"Afghan girl"

[Chuck]

. . .

 

[Dominantly]

I don't see anything special about it, and I think it could be easily recreated or matched a million times over.

 

[kundalini]

Ummm - - it is linked. .

NO...IT IS EMBEDDED. World of difference.

ARRRRRRGH. <Multiple deletes.> Chuck, if you really feel this way, then you are a prick and do not deserve any further interaction. Good day.

 

[Chuck]

Ummm - - it is linked. .

NO...IT IS EMBEDDED. World of difference.

ARRRRRRGH. <Multiple deletes.> Chuck, if you really feel this way, then you are a prick and do not deserve any further interaction. Good day.

Very nice language fella, very nice.

Methinks you have clearly shown who/what you are. . . . . . for all the world to see.

 

[kundalini]

I'm an open book. I do not hide nor do I distort what I believe. I also have a tendancy to call a spade a spade. You might try a different tactic to try and insult me in the future.

Better luck next time Chuck. :lmao:

 

[Chuck]

Chuck, if you really feel this way, then you are a prick and do not deserve any further interaction. Good day.

And I can see you're a man of your word as well.

 

[iflynething]

You need to look at TPF FAQ's, especially the 3rd Down

Blatently, like what others are saying, it should be Linked like this and not the actual picture showing.

Her Then and Now shot is interesting to see how she has ages, but still, those eyes are still piercing

There are not if's, and's or but's about this.

~Michael~

 

[Chuck]

You need to look at TPF FAQ's, especially the 3rd Down

Blatently, like what others are saying, it should be Linked like this and not the actual picture showing.

Her Then and Now shot is interesting to see how she has ages, but still, those eyes are still piercing

There are not if's, and's or but's about this.

~Michael~

* You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.

Thank you for this post. If including that image, as I did, is considering "Posting" the image then I stand corrected. Without knowing the specific site rules, I did not know/consider linking (embedding) to a well known image would be interpreted as a "post". (That is, it is technically crystal-clear that the image is a link to another site and not posted from my computer, etc.)

Clearly, from an Intellectual Property perspective what I did is very much legal and accepted practice.

However, now that I have been informed, I will follow the forum rules. I am new to this site and admit I am not familiar with all its practices. I now know the rule and its accepted interpretation here - - and will follow it.

Thank you again for your thoughtful and informative post.

 

[Chuck]

Original image deleted.

Thread closed.

 

[iflynething]

If we can see it and it's not your's, it shouldn't be there. That's basically what that's saying. It's not about if the picture is on another site and the picture is being embedded via THAT site, still we can see it but it was not your work. When something like this comes up, there has to be something done in general for all pictures and hence that rule. It would be no different than posting a picture (the actual picture in the post) that I took. Even though you say it's not your own and we KNOW it's not (as in the case with "Afghan Girl" since it's such an "iconic image"), it still need to be linked.

The FAQ page is well worth a check out! Welcome to the forum. I think some people flamed you too much for being new and just not knowing. It's also well worth making sure you are looking around alot and are actually able to "see" things like this by other posters and not do them yourself.

I have been searching Google for a about 20 min and haven't found anything technical about this photo.

Steve McCurry's e-mail is info@stevemccurry.com.

I considered e-mailing him and just asking the source?

~Michael~

 

[Chuck]

If we can see it and it's not your's, it shouldn't be there. That's basically what that's saying.

I have been searching Google for a about 20 min and haven't found anything technical about this photo.

Steve McCurry's e-mail is info@stevemccurry.com.

I considered e-mailing him and just asking the source?

~Michael~

I'm not sure I personally get the distinction between including the image address between anchor tags vs. including the image address between img tags - - but I do accept that this forum gets to set its own rules, and I will follow them. :blushing: :blackeye:

I searched all over for technical info on the photo myself, and like you could not find any, so that's why I started this thread.

If you do contact him, please let us know what he says - - as long as that is within forum rules. ;-)

 

[musicaleCA]

Huh? I thought it was a spur of the moment shot. I was pretty sure it was a spur of the moment shot. He didn't have a name until they went on a hunt for her years later. Kodachrome film shot from a ways back while she was running in front of McCurry. The green tint in the photo referenced is because of the editing process. The version that ran in NG is bluer and was not edited to accentuate her eyes as much.

 

[Josh66]

Now, back to anyone who might have some technical info on how this pic was taken so that we can learn from it.

Umm... Sorry, but what do you really expect to learn from knowing the technical specs?

You are referring to shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and all that - right?
(If not, we need further clarification on what you are asking.)

Judging by the DOF, I would guess somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4 - but closer to 2.8. Shutter speed is really of no importance in a shot like this; yeah, fast enough to hand hold, but other than that - it doesn't matter.
Whatever it took to get the 'right' exposure.

Aperture can be guessed close enough, and the rest doesn't really matter.
The only other thing (that I'm not going to guess at) is what lens he used.
Not sure how much that would really help either...

You can learn more by looking at the photo than you can by reading the 'exif'.

 

[DennyCrane]

They found her in her 30s... still has the same piercing eyes:

http://photography.nationalgeograph.../POD/a/afghan-girl-before-after-127438-sw.jpg

 

[Chuck]

Umm... Sorry, but what do you really expect to learn from knowing the technical specs?

You are referring to shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and all that - right?
(If not, we need further clarification on what you are asking.)

Judging by the DOF, I would guess somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4 - but closer to 2.8. Shutter speed is really of no importance in a shot like this; yeah, fast enough to hand hold, but other than that - it doesn't matter.
Whatever it took to get the 'right' exposure.

Aperture can be guessed close enough, and the rest doesn't really matter.
The only other thing (that I'm not going to guess at) is what lens he used.
Not sure how much that would really help either...

You can learn more by looking at the photo than you can by reading the 'exif'.

Well, it seems this thread still has some life. So, to answer your question:

I am now interested in doing more serious portrait work. This got me thinking about "famous portraits" - - which of course immediately led to Afghan girl.

When I looked at the photo online with a (new) critical eye towards the photography behind it rather than just the impact of the photo itself, I was immediately struck by the catch-lights in her eyes.

I have been reading a fair amount about portraiture work, which includes creating good catch-lights to really make the subjects appear alive - - and sometimes the great lengths photographers go in using proper (and artificial) lighting to do this.

I did not know much about the photo-taking itself for Afghan girl - - but thought it was just a quick shot. I searched the Internet and was surprised to find that I could not find any info on the shot, other than that McCurry used Kodachrome (slide film).

Given the great reaction this photo has created, and the way it has apparently moved so many people world-wide, I thought it might be an interesting photographic exercise to "deconstruct" the photo - - and figure out how it had been made. I was particularly interested in how he got such great catch-lights running around a refugee camp. (And I am certainly not experienced enough myself to just look at the photo and figure out what happened: hence the reason why I started this thread.)

So I included the photo (with a description similar to the above) in my first post - - and the thread quickly deteriorated from that point on.

Some have already posted here that the shot is not of any interesting technical merit. And yet, something tells me there is more to it than just a nice snapshot.