Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bullfighting in aguascalientes.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Bullfighting in aguascalientes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 04:37:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Oppose per others' objection to the picture quality. I think it's quite a bad idea to oppose pictures of bullfighting on moral grounds. Regardless of whether you support or oppose it, showing it for what it is has an intrinsic value. However, the same criteria of composition and quality that are relevant to all other photos are relevant to photos of bullfighting, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose simply because it's obvious even at thumbnail that this picture isn't even up to QI level. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think that some are missing the point... For pixel counters yes, a bad photo, but that is not the point here... This is interesting reading #REDIRECT[[1]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion about technical quality vs. artistic merit / impact
  • Usually at FPC we care about technical quality, photographic quality and subject itself (my interpretation of course, but also based on the guidelines). The above comments mean that the voters think the subject or photographic quality (e.g. composition) does not stand out enough to overcome the flawed technical quality. We do have a few FPs with sub-QI quality. – LucasT 18:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, anyone can vote the way they want for whatever reason, I have no problem with that. Whatever the reason, support or oppose, is a subjective choice. All I am saying is that good photography is not technique dependent, and to make it so diminishes the possibility of photography as a language, as a form of expression. I know how it is around here, been around long enough, and I keep disagreeing with the short sighted form of evaluating photography as to what constitutes a featurable picture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Music is a language, too, but if I run all my notes together when they should be separately audible, my execution detracts from the emotion I've put into my performance. And can you really say this photo has the same impact as the one Lucas nominated supported above? Not only is the matador blurred in this one, but you can't see anyone's face. I don't really get how you judge the quality of a photo. Solely on how it makes you feel? If so, expect others to feel differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, anyone can vote whichever way they want, but this image is not about pixels, or sharpeness, or being able to see the face... it is about the content. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that only the image should be judged? Surely, you recognize that there are many different ways to shoot the same motif. So how do you judge different shots of a particular motif? And in this case, yes, not being able to see the faces is part of the content. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shoot what you shoot when you shoot and how you shoot, and whatever comes out either works or not... There is no better example of this than Robert Capa´s work (and no, I do not compare to him). See this #REDIRECT[[2]] or this #REDIRECT[[3]]. The last image is one of the most reproduced images in the history of photography, yet around here it wouldn´t get a vote under the current practices. Good photography is not about pixels, sharpenes, etc., it is a combination of many elements and of course content and context. This nomination is not about strict image quality, is is about catching your eye (did it? It certainly generated quick agreement on the oppose side!) and hopefully to generate emotion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember when Hustler Magazine came out with very graphic, picture perfect shots of female genitalia. They went way beyond normal practices. However, for as much detail that can be seen in Hustler´s pictures, they never climbed to the level of erotic art expressed even in Victoria´s Secrets catalogs... I think that a lot of people here are more Hustler inclined... lot of graphic, visible detail but no content. (and yes, even in Hustler style we could find erotism, but I think it is more smut than anything else, arousing, yes, erotic, no). --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can work youself up about the voting practices around here, and I can understand it, I really do. But in the end this is a place where people vote on photos to be put in a web gallery, not life and death. If you disagree with the measurements and priorities, then it would be best to not nominate and laugh at us for our narrow-mindedness. Fact is, many people count technical quality to be part of good photography, for good reasons. A blurred image just is less desireable than a sharp one, to most of us. If not, we all could stop bothering about shutter speed and focusing alltogether and just capture emotions. Sadly, this is not how most people choose to do it. – LucasT 20:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we have better bullfight pictures that show the same things, like this for one. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ LucasT I really don´t care too much how people vote anymore, except that it could be discouraging to photographers that work in another level and detrimental to the goal of compiling good photographic material. Like the saying goes, if you pay with peanuts the only ones attracted will be monkeys. Like Trump said, maybe the voting is done by a fat man sitting on a couch somewhere in New Jersey! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get what your criteria for a good (or great) photo are. Did this photo catch my eye? Sure, for a moment. Your other photo had a much stronger effect on me, because I saw the poor victim's face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Surprising support Interesting. I hear you, opposers, really I do! I still find the image captivating. It doesn't even pretent to be a perfectly sharp action photo - but to me it successfully evokes the gist of bullfighting, in a rather impressionist way of course. The fleeting drama, the brutatlity, the speed... Btw., I'd never oppose images on moral grounds. This would certainly undermine the power of photography in a way I can't condone. Morally. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin, that's a really interesting way of looking at it! It doesn't really speak to me that way, but I can see where you're heading with this. If the effect was more pronopunced and looked more intentional, I could certainly see myself supporting it. Doesn't have to be as weird as this rodeo shot, but going a bit more towards that direction wouldn't hurt, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
