Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:At close grips2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:At close grips2.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 04:15:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by H.D. Gridwood - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:At close grips.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)- Info The best digital photograph I've yet found of WWI: two US soldiers charge a bunker past the bodies of two German soldiers against a desolate background.
Support -- Durova (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)- Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yay, war propaganda. Wolf (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Rastrojo (D•ES) 17:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Is there any documentation to show that this is indeed an action shot? Anyone familiar with First World War photography field equipment would know that this shot would have been incredibly difficult to do during a battle, especially outside the protection of a trench. No information of which battle, formation or unit involved. The un-restored original certainly appears to be a stereoscopic image, which means two cameras would have been employed to make the unrestored image? I find such a photographic achievement hard to believe. Why has the image been split given its a stereoview? My primary concern is that the image is staged, a common propaganda practice during the First World War (Ex: Image:Going_over_the_top_01.jpg). The lack of back story on the image or any info on the author make validation extremely difficult. If promoted it should be on the basis of it being a staged image nut a battle image.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment You don't need two cameras to take a stereoscopic view. At that time, they had already stereoscopic cameras (i.e. one camera with two lenses) which were not particularly bigger or heavier than a 'normal' camera. However, that doesn't mean that the image is authentic. In this case it's very difficult to judge whether it is a real battle view or a staged one. -- MJJR (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think it isn't a battle photo. It is a war propaganda. --.dsm. 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's basically a fake which lost the third dimension during restoration. I would be curious to see early stereographic images here on FP however. Is there a simple way to watch them? --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Labattblueboy. Kleuske (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Labattblueboy. --Karel (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
