Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RIAN archive 543 A battalion commander.jpg

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

File:RIAN archive 543 A battalion commander.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 13:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

“A battalion commander”. Soviet officer leading his soldiers to the assault, 1942
  •  Disagree That's film grain and thus integral part of the image – a faithful digital representation of the historical analog original needs to include this. Removing film grain would be somewhat equivalent to retouching visible brush strokes in a painting … --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  •  Question What quality are we expecting from the picture taken during the battle in 1942, under fire? The photographer did not carry Alpha 1 that day. Some other pictures are supported with crops and noise, simply due to the "wow" and uniqueness factor. For example, the Appolo mission picture on this page has the lunar module not sharp and a crop on the right side and, of course, nobody would raise this, since the picture is unique and the circumstances are special. If these were regular pictures, oppose would be in order; but for such unique pictures, their technical (very understandable and natural) shortcomings should not be the reason for opposing. Or am I wrong? --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 19:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I don't think you are wrong. In recent years, technical quality has regretfully moved to the front seat of how photos are evaluated at FPC. This is because it is easy to spot and have an opinion about even for people who are not well acquainted with photographical composition, photo-historical aspects or how iconic photos normally are viewed. This not the first time (not by far!) we see comments like this about a photo that is viewed as a photographic treasure by the rest of the world. Some other iconic pictures that have been rejected are Guerrillero Heroico (I tried that one...) and Hair Like Mine. FPC is a little world unto itself where National Geographic is hailed as something to strive for and capturing elusive moments in time is less relevant. The Apollo photos became FPs years before the pixel-peeping obsession set in here. It may also have to do with the age of voters, people who took photos before the digital revolution are more used to seeing photos with film grain, and know how photos looked when you had a "fast" film (high ISO) in your camera to be able to shoot under difficult conditions. Voters compare with Ansel Adams large format stills and think you could expect the same quality from handheld camera in the middle of a battle. --Cart (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Cart. This clarifies the situation surrounding the FP selection. I totally concur with you. While I am not a professional photographer by any means, I understand that a photograph is not only a technical feat. Most importantly it is art, and as such all rules may be broken for the sake of transferring the message or capturing a unique moment. In many cases, an image may be the best the photographer could do, being limited by circumstances. But it very hard to judge such pictures. It is easy (given equipment and controlled environment), however, to make highly technical pictures, well done in symmetry, sharpness, etc. It is also easy to judge such pictures due to very clear criteria (sharpness, crop, resolution, etc). That's also the feature of wiki approach: open market defines the prices, so to say. At times, masterpieces are sold for pennies --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 23:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support For an iconic photo like this, the discussion we should be having is which version we should promote. The educational value, importance, and wow are all build-in sufficient to cover any technical shortcomings. I'm also kind of aghast at the examples Cart mentions above. Sigh... — Rhododendrites talk |  13:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • 🧠 Opinion A soldier raising his gun like a killer is not necessarily a hero in the consciousness of everybody, whatever the camp, whatever the story.
The message contained in this picture is far from serene 🌼.
Celebrating this kind of virtue (sacrifice, courage, patriotism, or else) is always questionable in 2021, regardless of the photographic technique, regardless of the politics too.
Judgement at FPC usually follows from freedom to think, not from mutton behavior 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑. Wow factors are personal and seldom negotiable within the contributors. Most of us are just lucid enough to evaluate subjective emotions in parallel with the technical requirements, and in relation with the historical context too.
What quality are we expecting in 1942: Something better than 1941, I guess, with less noise and less vignetting.
It happens so often, flaws get forgiven at FPC. But submit a sort of kamikaze, controversial candidature, moreover weakened by explicit issues, that's no surprise a few "dissidents" splash the voting batch. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you that there are moral/ethical considerations. My support certainly doesn't mean that I regard this person as a hero, but that the historical significance of this picture gives it importance and educational value that compensates for some shortcomings. That by all accounts I've read it was an authentic moment in the heat of battle rather than a training exercise or photo op further makes me inclined to forgive its flaws. I wouldn't begrudge anyone for not wanting to feature an image that glorifies wartime violence, though, or to hold such images to a higher standard (or not to lower one's standards for it). — Rhododendrites talk |  16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is called the "wow" factor comes not from the fact that this soldier is holding a gun and not from any ideology transferred by the picture. I put aside politics and ideology, since this is not the place for the discussion of those. For me, this wow factor is that the image was taken in the conditions of the battle, where the photographer was risking his life to take the picture. The photographer did not have (like many of us) much opportunity to compose the shot, to verify all settings, to put the camera on a tripod. Most probably he had to cover himself from bullets while taking the shot. Probably the decision to take the photograph was made very quickly. And still he made the image sharp and very well composed, showing the moment of the action. All without EVF and other technology we have today. That's what is special about this picture for me. It is easy to take an image of a wall of windows and get featured, as was the case with my own pictures. Just take the camera, put on the tripod, make the settings, take your time and take the picture. If necessary, return and take