part 2 of the discussion about technical quality vs. other photographic qualities
  • Point is you thought these two are FP worthy, others think they are not. It's up to you to consider whether the criticism has merit or not - apparently you're saying "lalala fp quality lalala unfair lalala", which is fine I guess, except it will not help you take better (bullfighting) pictures in the future. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, I think them FP worthy, that´s why I nominated them... and I do question the way photographs are evaluated in general around here, always have, probably always will... Why? because I thinks it is flawed and limited. I think that after 45 years of doing photography I may have an insight or two... A lot of arguments used to demerit a lot of images here would be considered a joke in more serious photographic circles... My coments are meant to reflect, not to attack, but if the shoe fits.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be really helpful if you could give us some guidelines you would have us use to judge photos, beyond whether they strike us when we look at them, which is a completely subjective criterion that you should expect people to differ on. However, if you are not capable of giving us such guidelines, that is your failing as a teacher. We don't have to agree with your guidelines, but so far, I haven't seen you give us any. Can you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best student learns despite having the worst teacher, and the worst student will not learn despite having the best teacher.... I believe that the best teacher many times is oneself... One must place oneself in a way that we can be aware of our strengths and shortcomings, and act accordingly. What I see is many people with new cameras thinking themselves photographers, and they are insofar as they can take pictures. But photography is much more than taking a picture; photography is about making photographs. This is a distinction that many people fail to acknowledge or see. I see a lot of people with fancy new cameras, armed with a computer and a photo editing program, the best, and think themselves experts. This is like the person who buys the best cooking utensils and think himself a chef, nothing further than the truth. As far as contributing here, I was the one that wrote the original criteria for evaluating photographs, and most of it still stands, although butchered a little, improved a little but that is ok, it is the nature of collaborative work. I taught photography for over 20 years, and believe me, I can spot a phony from afar... Now, so I do not tell you what is the truth, here is a little guideline from PPA (Professional Photographers of America) that are very helpful #REDIRECT[[4]]. I believe firmly on this project, but I also believe that the way business is conducted here discourages serious photographers from participating and thus limiting the possibilities of the project. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I need lectures about how to learn despite bad teaching. A bad teacher almost ruined my career before it started by teaching me a posture and technique that resulted in a severe injury to both arms when I had no idea how to play any differently, and a great teacher saved it. And I was a much-beloved college professor for a couple of decades and a writing tutor who helped many clients get jobs, grants, fellowships, internships, post-doc appointments, etc., etc. I promise to carefully read the guidelines you linked and think about them all, although your remarks like "I can spot a phony from afar" are not conducive to learning. I assure you, if you pretend to accuse me in the post above: I am no phony and have never made any claims to expertise in photography. I do my best to judge what I see based not on ability as a photographer, as I have merely dabbled a little in photography, but simply as a viewer whose father taught him a lot about how to understand paintings and whose brother is among other things a professional-level photographer who was exhibited at a major American museum many moons ago. I never pretend that I have the knowledge, skill or experience that you or any of the other regulars here have, and I have learned a lot about photography by spending time on this site. You have the right to think that this means that I'm presumptuous to vote at FPC, QIC or VIC and shouldn't pass judgment on any photo, and I think you know what my counter-argument would be: Assure me that no-one but flutists gets to have an opinion on my performance on the flute and no-one but jazz composers gets to judge the quality of my jazz tunes, and I'll make that deal with you. So thank you for the link, which I promise to read through and consider, but I wish you could have a more pleasant attitude despite your frustration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan Kekek I really was not referring to you at all! I apologize deeply for this unintentional consequence of my criticism of the practices here. On the contrary, I see your participations as the most objective and level headed around. I am truly sorry. I am expressing years of frustration because I actually care for this project and see what I believe are practices that discourage participation. I have discussed this site with good photographer friends and they will not go near it because of the very things I mention. Donating images is not a small issue to some photographers, and recognition in this case is the only pay (you know how the ego works), so to donate work and then be subjected to flawed evaluation methodology is not a good thing to some. On another hand, I am well aware that there is a slight possibility that I am a jerk and that may turn people off, but I have to speak my mind even if that does not win me any friends. Best regards and please accept my apologies. