Talk:Cliché verre

Couple of Issues

First, I wonder about the appropriateness of this being classified under 'printmaking', as photography is not printmaking, and there are no references to printmaking in the article. I am a photographer myself, and so do not know if this is appropriate or not. If printmakers use cliche verre, please amend the article.

Second, the link to the contemporary artist is not someone I've ever heard of, and he does not have a CV on his site to verify that he is established to the point that this is not just a case of advertisement through wikipedia. May I suggest any number of established artists, such as Henry Holmes Smith or Pablo Picasso? Unless someone can verify some sort of notoriety, I suggest that the current link be removed.

Juicifer451 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vincent60030 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Trapped tiger, Delacroix, 1854

• ... that Delacroix's only work in the semiphotographic cliché verre printmaking technique shows a tiger at bay (pictured)? Source: p. 114, near top, in Schenck, Kimberly, "Cliché-verre: Drawing and Photography", Topics in Photographic Preservation, Volume 6, pp.112–118, 1995, American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works, online

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gibson Kyle
• Comment: For calculating expansion, note that the last 2 paras of the "before" version were pure cut n'paste copyvio

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 17:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC).

• 5x expansion accepted (the former version was largely a copyvio). Article is reliably sourced, written neutrally, and free of detectable plagiarism. The hook is interesting, properly formatted, concise and neutral. The hook image is freely licensed, appears in the article, and has reasonable clarity/quality, but needs alt text. Also, the hook fact is not quite stated explicitly in the article and needs an inline citation. Other than that, this'll be good to go after QPQ.

Thank you Johnbod. This is a good article and a dramatic improvement. Just out of curiousity, is there a reason you chose to use the flipped image rather than, say, File:Eugène Delacroix - A Trapped Tiger - 1925.578 - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg? gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Not really, except it's a slightly better image. Extra ref added for hook. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

QPQ done and alt text not needed. This is good to go. gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Also

Encyclopedia of nineteenth-century photography: A-I, index, By John Hannavy Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Glass print"

The first sentence of the lede gives glass print; the 2nd paragraph deals with translating Cliché verre; and the section "Glass prints" gives a different definition. This might be clearer if the bolded glass print were saved for the 2nd paragraph and contrasted there with the rubbed 'glass print'. Sparafucil (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that might be more confusing - the rubbed ones are an even more obscure topic, & pretty rare. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Image of plate?

It seems a pity there are numerous examples of prints, but none of a plate with the negative image. Sparafucil (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)