP candidate. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too Small - below requirements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teque5 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support hello? I have a higher res version of the photo, im the one that took it
Support I just uploaded the higher res version, I took this photo like 4 years ago, sorry about the grain I was using cheap negitive film, I gave some noise reduction in photoshop, I will actually take another ultra closeup ballpoint pen photo with my new digital slr, since taking this photo I graduated with a degree in photography and will take another photo like this, hopefully better then this one! Its actually really strange to see a discussion board talking about one of my photos, ive never seen such a thing about one of my photos, I own my own business as a professional photographer now, my site is http://www.benyoungphoto.com. More photos will be added to my site as time goes on and I am happy to answer anything anyone might wonder about photography!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lander777 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]