Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kamal Abbas

Kamal Abbas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2011 at 10:10:41 (UTC)

Original - A photograph of Egyptian activist Kamal Abbas taken during labor rights protests in 2010

Reason

A high resolution, very good quality, freely licensed photograph of Kamal Abbas, arguably one of the most important figures of the Egyptian labor movement and a prominent labor rights activist during Hosni Mubarak's reign.

Articles in which this image appears

Kamal Abbas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Hossam el-Hamalawy

• Support as nominator --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. An appealing photo of an appealing subject. I have a little TCO notability concern (I also worry a bit when I see Wiki being used for long articles on Middle East or Indian figures...just worry a bit about promotion, even though I sympathize with liberalism in the ME.) The black and white actually works pretty well in making the thing arty, but I wonder if it is legit in this day and age? Does make one wonder if the photo was from earlier in time (although I agree caption gives date). Also wonder about the eyes behind the eyeglasses. I guess this is how he looks irl though...just not sure.TCO (reviews needed) 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I understand you concerns about promoting figures that might not be notable but I assure you, this is not the case here. Kamal has been an activist since the late 80's and he is very well-known within the labour movement in general and in Egypt especially. I hope that you read his article to know more about his life and his role :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support. Interesting guy. And nice expression. Weak from the glasses.TCO (reviews needed) 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support A high quality photo. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support The rule of thumb is that in portraits BW is used instead of colour to emphasise the facial expression, the emotions or total lack of those. For this reason I approve of the BW (note that in 1:1 you can see the most minute details of his skin). However, what I dislike is the reflections in the glasses. (air)Wolf (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Just for the record I would like to add I will oppose the colour version. Not because it's in colour, but because of the elbow next to KA's cheek. (air)Wolf (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Brilliant artistic expression using depth of field with clear intention to tell a story. The foreground is in sharp focus and draws attention to the emotion on the person's face – which hints at tired wisdom, a playful hint of a smile, the willingness to persevere. (I don't think I'm reading too much into this, since any wise person with wrinkles usually has this look, but here it was captured so well in a flash of the moment.) The depth of field is also used to blur the people in the background – which can represent a fast pace of events, or perhaps something less significant, or maybe something very significant, but moving too fast for comprehension – we don't know, and the photographer deliberately leaves this vagueness up for interpretation. There is no middle ground (only foreground and background) which can represent that there is literally no middle ground and no room for negotiation. In order to exist in the photograph, as in real life, the subject had to make a conscious choice about where to be – in one of two planes, foreground or background. At this moment, he is in the foreground and is in focus, but in a second, he can step back and disappear into the blurred background, into the crowd, into the fast pace of life and out of the frame. Love it! USchick (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would say there are three planes. 1. Abbas. 2. The men directly behind him, whose faces are distinguishable. 3. The people in the more distant background, who are completely anonymous. (air)Wolf (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I could argue this point, but I'm not going to, because the image speaks for itself. USchick (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I work in this subject area and wrote much of this article. I think the photograph is candid, vivid, engaging and generally an excellent portrait of a man. In captures his sincerity as well as his position relative to the crowd. The only flaw I see is in the glare from the glasses, but I'm not sure that is that much of a defect considering it really shows a social activist outside, in his element, among people and controversy. That's who Abbas is, and this photograph captures it quite well. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Agree with above. Essam Sharaf (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, strongly prefer B&W version Good photo, the subject's mouth in the color version looks strange to me. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 05:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

