Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 18:58:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Taiwanese Monk at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taiwanese Monk at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpg
It indeed is peculiar! When I realized that it's not given to everyone to meet with a monk in the middle of the Salar, I thought that this coincidence was worth a photo and a good chat—he's a great guy! At the end, there isn't much to explain though—he was simply travelling like everyone else for a few weeks in order to see some nice places and to meet some of his fellows scattered in Latin America. Funningly he was given a tablet to document his travels and did that pretty well to the point of taking a snap every 5 minutes while being driven around the Salar. I hope this is not going against some special requirements for the featured category that I might have missed—since I saw other very similar photos being promoted as featured, I thought that I was good to go. Let me know if not and I'll remove it. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly not breaking any FP rules subject-wise. Interesting story, and I like it because it challenges my prejudice views that a Taiwanese monk would probably stay in Taiwan, and if traveling, wear a more 'normal' outfit:) I think it would be worthwhile to add a shortened version of this story to the file page, such that other users who initially go WTF? (like me) can get some further insight. Did you ask for his consent to publish this work for commercial re-use? Concerning a vote, I need to think about it. My biggest concern is that I think an FP should tell its story by itself. On the other hand I like the 'surprise' aspect of this photo, which poke at my simple-minded 'view of the world'. And it makes me curious to learn more, which is good. --Slaunger (talk)
Fair enough! I'm glad that it triggers this kind of reaction. I've updated the description as requested but as for his consent, I don't have it. I'm unfortunately not very good with the legislation part of photography, but I thought having read somewhere on Wikimedia that release rights were not required as soon as a person was shot in a public place? Now, I can't recall where exactly I've read that for reference, nor if the Salar is a public place at all? If I'm wrong in thinking that, and in the case where I can't manage to contact him, what should I do? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people - there are country-specific issues. The term "commercial use" is ambiguous. Nearly all images of identifiable people on Commons lack a "model release" that would permit using this image for "commercial" purposes i.e. advertising, but the image may still be used in a "commercial" publication, such as education or news. Ultimately, it is up the the re-user to determine their legal situation and the free licence needed for Commons is a separate issue from personality rights. The thing you need to worry about as a photographer/uploader is the the country-specific laws about taking/publishing photos of people with/without consent. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those explanations—as expected, it doesn't sound simple :) In this case, I should look at Bolivia since the photo was taken there rather than Taiwan which is his nationality, right? In any case, none of those two countries are listed on your link so it's hard for me to tell without some investigations. That said, if I take the shortcut of checking Peru instead, it doesn't seem to be a good sign? Now, I'm quite "speechless" at this page... looking at the rules applied to France for example, I've got difficulties to imagine that more than 0.0001% of the photos on Facebook, Instagram, and most of the internet (Wikimedia too from what you said?), are being published with an explicit consent of the subject. Sounds like a complex case here? Anyways, if you think that it's easier to remove that photo, it's totally fine with me. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately those pages aren't very helpful and tend to be compiled by folk playing amateur lawyer rather than looking at reality. And doesn't list Bolivia. You are right that the laws in some countries are technically so strict that very few images would be legal. Can you imagine a football or tennis match on TV where the crowd was all blurred out? And laws regarding "publication" seem to exist from a pre-internet age when your holiday snaps were in an album on a bookshelf. You might want to ask User:Poco a poco, who seems well travelled. Commons is unlikely to delete the image and any legal risk you face here is no different to your Flickr page. Your friendly monk clearly consented to having his photo taken by you and if he is using a tablet for photos, then he's probably got one of you on his Flickr page so you could safely assume he's aware the image might end up on the internet. I find it hard to imagine this Taiwanese monk using Bolivian law to sue you for taking a holiday photo and posting it on the internet. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like travelling (and actually are planning also to go to Uyuni soon), but cannot provide much clarification to this discussion. I don't know the Bolivian law and couldn't find much on the Internet. If the picture would have been taken e.g. in Spain, then it would probably have to be deleted, because apart from public people or public event where people are secondary (e.g. football match), everything else requires explicit authorization. I have asked a Bolivian user for help, maybe he can contribute more than me. Poco219:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I can't imagine him suing me neither, it would be so far away from his philosophy. But after this conversation, I somehow felt like that I'm in this grey area where I assume that it's all good without officially knowing his point of view. In which case, my entire Flickr is indeed in the same position, as well as most of Flickr accounts and the whole internet... which makes me think that those laws are a bit absurd—it's not as if I was being a paparazzi and breaking the privacy of those persons (I hope). Ok, that's clearing my mind, thanks :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the photo to stay as well, but I think there is a difference between the (formally illegal, but casual) use on social media, where the typical (tacit) assumption for the depicted person is that it is shared among friends of the photographer, and being more highly profiled by becoming a featured picture. Say, it becomes FP. It will then end up on the main page of commons as POTD one day. Often more than a year after the event happened. And that day alone it will receive some 40,000 page views (a POTD on EN.FP receives some 15,000,000(!) page views) of people spread all over. I know that if it was me who was depicted, that would make quite a difference for me, and I would really like to know and give my consent. It is not a question of a law suit or not. It is a question about showing courtesy to the depicted and maintain good ethics. (I am thereby not saying the creator here has bad ethics, just that it is difficult and worthwhile giving some thought) Maybe it would be embarassing for him to be depicted with white rubber boots (which I love) for a wider public? I don't know, and I think it is hard to say without knowing the depicted person better and his cultural values. It is a for me a difficult balance between protecting the privacy of an identifiable person (even if posing in public) and getting these outstanding people shots on Commons (which we have way to few of, because it is so difficult to do it right). --Slaunger (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very fair point, thanks for bringing it in. I didn't know that FP pictures could have such an exposure (I'm actually quite impressed with those numbers!). That said, I believe that Flickr photos can have similar exposures since they're not restricted to circles of friends—but this it out of topic and doesn't change anything about the issue here. Having talked with him, he's very chilled and didn't have a problem with the boots at all or whatsoever. He actually was quite amused and thanked me for the 2 pictures I took of him while being very happy of the resulting previews. But still, I will try one more time to get in touch with him to be 100% sure that he's fine with this photo being published. