Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The photographer

The photographer edit

Old man with camera in a tunnel

Brightness/contrast adjusted detail showing "transparency" of man's legs.

Legs macro

Legs scan

Legs scan, image rotated 90º

Created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar - uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar. I nominate this picture for the simplicity and balance of its composition. The two-dimensional silhouette is brought into 3-D world by the light dimly reflected in the ground. The photo was taken in 1968 with a Rolleicord-type camera, those with twin lenses and square negatives. Because the negative is lost a scanned image of a paper copy was made, only corrected for scratches and white dots. This is a minimalist picture whose only thrill is to guess whether the old man is moving toward us or away from us... In a technically-driven forum like this one, it should have little chances...

Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what article does this illustrate? Without illustrating an article, and image is ineligible for FPC I believe. Debivort 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the featured pictures criteria really refers to adding value to an article. But are you sure that all FP were taken from existing articles? As far as I know there is no such imposition. In the present case, I think the picture illustrates well the old photographic technique of "contre-jour" (I might write an article on this...). --Alvesgaspar 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the image to Contre-jour, which should make it eligible. Redquark 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merci bien :) -- Alvesgaspar 15:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good historic picture. --Ineffable3000 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this picture has no historical value. Redquark 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I like the composition, and it demonstrates Contre-jour well enough, but a scan from paper is bound to have impurities, and this one just isn't clear enough for me to support. And since this has little or no historical value, I would prefer to see a color image for the encyclopedic aspect. I'm sure there are more examples out there. --Tewy 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It demonstrates Contre-jour very well and the fact that the subject is artistic and describes a concept rather than an object/location means that I don't think it has be clear, accurate or colourful to be a good candidate - only relevent and representative of the concept. The only issue I have is that it could be cropped slightly, but thats just my opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, it's a very good example of Contre Jour - Adrian Pingstone 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - my laptop LCD often lets me see strange detail in image shadows. I noticed that the texture of the tunnel floor is visible through the legs of the person in the photo. Is this transparency a typical effect of Contre-jour? I've illustrated this by selecting the darkest regions of the guy and boosting the brightness and contrast (see detail image). If this aspect is expected using this photographic technique, I will support image. Debivort 20:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are kiding, right?... The only translucent part of the silhouette is the top of the man's hat. What you see in your laptop either is magic or ... some artifacts created by the manipulation of the image. You might well support the image just for its beauty.... -- Alvesgaspar 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I can replicate the same 'artifacts' in photoshop, so it is definitely the image and not just his PC. How do you explain that the lines on the path correspond BEHIND the silhouette of the man? I'm assuming good faith for now, but you must admit, it looks fishy. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't explain. You are the expert. -- Alvesgaspar 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, the left foot looks awkward.. the line that I must assume is a highlight on a shiny shoe is a straight line out onto the picture. That would either mean it's been scanned and there was something wrong with the original image (a cut, scrape, etc) or .. I don't know? It was just placed on top of the image? drumguy8800 C T 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I say...that Jimbo has been secretly altering key images on Wikipedia. It's all part of his plot to instill subliminal messages into the mind of the viewer. This is simply one of those images—a mind control device. --Tewy 02:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN CENSORED BY THE CABAL FOR YOUR PROTECTION. PLEASE GO ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS AS NORMAL. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for protecting me from myself, father! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You are most welcome. But didn't I tell you so many times not to accuse people of doing bad things without solid evidence? By the way, son, I've noticed that the rules of this place forbid biting newbies. But they say nothing about biting vets, am I right?... -- Alvesgaspar 09:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I'm joining two more images: the first (Legs macro) is a macro photo of the offending detail in the paper copy; the second (Legs scan) is a fresh scan of the same detail. As you can see, the artifacts are quite visible in the scanned version but absent in the macro photo. Conclusion: it is caused by the scanning process. Did any of you ever heard of Occan's Razor? :) -- Alvesgaspar 08:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe the old man is just a ghost! Spoooooky... NauticaShad e s 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, but in this case, Occam's Razor might suggest that the simplest explanation is that you manipulated the image so don't invoke it too rashly ;-). The only thing I can think of is that, similar in concept to a laser printer drum keeping an electrostatic 'image' for a short period of time, the scanner's photoreceptors have scanned along the lines and not reset their charges quickly enough for the sharp contrast. But then again, when I think about it, surely 'white' would result in a charge and black in a lack of charge, meaning there would be even less chance of it imprinting the silhouette. I can't really explain it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a Canon Lide scanner, which means the light source is made of LED's. Is it relevant? -- Alvesgaspar 09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think the light source is relevent, just the photoreceptors and the process of how they record light as the scanning mechanism moves across the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I have re-scanned the image, this time after rotating it 90º. The artifacts are gone! I think you might be right about the delay of the photo receptors. -- Alvesgaspar 10:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm glad that has solved the problem. I was going to suggest that it might depend whether the lines were parallel or perpendicular to the direction that the scanning head moved. Looks like that was the answer. Have you replaced the original image? As long as it is fundimentally the same (minus the artifacts) then it should be no problem to just overwrite the existing file rather than upload a new one for comparison. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid that won't be possible, the paper copy doesn't fit in the scanner that way. -- Alvesgaspar 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What if you scan it in halves and put the halves together in Photoshop? howch e ng {chat} 20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Towsonu2003 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (An amazing picture) reason: simplicity, contrast, balance. One of the best photographs I have ever seen Xunex
Neutral - I dislike the presence of the scanning artifact, but would support a version without it. Debivort 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info - It's fair. I have replaced the original with a slightly edited version in which most of the artifacts were corrected. This is the best I could do. - Alvesgaspar 22:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the future, you shouldn't remove the original nomination; just add an edit. And that edit should be uploaded to commons, as was the original. One question: why did you crop the top? ♠ SG →Talk 06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll do that. Yes, the second version is a little shorter, I'm sorry. The problem is I did not work on the first version but on the original image that came out of the scanner. Anyway, I think it is better this way and I had at least two comments suggesting a crop at the top. - Alvesgaspar 08:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image of a person. Dont know why it already isn't a pic of the day already. Bill g
Support – although you can't (I couldn't) immediately tell that it is a photographer holding a camera, the beauty of the shot and the exemplary use of framing, shape, and simplicity make this a very worthy candidate. — Editor at Large^(speak) 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can tell because I still remember! - Alvesgaspar 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:The photographer new.jpg howch e ng {chat} 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]