96:. 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...
34:
246:- 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.
42:
57:
213:. 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.
81:
65:
435:
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.
73:
434:
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,
396:
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
293:
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
498:
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
622:
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. -
196:
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.
265:
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.
255:
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.... --
373:
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?... --
133:. 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...). --
332:
316:
I say...that Jimbo has been secretly altering key images on
Knowledge (XXG). 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.
646:– 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. —
610:
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?
462:
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.
489:
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. --
728:
601:- 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. -
423:
17:
300:
499:
artifacts) then it should be no problem to just overwrite the existing file rather than upload a new one for comparison.
508:
471:
444:
364:
275:
222:
714:
675:
666:
627:
617:
605:
593:
572:
555:
521:
512:
493:
475:
457:
448:
429:
401:
378:
368:
349:
325:
310:
288:
279:
260:
250:
238:
226:
205:
182:
173:
159:
150:
137:
120:
108:
647:
664:
116:- what article does this illustrate? Without illustrating an article, and image is ineligible for FPC I believe.
413:
693:
580:(An amazing picture) reason: simplicity, contrast, balance. One of the best photographs I have ever seen
534:
418:
305:
569:
652:
33:
345:
341:
708:
549:
409:
170:
453:
This is a Canon Lide scanner, which means the light source is made of LED's. Is it relevant? --
672:
624:
602:
518:
505:
490:
468:
454:
441:
398:
375:
361:
295:
285:
272:
257:
235:
219:
156:
134:
105:
93:
89:
49:
589:- I dislike the presence of the scanning artifact, but would support a version without it.
517:
I'm afraid that won't be possible, the paper copy doesn't fit in the scanner that way. --
337:
722:
700:
688:
590:
541:
529:
247:
179:
147:
117:
614:
637:
Great image of a person. Dont know why it already isn't a pic of the day already.
56:
638:
500:
463:
436:
356:
267:
214:
193:
143:
41:
581:
319:
199:
80:
60:
Brightness/contrast adjusted detail showing "transparency" of man's legs.
526:
What if you scan it in halves and put the halves together in
Photoshop?
397:
the scanning process. Did any of you ever heard of Occan's Razor? :) --
611:
64:
72:
335:
FOR YOUR PROTECTION. PLEASE GO ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS AS NORMAL.
234:
I like it, it's a very good example of Contre Jour -
406:Or maybe the old man is just a ghost! Spoooooky...
355:Thank you for protecting me from myself, father!
178:Comment: this picture has no historical value.
192:. I like the composition, and it demonstrates
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
284:I can't explain. You are the expert. --
79:
71:
63:
55:
40:
32:
684:Promoted Image:The photographer new.jpg
671:I can tell because I still remember! -
331:THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN CENSORED BY THE
7:
729:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
146:, which should make it eligible.
37:Old man with camera in a tunnel
1:
715:16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
676:18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
667:17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
628:08:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
618:06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
606:22:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
594:19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
573:22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
556:20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
522:10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
513:10:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
494:10:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
476:09:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
458:09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
449:09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
430:14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
402:08:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
379:09:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
369:07:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
350:06:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
326:02:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
311:23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
289:22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
280:21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
261:20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
251:20:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
239:13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
227:11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
206:23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
183:23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
174:22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
160:15:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
151:14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
138:14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
121:14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
109:14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
92:- uploaded and nominated by
84:Legs scan, image rotated 90º
169:- good historic picture. --
745:
131:adding value to an article
127:featured pictures criteria
85:
77:
69:
61:
53:
38:
142:I added the image to
83:
75:
67:
59:
44:
36:
90:Joaquim Alves Gaspar
86:
78:
70:
62:
54:
39:
712:
553:
511:
474:
447:
367:
352:
278:
225:
155:Merci bien :) --
129:really refers to
736:
713:
706:
703:
698:
691:
662:
660:
657:
650:
554:
547:
544:
539:
532:
503:
466:
439:
426:
421:
416:
359:
336:
322:
308:
303:
298:
270:
236:Adrian Pingstone
217:
202:
28:The photographer
744:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
734:
733:
719:
718:
701:
694:
689:
686:
658:
655:
653:
648:
542:
535:
530:
527:
424:
419:
414:
320:
306:
301:
296:
200:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
742:
740:
732:
731:
721:
720:
681:
680:
679:
678:
641:
632:
631:
630:
620:
596:
584:
575:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
515:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
404:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
371:
294:of the image?