it again. The wall is not going away. Anyone can do that, given equipment. Some moments are impossible to repeat and the job of a serious photographer is to document those moments. Also, not all messages transferred by a photograph must be positive. Not all pictures must be flowers and animals in their natural habitat. Sometimes, ugly sides of reality (war, disease, abuse, etc.) must be preserved for history for us to be able to discuss and learn from them. My opinion is based purely on the discussion of the skill of the photographer in an extreme situation. --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality is very bad, even in the conditions. Moreover, this guy is not an example, not a model for civilized people in 2021. He's holding a weapon like a champion would raise the Olympic flame -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Basile Morin: The officer defended his motherland from fascism. He was the commander motivating his soldiers. He lost his life doing so. What must a civilized person do in 2021, if someone comes to his/her home to murder his/her family? Show a flower to the killers? I bet you would use any weapon you had at your disposal and you would forget about flowers that moment. It is easy to speak about taking quality pictures during battles and about being civilized sitting in one's kitchen when no-one is coming to invade you. Would you stop this with kind language and pleas to those who do this? I would like to abstain from such discussions however. I am here for the discussion of photography. --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 01:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This change from "Wikimedia Commons" to "FPC" simply means that I will not be a part of FP community discussions in any way. I cannot except the treatment I have received here, where my messages are misinterpreted and I am falsely accused of civility violations. However, I will continue posting my images to Commons, since I will not engage in such discussions in that process. But enough clarifications. I always find myself to have to clarify since everything here is documented and I don't want my intentions and messages to remain misinterpreted by anybody. I hope this is all. I also hope that someone in this community will be able to investigate all this because such environment is dangerous for the project and for future participants --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 04:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Basile Morin: You can't compare a 1941 photo taken at an exhibition dance under calm circumstances with a 1942 photo taken under extreme conditions. If I was down in a trench to take photos during WW2, I too would load very "fast" film (=grainy) in my camera to be ready for any eventuality. Do you have any experience with photographing with film?
When it comes to the subject: Let's pretend we are making the world's best possible encyclopedia. It would look very strange if it contained only pretty, non-violent photos. Words like "killer" or "hero" are not compatible with the WP neutral point of view and should not be used when discussing images here. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Some neutral info When you shoot with film, you can't change what we now call 'ISO' between shots. It's the film that decides how fast a shutter you can use under low light. So you are stuck with the same 'ISO' for 36 frames (normally). "Fast film" for low light will actually be just as grainy if shot in 1941 as in a photo made in 1996. These days photographers can use two camera bodies with two different lenses at an event, back in the film days, the two (or three) cameras would contain films of different speed. The trick for any photo journalist then, was to guess what the light conditions might be so they could load the camera with the right film. Knowing you might be in a trench with lots of fast action and only one camera, the best bet would be to use a fast, albeit grainy film. --Cart (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I take strong exception to stating that a photo of someone defending their country against genocidal invaders might be opposed on moral grounds. The Nazis murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews in Ukraine during their short occupation, yet somehow, a photo of someone trying to fight them off is some kind of moral hazard. This isn't about the murderousness of Stalin or the actions of fighters of wars of aggression. I take this personally. By the way, one of my great uncles managed to escape across Soviet lines when my paternal grandfather's ancestral town of Bodzanow, Poland, was occupied by the Nazis, but he wasn't able to take his wife and children. Every one of them was murdered by the Nazis, and he fought in the Soviet Red Army during the war, though he was a democratic socialist and not a Communist. If you want to insult him for fighting in the Red Army and trying to kill Nazis in self-defense or claim that he should have been a pacifist and also gotten murdered by the Nazis, I have nothing printable to say to you. One of my uncles was also a war casualty, who was shot down on a bombing run over Bavaria with the U.S. Army Air Corps, survived the fall and was pitchforked to death by Bavarian peasants. And I have absolutely zero compunctions about the work he did. World War II was the only war the U.S. ever fought that was unambiguously in self-defense, and pacifists were great for the Nazis because they were that much easier to line up and shoot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have a problem with the army of a country defending itself against genocidal invaders who did their best to utterly wipe out my people and were responsible for tens of millions of Soviet deaths, yes, I do take that personally. I wasn't thinking of that when I voted for the photo, only after you posted your IMO highly inappropriate remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • COM:NPOV. Now please stop talking about "your people" and taking this nomination personally. If you believe the promotion / failure of this nomination is in relation with your family members, you're just completely off the mark. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh sure, who cares if the USSR had stopped fighting and I was never born because every Jew was wiped out! I should just be "objective" about that, right? Like hell! But do please note that I supported the photo based on Maksim Sokolov's explanation of the circumstances of when it was shot and the fact that it's an iconic Soviet war photo. You can easily see that I supported the nomination on April 8 and you made your remark on April 9. But feel free to keep digging yourself deeper into a hole and pretending that there's something inappropriate about my giving a damn about the victory that enabled me to ever live! Would you like to stop commenting now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:RIAN_archive_543_A_battalion_commander.jpg&oldid=552723122"