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Ikan Kekek You hit it on the nail when you say how to understand paintings... It is the same with photography, you have to understand it, but understanding requires study, insight, cultural capital. I live inside a photography community and we many times discuss how the "new" photographers operate on a vacum with regards to photography itself, passing over the basic elements of technique, equipment understanding, history, tendencies, context, relevance, etc., and feel that because they have a fancy camera and are good with photoshop and are able to create different looking images that are the result of digital manipulation (and not the result of visualization) then they are hip and good and can dismiss the depth of the medium. I hear the newbies scoff at the usefullness of discipline and knowledge because you can always photoshop a bad picture. And believe me, in my view you are not the discouranging type, I really don´t have a problem with your evaluations, mine or others either way they go. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of what you say is similar to complaints my father had about art schools where they don't teach the basics of drawing from the nude, perspective or traditional composition at all, feeling that since the art that sells is whatever conceptual bullshit is fashionable, it's a waste of time to ground them in the knowledge of every great thing that preceded them, starting from the cave paintings and going through the art of the various ancient civilizations (e.g., Egyptian, Assyrian, Cycladic, Classic Greek, Roman), etc. In an age with no consensus standards on even what is and is not art, taste and knowledge are sometimes considered to be counterproductive or at best a luxury we don't have the time for. I see similar things in music, but for the performer who's not in the field of auto-tuned auto-everything fakery, there remain high standards of technical achievement, at least. OK, end rant. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the problem is that even putting aside technical qualities, moral objctions, etc, it still is, forgive me for being blunt, a boring picture to look at. Even worse is you said nothing to the contrary besides that you think it's not and if anyone else thinks otherwise... Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're a much better PHOTOGRAPHER (in the best possible terms said here) than I am, or probably ever will be. That's fine, I came to terms with shooting a lot and hoping for dumb luck happening style of taking pictures. If anything the oft felt "I just missed the shot of my life!" feeling is a good indication that I don't have the eye to see what's important (in photographic terms) either because I miss it and only realize later and/or because I'm completely wrong about it. Anyhow. This doesn't make this specific picture automatically a superstar, or even an FP because you shot it or you think it is. It's possible you're wrong and unless you're willing to admit that we're not discussing anything. To address a few points made in earlier/subsequent posts:
- Saying that the Falling Soldier would not pass FP today is a strawman two (three) times over. First off we're talking about a picture shot almost a 100 years ago. We can't judge it in vacuum, saying "if it was done today". Even since 10 years ago taking pictures has changed so much, both in terms of aesthetics (some to the better, more to the worse) and in technical aspects. I'm 100% certain if I were to upload and nom an HP5 shot it would be voted down because "noisy", without any further consideration; I agree with you on that. However it would be my duty to both use film grain in a meaningful way in the world of the sleek digital and to make people take a note about gran vs noise. The other issue here is that present day we're oversaturated with death in all forms. We've seen people getting shot, stabbed, ran over, blown to pieces by artillery, thrown of roofs, beheaded, limbs pulled out, tortured in various ways etc. In motion and on still as well. Disregarding the 100 years history of the image and strictly saying "it was shot today and nominated to FP" I'm not sure I'd vote support, if I wanted to be honest. Simply because we have seen so many other forms of death that it's "nothing special" - and writing this last sentence down made me utterly sad. However, it was and still is a pinnacle achievement in photography, in it's own time. We can't look at it any other way, because it's a piece of highly regarded photographic history.
- I'll somewhat agree with your assessment of the judging of image worthiness here, in the past I was really puzzled by some images not passing because of some minute detail not being absolutely perfect, others promoted that have maybe one merit: a correct exposure and focus. There also seems to be a general unwillingness to go against the tide, take this as you may. Recently I have and probably will continue to take mostly contrarian positions on images for this very reason.
- 12 quick replies for the 12 points. 1: boring as I've said before. I get triggered seeing a bullfighting ring just as well, nothing special here. 2: not there as many have pointed it out and you kind-of-admitted. 3: Now I've not been to any bullfights so can't comment on the atmosphere, but having seen some from start to finish in video form I'm fairly confident in saying that this is just a random moment without any special qualities. 4: can't comment, don't see any positives or negatives in that regard. 5: It's ok, and in fact thinking about it the matador is probably in the best possible position. 6: the lack of sharpness is not offset by any other quality. 7: Ok I guess. 8: I and some others have pointed it out that this is missing for us, ie the image is not working i this regard. 9: drab but what can one do with the stupidity of nature, eh? Would not be an oppose factor. 10: there is no story told here. None. 11: don't think it's applicable? 12: see points 1 and 10.
