Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Children of Kabul, Afghanistan.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 22:56:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info Brother and sister in the street of Qala-i-Shada, Kabul, Afghanistan. An amazing picture by the same author of this other one, a serious competitor of POTY2009. Created and uploaded by Paulrudd, nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:28, 31 May 2010
  •  Support lovely portrait, interesting lighting/background --ianaré (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm starting to think that this is sort of too easy, and that the hard conditions these people live in make them very photogenic. But that picture sure feels nice, and there a few from Afghanistan over here... Certainly less than panoramas and insects...:). Ack ianaré for lighting. Also friendly support since Paulrudd was my classmate in highschool ;-) - Benh (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment -- I think that the strongest points of this picture have nothing to do with poverty or exoticism. I'm referring especially to composition, lighting (this is a 'contre-jour') and the expression of the children -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agreed for lighting too. But I believe expressions of the children contribute to make this pic great, hence my comment. This does come from the conditions they live in; I don't mean exoticism but I meant poverty and hard conditions. Don't get me wrong though: Alexis (author's name) did large part of the job by framing and exposing it right in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • why do you think that these children live in poverty? --AngMoKio (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I feel you ask this as if it was shocking that I think so (sorry if I'm wrong). But I answer anyways : I can only assume, yes, but have good reasons, among them : Dirty clothes, one of the kid missing a shoe, skin looking like having hard time and Afghanistan having low HDI and low per capita income. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No I am not shocked. I just sometimes have the feeling that people from western or "rich" countries (me included) easily think that people from other cultures are poor or even suffer. By western standards those kids might be poor and still I think that such a pic can trick you. That girls other shoe could just be around the corner because it took it off for what ever reason (I often see children that get rid of various pieces of clothing just for fun). The children's clothes might be dirty because they were playing in the dirt or the mother just gave them some old clothes because they were about to play outside. Even my mother had some older clothes for me when I went playing in the forest. Those kids look well fed and not unhappy, just interested in the photographer. Of course I might be wrong and those kids are really poor, even for Afghan standards, but I just think it is interesting how we (myself included) quickly come to the conclusion that people from far away countries and different cultures have to be poor or suffering. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand this point of view an partly agree with it. I never said that these children are unhappy, but that they are poor and live in hard condition, and that I'm likely right given all element we have so far. (we could as well think as disguisement or whatever but this would go very far !). some hard conditions to me that explain the skin : not spending days in air conditioned building but spending days outside under hard sun, not having shower everyday with shampoo etc. And I don't always wait to have all elements before coming to a conclusion, otherwise, I wouldn't often have opinion... would I ? :)- Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Of course I understand your point of view and the way you get to your conclusion. It was not my aim to question your vote or opinion. I just had some deeper thougts on how photos might trick us and felt the need to talk about it :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Support per Ianaré. --Cayambe (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice photo with the shadows on the ground --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I showed this photo to my dad, who lived in Afghanistan for some time. He says "I believe these children are Azarahs, an ethnic minority in Afghanistan. Descendants of the Mongols under Ghengis Khan". --ianaré (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak  Support I am not so keen on the centred composition still a really good photo. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose – I'm really uncertain whether not only the exotically working and sweet children and the surrounding field make the photo unusual. Sorry, but I don't see anything, which makes this photo technical better than other photos with sweet children. --Steindy (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Ianaré. Although subjects are centered, the wall on the left gives some dynamism to the picture. It would be very different without the wall. --Cephas (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I would consider this an average portrait. It is attractive and they are photogenic, but I find the crop too loose and the viewpoint too high, which prevent this photo from standing above others. IMO, not a good enough portrait for FP. As a side note, I'm wondering why you quoted the author and his work. I thought this was about judging individual photos. Were you trying to justify or inflate the value of this photo just because the author had a finalist at POTY2009? Really a bad move on your part, Alvesgaspar. - Keta (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment -- I really don't believe the value of this photo needs to be inflated by the kind of expedient you are accusing me of using. My only purpose was to call the attention of the community to the talent of this creator (who should be persuaded to contribute to this forum). FPC reviewers are not stupid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment Don't try to turn this into something else, this is not about reviewers but about the words you used. If that was your only intention, it wasn't the best place nor the best wording, and the more I read it the more it looks like what I said, that's the impression I get at least. - Keta (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Comment - I have already explained what my intentions were and consider your insinuations inappropriate, so say the minimum. Yes, this forum is often used for raising and discussing side issues, as you should konw if you were more acquainted with it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia" --AngMoKio (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral @Alvesgaspar it is an average portrait (but not a bad one). these kind of pictures are best shooted in black & white film. I partially agree with Keta comments.. Ggia (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not Alvesgaspar, but would like to comment on this. Why would this be best B&W ? This is subjective issue, but I personally think as B&W as (most of the time) a cheap and easy way to turn a regular picture into something that looks to "stand above others", since this unconsciously remind old times when photography was much more art and unaccessible than it is now - Benh (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor am I (!!), but I regard b&w as a relict of history which has no place in modern photography - colour is now possible, and removal of colour to make b&w is removal of data & information, and therefore unjustifiable - MPF (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but I must object here strongly. A really good b/w picture doesn't work as a colour photo. For example this is a great work of art, but in colour it wouldn't work. Many really good portraits only really work in b/w - and I don't mean just to convert a colour pic to a greyscale pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just explained why I am voting neutral in that photo. And I said that I would prefer this photo shooted using b&w film (not digital)! Not converting a color photo to b&w. My pov is that b&w film, grain, analog capture works better in pictures/subjects like this one.. here. ie. I don't like much that the viewpoint too high (as Keta mentioned). BTW.. If you like the photo support it. Ggia (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did ;) but that has nothing to do with the picture itself and I was just giving my point of view as well. Again, I find it strange to rely on grain or whatever... but just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Agree that sometimes, B&W can be of good use, that's why I said that most of the time I feel that people use it as "art" label" rather than a way to really give another meaning to the picture. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I look to much down on people... - Benh (talk)
* Comment WOW!, this discussion about b&w is really ridiculous. Photography is not about either color or gray scales, they are elements of photography. It is foolish to state that b&w is a thing of the past, or to say that color is the only thing. While yes, a regular color photograph can be made "more interesting" by converting it to b&w, color could mask defficiencies on the photograph also. Reality is that some photographs work better in b&w and some work better in color. And get this, as much as the digital camp thinks that digital photography is better than analog, well, I have news for you, that is not necessarily true, from the potographic perspective. Digital photography, with all its good things, cannot compete with tonal graduations, dynamic range or many other valuable visual attributes of analog photography. To think that digital cameras produce better photographs is like saying that synthetic brushes create better paintings. The art resides on the eye, knowledge and experience of the photographer and not necessarily on his camera, or the painter´s brushes. A camera does not make a photographer, or creates a good photograph. Digital imagery, from cameras to computers, have only produced more people taking and manipulating pictures, and not necessarily better photographers. One thing is for sure, the mix of technology and photography has produced a lot of people who think that they are photographers... so far from the truth. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Children_of_Kabul,_Afghanistan.jpg&oldid=40345491"