Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Un ragazzo filippino ricoperto di sabbia vulcanica.jpg

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

File:Un ragazzo filippino ricoperto di sabbia vulcanica.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2017 at 16:45:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A filipino guy is covered with volcanic sand in Mindanao
  • Thank you for all the clarifications. Much appreciated. One reason I didn't ask on the other photo was because it was not made by a Commons user and I could not speak directly here on the nomination page with the photographer, the other is that this boy (it is hard to see exactly how old he is) is mostly naked and the other kids are completely dressed. I wouldn't say that this boy is "absolutely unrecognizable", I'm sure his friends and family would recognize him even with the mud. --cart-Talk 23:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Far too much (chroma) noise for me to support this for FP, despite the good composition. Also, the right shoulder is out of focus; I wouldn't mind as much if that was the only problem, but it doesn't help.--Peulle (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dear Peulle, by watching your pics uploaded here on Commons I feel to suggest you to check if your monitor is well calibrated: they all have quite an evident cyan dominant that you might not be noticing. The issue might interfere while you watch others' photographs.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks for your suggestion; I first looked at this on my ASUS VS247NR 23,6" LED monitor, and it reveals "flaws" more easily given the high resolution. However, when looking at my new Macbook Pro monitor, I'm still seeing quite a bit of noise and lack of sharpness here.--Peulle (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support refreshingly different --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support When making a portrait, the whole body doesn't have to be sharp as well. Like Martin said, it's different and I find it slightly disturbing in a sort of "Lord of the Flies" kind of way... But that means it extracted an emotion from me, and that's what good photographs do: Create emotions. A "wow" doesn't have to be a good warm fuzzy feeling. --cart-Talk 13:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  weak support Nice composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I do not understand the reason for the camera settings 1/8.000 secs with f/2. The minimal DOF does not work for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Photographs speak for themselves. If you don't understand, why oppose? a comment is more than enough.Paolobon140 (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose  Comment I like it, but it looks (partially) underexposed to me: There's almost no detail in the hair, for example, and his irises are almost as black as his pupils (even with very dark brown eyes it should be possible to distinguish them). The cornea are also pretty grey (or actually green due to some kind of noise) – not that one should try to make it pure white ([1]), but this is certainly on the darker side. Quick sanity check: 1/8000 @ f/2 @ 100 ISO is pretty much sunny 16 (so far that combination does indeed make sense if you want a shallow DOF), but it's quite early in the day and the weather looks rather overcast, so I'd probably add at least one stop to that (for a "normal" shot). That being said, I think I get the idea: It's supposed to be dark gloomy. I like that and I totally agree with cart's comments. The problem is not that the over-all picture is a bit on the dark side; that's intended and it works well. The problem is, in my humble opinion, that the head is too dark in relation to the rest of the scene. I understand that this was most likely a spontaneous shot and you probably didn't carry a reflector or a flash with you. But I think a tiny little bit of fill light on the face could have brought you much closer to producing the image you had in mind when you pressed the shutter button. --El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dear El Grafo, ty for having spent so much of your time in commenting on my photograph. But id like to put you a question: "Did you think that it might be that this photograph is exactly how i wanted it to be?" I wanted a dark picture, with a dark figure in the middle on a dreamy, unsharp and unfocuse almost lunar background. And the fugure is covered with dark send that has colourful relflections. Thats all. I wanted exactly this picture. Print it on a large format and you will catch what i mean. Frame it with a white passepartout and hang it on the wall and you will see a dark picture of a dark guy on a lunar beach. I will not add more, photographs talk for themselves. But i thought here on Commons we might talk about photography, but im sad to notice here on Commons most of the people talk about sharpness, dead pixels, cropping, the pixel on the right top that seems to have a strange colour, millimetres. I didnt see one single portrait, but sunsets, panormanas, montains and all those exciting things. here one person even said that in one of my photographs culds were "disturbing" Lol. Others said that wires shoudnt be in a photograph, Lol. That is not photography, that is techincalism brought by surveyor whose pics (not photographs) wouldnt even be able to stand in an ABC manual for beginners. Some here said they ignored there is a rule of the thirds. Im not talking about you of course, but all i have seen here is people saying "I dont like th DoF", "if you cropped 5 pixels the pic would be better"; "the left top corner is not enough sharp". Sorry, this is not photography: everyone with s mobile phone camera can take a sharp pic. Other thing is imagining a scene at f/2 in the late afternoon (in your techincal analysis you forgot to notice that being my clock set on an italian time and being th Philippines 6 hours ahead, the photograph must have been taken in the afternoon, right before the seunset. In the Philippines sunset is around 6 pm). Who said a photogrph must be sunny, sharp and with all the dull colours in the right place? SOmeone who is proudly listing his poor photographic cameras and lenses in his Commons profile? Come on, El Grafo, let's be serious and let's talk about photography. Lets leave sharpness, dead pixels, flashes (how many people know how to use a flash here?) and croppings to those who learnt photographing on a mobile phone, where softwares take the pic:-) With respect and sympathy, my last words here.Paolobon140 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paolobon140: Sorry, not much time today, so I'll have to make it a quick answer. I totally agree with most of what you wrote above. Thanks for clearing up the time thing, I was indeed a bit irritated when I saw the time stamp as the scene really didn't look like early morning. I was trying to talk about photography in the second half of my review, feel free to completely ignore the first half: You obviously had a plan for this image and you executed it very well. When I say that I find the head a bit too dark in comparison to the rest, that's from a "photography" perspective and considering that the dark styling of the photograph. But that's a matter of taste and in any case not severe enough to warrant the oppose I initially gave, so after thinking about it a bit more I've removed my vote. I'm actually leaning towards supporting today, but I think I need some more time to make up my mind. --El Grafo (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Rare image -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as another National Geographic-level image. Interesting to me how the things that I might normally hold against it, such as the vignetting, shallow depth and excess space on the sides, actually work in its favor here. This boy is definitely a product of his environment.

    And then there is the expression on his face. From whence comes this intensity? Is he friend or foe? I know the photographer has clarified in response to cart's questions above that he is the former, but even knowing that the uncertainty lingers in the image ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Thank you Daniel for your deep words that i appreciate a lot becasue they describe this photograph. A photograph is in some way a part of the photographer and being understood is absolutely important. For the shallow depth and excess space: I hav been lately working a lot on the use of negative space in my pictures and if you could see mmy newer ones, you would notice it even more; shallow depth is something i cannot forget in this kind of pictures, where the real look of the background is absolutely not important, being it only like wings in a theatre; background is only negative space that must be filled with a hint of reality.Paolobon140 (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 4 December 2017 (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:Un_ragazzo_filippino_ricoperto_di_sabbia_vulcanica.jpg&oldid=296808963"