Should you find (some of) the above offensive I'm sorry, but that's what your image evokes in me and that's why I voted oppose. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we all may differ on assessing individual images, Tomas is most certainly right about the rather sad state of photography as an artistic and academic discipline on Commons. FPC in particular appears to me, more often than not, as a frozen bubble of rigid formalism. This doesn't always have to be bad. One result, at least, is the assiduous production of a vast quantity of technically perfect images that are truly among the best out there and depict great spots in a phantastic way. As for myself, I also benefit from that, more than just occasionally. I'm really fond of taking straightforward architecture and landscape images, many of which are well received here. That's great! On the one side. On the other I dare not present my more unconventional pictures and thus keep them well hidden on my computer. I guess I'm not the only one. It's a relief to notice that rather young regulars like cart are successfully trying to break the ice, more and more. So I don't think that great pictures like Colin's Bluebells would face the same fate again. But there's still a long way to go until FPC gets noticed by the British Journal of Photography ;-). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting discussion. I think this would have got off to a better start if Tomas had given his rationale for why this is among our finest images of such events. The shutter speed of 1/125 is too low to capture moving people and animals and is also past the point where image stabilisation is necessary at that focal length (equivalent to 216mm in full frame and IS only improves one's chance of success, it doesn't guarantee it). So either that speed was a technical mistake or a deliberate choice. Motion blur to capture the engergy of a scene is a valid choice but we all know it is hit-and-miss. The result is also often not universally appreciated even among non-pixel-peepers. Arguing once the oppose votes have arrived tends to make everyone defensive and perhaps some of that could have been avoided with up-front information about the photographic merits being presented. I know it didn't save my Bluebell photo but the image did get a lot of support too, which I don't think it would have got if I hadn't explained it first.
We are used to seeing technically sharp documentary photography because that meets the requirement for an awful lot of educational images. It is also more straightforward to judge. I agree there is too much opposition when an image is presented that is outside of that narrow field of photography, and too much obsession with microscopic details only visible when magnified. I would like to see more styles of photography that convey emotion better, and think such images can have great educational value. It is our loss that we don't encourage them enough. -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin touches on something that I have encountered again an again in my professional life. If you want a wider audience to accept your more innovative and artistic work, you also have to prove that you are capable of doing the very "normal" work in an excellent way. This is very irrational, but that is how people function. If you just produce artistic and challenging photos, you are just a weirdo and maybe you don't know how to take good pictures. But if you also do regular work in a perfect way, people are more prone to actually stop and think when they see something new and not dismiss it outright. I always try to mix up my more innovative photos with more conventional photography just to remind folks that I can do that too if I chose to. --cart-Talk 10:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, true that a good reputation can incline one's reviewers (customers) towards a favourable examination of your more challenging images. When the challenging image is worthy then such bias can be helpful. But that's not always the case. I recall an art nude studio photo nominated here where the focus was some distance in front of the subjects and there appeared no valid artistic reason; only technical error. The photographer (not a user on Commons) was apparently well known, had his work in galleries, etc, and the nominator felt reputation was the reason why we should overlook this error, or question whether it was an error at all. Contemporary art photography has its share of technically incompetent frauds, and even the best have off-days. (I'm not suggesting anyone here is). Anyway, my main request is that if nominators don't express up-front what they find praiseworthy about their image, particularly difficult ones, then don't be surprised if others find it hard to recognise your brilliance. -- Colin (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given my votes on Tomascastelazo's nominations this may come as a surprise to some, but I actually agree with a lot of what has been written in this section, especially Martin's comment. It seems we are obsessed with technical details that may not really matter anywhere but in our little corner of the world. That's basically what drew me away from QI a while ago: Pictures seemed to be judged mostly at pixel level and candidates were rejected because of tiny bits of purple fringing while others were given the badge despite being taken under the worst possible light conditions (I'm exaggerating of course). Short digression: About that time I also realized that the reason most of my own images totally suck was (is) not primarily because of my gear or my ability to handle it. It was because I was shooting "for Commons" and thus creating (hopefully) useful but uninspired images. Over the last year or so, I've been trying to break out of all those habits and focus on the image itself rather than how it might be useful. I force myself to slow down and think before I press the shutter (being limited to 36 frames on a roll of film surely helps). My images still suck, but I think I'm on the right track. Sorry, back to topic: I very much enjoy people like cart or WClarke mixing up FPC by trying something new ("new" from Commons POV, of course). They might be more controversial and more difficult to judge, but reviewing them is a heck of a lot more fun than the umpteenth church ceiling for me. Please keep them coming! --El Grafo (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I'd like to try something like that myself some time, but I fear a picture of a forgotten chair looking at a frozen pond taken on really grainy black-and white 135 film might get a record breaking amount of opposes here ;-)[reply]
  • El Grafo (first of all, thanks), bring on the grainy chairs! :) I'd love to at least see such a photo. Worst case scenario is that you get showered with 'opposes', so what. Like my Gandmother used to say: "It's not a human life that ends" (she could be rather straightforward and blunt, dear Granny...) Even if you don't get it approved, it might drive home yet another tiny eye-opener and pave way for some other innovative photos. How can things be altered if no one dares to try. ;) --cart-Talk 16:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+2. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bullfighting_in_aguascalientes.jpg&oldid=236860798"