the image is ceratainly well done, esp. in B&W, but im not acquainted with the technical requirements. otherwise i would support it and as one of current notability where available pics of the icons of the arab spring are hard to come by in good quality.Lihaas (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the quality of this image if I may, File:CharltonHestonCivilRightsMarch1963Retouched.jpg. It's way too dark with no detail at all in the jacket or tie. The intricate tie pin is completely lost. It's also very grainy. It looks like it was scanned in low res and then bumped up in Photoshop, which blew out any detail it originally had. This is very obvious if you look at the flutes in the column. It looks like they ran the despeckle filter too many times. I like the composition though. Compare the detail in both photos, especially the stitching in the collar of Abbas, you can count the threads. USchick (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - fine, engaging portrait. Background doesn't bother me in the least. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Great photo all around, I prefer the grayscale look (if that's the right phrase). This picture's a nice example of Hossam al-Hamalawi's work. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cluttered background, unnecessary black and white. I would be tempted to support if we had the image in colour. I think it's a little worrying how much of this FPC has been talking about the subject himself and how we feel about him- we're here to judge the picture, and its role within the article. I can't help but compare this picture with File:CharltonHestonCivilRightsMarch1963Retouched.jpg (which is greyscale as it was taken in the early '60s) and I think it's very clear which image is stronger. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Milburn, this photo was shot in B&W by the photographer; i.e.: there's no color alternative. I'm baffled as to why everyone's considering the B&W nature of the photo in terms of age. If you take a look at the photostream I provided above, from where this picture was taken, you'll see the photographer (Hossam el-Hamalawy) frequently uses B&W in his photography. I believe the greater degree of contrast really enhances the subject in B&W photo, and I think that's the reason behind him shooting in B&W, rather than an attempt at conveying a false appearance of 'age' or 'nostalgia'. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that I believed that the image existed in colour, I said I don't see why we should have it in black and white. If we're presenting this as a photograph of the subject, the artistry has to come second to the encyclopedic value. Unless this person actually exists in a greyscale world, I'm not convinced. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The colour version is available, and I really wonder if we should be promoting a black and white conversion in that case. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the color! That said, Flickr has it as NC. Probably need a donation, unless it is in Commons and verified OK at some time. Raises questions about what we have here also (if derivative, etc.) Just something to check.TCO (reviews needed) 22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The color version is actually a different one. The background is different and Kamal looks as if he was about to say something, which makes me think it doesn't count as a very good portrait, not as good as this one. Judging by the photostream on Flickr, there's only one version of this photograph, and it's in BW. There's also no need to worry about licensing; the original photo here had been uploaded under a different license, but was changed to a suitable one at our (Wikipedia's) request. Check for yourselves. If you've any further inquiries regarding the license, I'm sure I could get Ocassi or The Egyptian Liberal to help answer. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they are slightly different. Chances are we could get the author to release the colour one of this is it really makes a difference. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose While I do like the photo, I do not like photos that are unnecessarily black and white. This is a photo taken in 2010, I believe it is misleading to the viewer to artificially b/w it. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  Striking "weak", J Milburn's argument is quite convincing. We're not here to convey emotions, or show wisdom, or to portray a person in a certain light: such things would be unnecessarily POV. If the subject shows it, that's great, but putting it in B/W to intentionally convey those things isn't right by me.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Can't support when colour is most probably available. This isn't about creating a "nice look", EV comes first. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask The Egyptian Liberal. He knows Hossam el-Hamalawy personally and can definitively confirm whether a color version of this photo does or doesn't exist. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is likely - this looks like a BW conversion with a tool like (this) rather than an in camera one to me. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment about the B&W objection: I have talked to Hossam and he looked everywhere to see if he has a color version of this image but he couldn't find one. This this only version he has of this photo. He took it in black and white (If you look at this work, he mostly takes B&W photos, rarely colored ones). As for this image, its not same one, as you can see the mouth is a bit more open in it. Hossam has been kind kind to release some of his images so we can use them on wikipedia (even though his photos are his main income) that we wont be able to find under a free license anywhere else. As for the historical misleading issue that the B&W version might lead to, I dont think it will happen; This is picture of Golda Meir in B&W even though colored photos existed in her time. The reason Hossam takes a lot of his photos in B&W is because he feels it capture the subject much better and it shows more soul then the colored ones but that's his POV as an artist (Photography is a form of art). Some artists like to use colors while others like to draw with a pencil but they are beautiful in their own way :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's fair enough, but we're not evaluating thus image as art. We're not here to be art critics. J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, we are not art critics but we have a criteria to evaluate the image and I believe the image fits the criteria. If you dont believe so Please tell where do you think it fails. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You keep pointing out that this picture was created in greyscale, and that the artist frequently uses greyscale. That's fine, but it's not really important here. The fact it was created like this does not change the fact that a colour picture would be more appropriate, and we're not here to judge the artistry of the image, or how typical it is of the artist- we're judging this picture as an aid to understanding the article on the subject, not as a work of photographic art. J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I still prefer the author's colour one in the EV stakes. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I fail to understand how a color picture 'better aids' or is more appropriate in helping understand an article on the subject. I further fail to understand how your objections relate in anyway to the criteria on Featured Pictures, could you point out the relevant criteria you are relying on in your objections? --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would also like to point out that Ocaasi tried and so did I to try to get the colored version to be released under a free license but it didnt happen so we can pnly judge this picture, anyone who likes the colored one more should talk to Hossam and see if he can succsed where we failed and then he can nominate it the colored one. We judge the picture by criteria only. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, this is getting silly. You "judge the picture by criteria only", but try to argue that, because we have no coloured picture, we should be more willing to promote this one? No where in the criteria does it say that we must make do with the best we've got in terms of FPs- if a picture isn't good enough, we just won't promote, whether or not we have something better. At no point have I said "this one shouldn't be promoted, instead, that one should be"- I have only spoken about a hypothetical coloured image. It's perfectly reasonable for me to oppose this one, whether or not we have a coloured one- the way you're writing, it's like you don't understand that. And Sherif, my objections are tied very closely to the featured picture criteria, which specify the importance of encyclopedic value (this person does not actually live in a greyscale world, and so this is not a fair representation) and accuracy (as has been repeatedly said, the greyscale gives the false impression of age). Would we be supporting an image where the colour had been manipulated to give everything a blue tint? Of course we wouldn't, and so it seems weird to me that we're supporting this one. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough then. I indeed did not understand the relation between your objection and the FP criteria. I suppose it's a matter of different viewpoints (you relating B&W to age, me relating B&W to an artistic style). But I'd like to stress that the photo was taken in B&W not in color, i.e.: there was no manipulation. Just saying. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Milburn. The criteria exist for a reason, we should evaluate based upon them. Cowtowner (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very good photo. —Terrence and Phillip 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I don’t dislike black-and-white, and of course it can be very effective for portraiture. However, this photo is supposed to support an encyclopaedia article: having an image in greyscale gives a false impression of age. If possible I think the picture in the article should be replaced with a colour one.

Also I have a question: to the untrained eye this photo (and perhaps the colour one that is mentioned above) have areas of total black, such as the eyebrows, under the nose and in the hair. Is this a case of ‘blown-highlights’? TehGrauniad (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Closely related phenomenon often known as 'crushed shadows' or 'crushed blacks' (see here). 'Blown highlights' refers to overexposure, clipping the whites. These things may or may not be an issue, depending on the purpose of the photo, the expected detail, etc. --jjron (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there TehGraunied! Do have a read of mine and The Egyptian Liberal's replies above. No color version exists of this photo as it was taken in B&W (i.e., it has not been subject to editing). The photographer in question frequently uses B&W not to convey a false sense of age but because the stark contrast enhances the subject's presence in the picture. I'm not sure if the picture has blown-out highlights although I don't think this is the case here. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• No consensus. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)