# "Afghan girl"



## Chuck (Nov 24, 2009)

Moderators - - please close this thread.  thanks


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Nov 24, 2009)

If I recall correctly Steve McCurry took this shot inside of a tent so I'd assume(and from the reflection in her eyes I'd say it's a good guess) that the catch light is the opening of the tent.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 24, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl_(photo)


> taken by National Geographic photographer Steve McCurry on Kodachrome color slide film.
> [...]
> The image itself was named "the most recognized photograph" in the history of the magazine.



They don't give any technical specs, but I suspect natural light.  Looks like maybe a window...

?


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 24, 2009)

Oooh -  that makes sense, with the green background.


----------



## joemc (Nov 24, 2009)

Edit removed


----------



## kundalini (Nov 24, 2009)

This is an iconic image..... and should be linked since it's not the OP's image.


----------



## |)\/8 (Nov 24, 2009)

I could be wrong, but I do not think you have the right to edit that photo, no more than you have the right to paint a new smile on the Mona Lisa.


----------



## joemc (Nov 24, 2009)

|)\/8 said:


> I could be wrong, but I do not think you have the right to edit that photo, no more than you have the right to paint a new smile on the Mona Lisa.




What??? he said it was OK to edit his photos??... Look at his profile??


----------



## joemc (Nov 24, 2009)

Sorry...now I see it was not his photo....my bad...you are correct


----------



## Moe (Nov 24, 2009)

:lmao:


----------



## MrRamonG (Nov 24, 2009)

What??? he said it was OK to edit his photos??... Look at his profile??[/QUOTE]

:lmao:.. LMAO... Maybe you should clean the little girl's face up in PS.


----------



## joemc (Nov 24, 2009)

I guess I should have read better and realized that it was not his photo.... 

Cheers and moving on....Good luck.
Joe


----------



## Moni (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm wondering, did he used any tripod?
And also about the technical configuration...


----------



## Chuck (Nov 24, 2009)

Hooligan Dan said:


> If I recall correctly Steve McCurry took this shot inside of a tent so I'd assume(and from the reflection in her eyes I'd say it's a good guess) that the catch light is the opening of the tent.



That makes sense.


----------



## Chuck (Nov 24, 2009)

kundalini said:


> This is an iconic image..... and should be linked since it's not the OP's image.



Ummm - - it is linked.  And I don't believe anyone would believe that I am claiming this to be my photo in any freakin' way possible.  Nor did I change it in any way whatsoever, including the fact that I did not post it, crop it, etc., etc.

Just a simple link to one of the most famous photos ever, that is plastered all over the Internet, in many different versions, and I chose this particular already existing link because it clearly showed the catch-lights in her eyes which was the main point of my question.

This is easily, easily easily fair use.

Mr. McCurry, I'm sure, would be very pleased that a group of photographers is studying his photo for educational purposes. . .

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


----------



## Chuck (Nov 24, 2009)

. . .


----------



## Dominantly (Nov 24, 2009)

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


----------



## kundalini (Nov 25, 2009)

Chuck said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Chuck said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm - - it is linked. .
> ...



Very nice language fella, very nice.

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


----------



## kundalini (Nov 25, 2009)

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 (Nov 25, 2009)

kundalini said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

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 (Nov 25, 2009)

iflynething said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



** 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

Original image deleted.

Thread closed.


----------



## iflynething (Nov 25, 2009)

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 (Nov 25, 2009)

iflynething said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 25, 2009)

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 (Nov 25, 2009)

Chuck said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

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 (Nov 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> 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.)
> ...



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.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 25, 2009)

Chuck said:


> 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.



If I remember correctly, the version that you had originally posted in the opening post was a square crop?  I very much prefer the uncropped (I assume) portrait orientation version...

Also, I'm sure that 90% of the people on this forum knew what photo you were asking about just by reading the thread title...  I actually Have Steve McCurry's book "Portraits" sitting on my desk right now, with this photo on the cover.  (Which is an excellent collection of portraits - I recommend picking it up.)

Anyway-


What is "technical merit"?  Does a photo have to be technically challenging to be good?


I'm sure this is natural light (would he really be dragging lights around in Afghanistan?).  To me, the catch lights look like a window.

You can clearly see the ground, a mountain range on the horizon, and the sky.

To me though, the catch lights are of no importance in this photo.
What makes it great (to me) are the colors, and the tattered garb.  And those eyes, lol.


----------



## Chuck (Nov 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> What is "technical merit"?  Does a photo have to be technically challenging to be good?
> 
> I'm sure this is natural light (would he really be dragging lights around in Afghanistan?).  To me, the catch lights look like a window.
> 
> ...



I certainly did not mean to imply that a photo has to be technically challenging to be good.  Not at all.  But as an experienced NatGeo photographer, I would bet the McCurry approached this photo with purposeful professionalism - - which certainly did contribute to its outstanding merit.  I'm not saying it had be to technically challenging - - but I would be interested in what (professional) efforts he did take to make this photo.

Hmmmm, to me, anyway, the nice catch-lights are very much part of what makes "those eyes".
Original Cover

Cropped Close-up with catch-lights visible​And I was interested, for reasons given above, as to how he got such nice catch-lights while running around a refugee camp.  I think he knew what he was doing - - and I was curious as to how he did it.

One pic.  Some interest on my part.  That's all.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 25, 2009)

Chuck said:


> I certainly did not mean to imply that a photo has to be technically challenging to be good.  Not at all.


I didn't mean to imply that _you_ thought that - I was just wondering what could have brought that comment about it "having no technical merit" on.
That comment is pretty much meaningless to me...  It kind of sounds like "meh...  I could have done that".  But, "you" (whoever made that comment) didn't.  It's probably one of the most recognizable photos ever taken...  Let's see something you did that everybody immediately knows just by uttering the name of it...



Chuck said:


> I think he knew what he was doing


Oh, I think he most certainly did know what he was doing.  He may not have known that this photo would become such an icon, but he knew how to achieve the results he had envisioned.



Chuck said:


> and I was curious as to how he did it.



I think there are a few reasons this kind of information is scarce.
Those were the pre-digital days, maybe he didn't write his settings down.  He likely didn't even care what his settings were.  He just knew that it was good.

You can't just right-click it and select "properties"...

I think you'd be hard pressed to find the settings of any of the great photos of the 20th century...

A lot of it is just being in the right place at the right time.  (That applies to most of the photography in National Geographic...)

He had to go to Afghanistan, a war zone, to get that.  It's no something you can just stop by the park to shoot.


----------



## wescobts (Nov 26, 2009)

Sometimes some of us are granted a little magic, I believe S. McCurry found some that day .


----------