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a good idea to deny FP status because of worries about exposure. We have to consider any image file on Commons (or public folder on Flickr -- freely licensed or not) to have the potential for massive exposure beyond our control. Should I lose sleep over the hundreds of identifiable people in this or this? Perhaps someone in my railway station crowd made a non-optimal clothing choice that day? Everyone may have their own ethical position on taking/publishing photos of people, but this isn't a "privacy" issue at all -- that's the wrong concern. We have far, far more concerning photos on Commons than this. And there are plenty professionals taking photos of people with little more "consent" than pointing at the camera and making a thumbs-up question, only going to the trouble of written consent when they want to sell images for stock or advertising. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I think the crowd shots you are mentioning, with identifiable persons if you look at it in full resolution are an entirely different matter. Say if one man is "identified" there walking with his mistress by pure coincidence, because someone who knows him, scrutinizes the photo at 100%, he knew it was a chance he took. Here the monk is the main subject (and him and the photographer actually appear to be quite alone, although in a public setting) and the tacit contract between main subject and photographer is completely different. I agree that we have far worse examples on Commons on violating consent than this (if this is violating it at all), and there are pro photographers, who does not follow the book, but that is not an excuse for not doing things right. Especially for our collection of FPs they should provide a good example in every aspect, the wow, the quality, the file page, the categorization, the consent. They should be a show-case of professionalism in every aspect. and show that Commons can actually behave responsibly and not be "broken" as some regularly claim. --Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Small heads up: A few days ago, I tried for the second time to contact him through the Facebook email that he gave me, but still no luck. I can't even add him as a friend since his account doesn't allow such invitations. As such, he must receive my messages in the "others" section of Facebook's messages and probably haven't seen them. I've searched for another way to contact him but he's not subscribed anywhere else—apparently he doesn't even have a "proper" (non-Facebook) email. I'm out of ideas. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the persistence. After having read your blog about the meeting with the monk I am not so concerned about the consent. --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magic lighting and setting. Hopefully this picture won't get deleted. And yes, taiwanese people take pictures every 5 minutes ;) (no offense intended, just a reference to people I know). - Benh (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only fault I can find is the horizon goes through his head rather than, say, further down. But the lighting, scene and subject are all great. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am willing to accept that this photographer has sufficient consent for hosting this on Commons and having it featured. Re-use would be a different issue. I think the personality rights template addresses those consent and re-use issues well enough for our mandate. Particulalry given this is such a lovely picture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is fakeSupport I tried to make a joke, however, I am learning the meaning of English humor. Pardon the misunderstanding. Very nice work Christopher, Now, talking seriously. I hope to see future work with the same quality and effort, congratulations --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wilfredo, Christopher's blog is a little confusing but I think he is saying the gradient in the sky and the perfect reflections in his photographs look like a faked Photoshop image. But they aren't (I trust). -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never easy to grab the specific humour of each, especially with a big scary red “oppose” notation, but that's all good with me. Thanks for the kind comment (as well as everyone else's)! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am sorry, a hoax. I was hoping to see enough votes in favor to little influence over the ratings. If ever you are coming to take photos in Brazil, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do I have to defend my vote?! Well, looking at the face it looks quite soft. And the noise in the homogenous areas is also significant. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to... it's counted anyways. But it's more of a courtesy, and "technically wrong" could mean anything (and so means nothing). When I'm yelled at, I like to know why. And I'm just surprised a 16mpix picture which isn't that soft (IMO, and nothing sharpening can't fix) isn't as good as a 3mpix. - Benh (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject, composition, and color all work for me, though could wish for sharper detail on the monk. Is ISO 800 a bit high for that camera? Perhaps shutter at 1/60 with ISO 400 would have been better. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fuji's X-trans sensors are pretty good at handling noise, even though there are some drawback like lost of details during demosaicing (which can be considered noise somehow...). ISO 800 is not a problem in my experience, but this was processed with Lightroom and author used default values, which are known to render soft. - Benh (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a tripod and therefore I have my camera hand-handled. When I used to shot with my Hasselblad 500 C/M, I didn't mind going as low a 1/30s since the body is quite heavy and hence more stable. But with this small and light Fuji X100S, I avoid as much as possible going slower than 1/125s or there would be too many chances for me to slightly move and get a blurry picture. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Christopher Crouzet - uploaded by Christopher Crouzet - nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This is fake
Question Uoaei1, Like for the picture below, would you develop? Especially, how is this picture (which you supported) better technically? - Benh (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Do I have to defend my vote?! Well, looking at the face it looks quite soft. And the noise in the homogenous areas is also significant. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