282:
241:
229:
208:
187:
186:
185:
164:
163:
162:
153:
123:
111:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
741:
730:
727:
726:
724:
717:
716:
710:
705:
704:
699:
697:
692:
685:
677:
674:
670:
669:
668:
665:
663:
651:
645:
642:
640:
636:
633:
629:
626:
621:
619:
616:
613:
609:
608:
607:
604:
600:
597:
595:
592:
588:
585:
583:
579:
576:
574:
571:
568:
565:
557:
551:
546:
545:
540:
538:
533:
525:
524:
523:
520:
516:
514:
510:
507:
502:
497:
496:
495:
492:
488:
485:
477:
473:
470:
465:
461:
460:
459:
456:
452:
451:
450:
446:
443:
438:
433:
432:
431:
428:
427:
422:
417:
412:
411:
405:
403:
400:
395:
392:
380:
377:
372:
370:
366:
363:
358:
354:
353:
351:
347:
343:
339:
334:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
323:
314:
313:
312:
309:
304:
299:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
281:
277:
274:
269:
264:
263:
262:
259:
254:
253:
252:
249:
245:
242:
240:
237:
233:
230:
228:
224:
221:
216:
212:
209:
207:
204:
203:
195:
191:
188:
184:
181:
177:
176:
175:
172:
171:Ineffable3000
168:
165:
161:
158:
154:
152:
149:
145:
141:
140:
139:
136:
132:
128:
124:
122:
119:
115:
112:
110:
107:
103:
100:Nominate and
99:
98:
97:
95:
91:
82:
74:
66:
58:
51:
47:
43:
35:
29:
26:
19:
695:
687:
683:
682:
643:
634:
598:
586:
577:
566:
536:
528:
486:
408:
407:
393:
318:
315:
243:
231:
210:
198:
189:
166:
130:
126:
113:
101:
87:
45:
27:
673:Alvesgaspar
625:Alvesgaspar
603:Alvesgaspar
570:Towsonu2003
519:Alvesgaspar
491:Alvesgaspar
455:Alvesgaspar
399:Alvesgaspar
376:Alvesgaspar
297:drumguy8800
286:Alvesgaspar
258:Alvesgaspar
194:Contre-jour
190:Weak oppose
157:Alvesgaspar
144:Contre-jour
135:Alvesgaspar
106:Alvesgaspar
94:Alvesgaspar
88:Created by
50:Alvesgaspar
509:(Contribs)
472:(Contribs)
445:(Contribs)
365:(Contribs)
276:(Contribs)
223:(Contribs)
125:Well, the
68:Legs macro
338:Night Gyr
76:Legs scan
723:Category
591:Debivort
248:Debivort
244:Question
180:Redquark
148:Redquark
118:Debivort
114:Question
644:Support
635:Support
587:Neutral
578:Support
567:Support
410:Nautica
232:Support
211:Support
167:Support
102:support
654:ditor
639:Bill g
506:(Talk)
501:Diliff
469:(Talk)
464:Diliff
442:(Talk)
437:Diliff
362:(Talk)
357:Diliff
273:(Talk)
268:Diliff
220:(Talk)
215:Diliff
46:Edit 1
690:howch
615:→Talk
582:Xunex
531:howch
333:CABAL
16:<
709:chat
661:arge
612:♠ SG
599:Info
550:chat
487:Info
415:Shad
394:Info
342:talk
321:Tewy
201:Tewy
104:. -
48:by
725::
702:ng
656:at
543:ng
504:|
467:|
440:|
360:|
348:)
346:Oy
317:--
271:|
218:|
197:--
711:}
707:{
696:e
659:L
649:E
552:}
548:{
537:e
425:s
420:e
344:/
340:(
307:T
302:C
52:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
