Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/Archive 1

Copyright Question

OK, I'll ask the first question. If you take a photograph and alter it significantly, let's say I use filters in Adobe Photoshop to make the photo look like a drawing, who does the image then belong to?

I have several old photos of which the ownership is unclear. I could use them for illustration if I were allowed to manipulate them.

DWR 05:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How much of the image is altered? If it is radically different that you barely can tell what the original is, then it is copyright under you, technically. Fair use of the other person's work. But I think you'll need to still give credit to the other person for the original image. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By law if the original artist can prove that it was their work that the new work was derived from...you would loose a copy right infringment case. There is no fair use of work in that manner.--Amadscientist 00:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets set some standards

I think photos are very important, so this project should be important! Anyway, we need to set some standards such as (please add more):

What is the preferred copyright for peoples' uploaded photos?

• I (and most others I would guess) want to upload my own pictures with the most wiki friendly copyright, which is it? Bluemoose 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{GFDL}}, {{cc-by-sa}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just use {{PD-self}}. --jmeeter 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I think we should standardise our file naming, maybe: country_place_whatitis_date.jpg e.g. UK_London_BigBen_April2005.jpg Bluemoose 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see several problems with this proposal.

• Collisions: same subject, date, & time. Collisions are very likely for event-related articles. Ex: USA_Chicago_St_Patrick’s_Day_Parade_March_17_2005.jpg.
• Portfolio: the naming convention probably won’t match a photographer’s portfolio. This would leave him or her to track two different references for a photo – his/hers, and the wiki-name. With over 100,000 images in my portfolio, I really don’t want another name to track. I’ve uploaded over 60 photos since joining Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago (gallery), and I anticipate uploading a few hundred more before summer.
• Administrative hassle. Do we really want to follow behind people and fix their work or bug them to fix their work? Photos are easily searchable with simple text searches, so I see little benefit to adding this data to the file name.

Granted uploaders should include as much image metadata as possible with each image (date, place, event/subject), but they really don’t need to do that in the file name.

Sample file name: A01 6025 640x427.jpg. It’s ugly, but I know exactly where in my portfolio I can find this image, what images I took during the same shoot, and the image size. So long as the uploader adds meta data to the image's summery information, I don't really care what someone calls it. Rklawton 05:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo sizes

• What is the best size for photos, after all an 8MP camera is probably going to produce files a bit to big, I suggest about 2MP (approximately 1600x1200) is optimal file size/picture quality trade off. Bluemoose 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  

I don't think size limits should be restricted. Uploading high resolution photos is a good thing. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The guidelines say that as long as the file size is under 2mb, to upload the highest resolution image possible. I agree, and in my opinion the file size restriction should be relaxed, too. Don't forget that we should be able to use Wikipedia to create print versions (which has much higher requirements for resolution) of the encyclopedia, or in general to re-use its contents in any way. Brighterorange 15:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the best photo is a photo that was taken at the camera's full megapixel rating, and then downsampled by half. For example, 2560x1920 becomes 1280x960. Downsampling increases sharpness and reduces noise significantly. This is because you're using several pixels to create a single pixel in the downsampled image. As a general rule, I don't think anything larger than 1600x1200 should be uploaded, because even today, most people don't run their monitors higher than 1024x768, and because of that they have to either A: Use their browser's auto resize, or B: Scroll the image around to see the whole thing. Clearly, we do not want this. And unless you plan on printing out 8x10s, 1600x1200 should be fine. Perhaps an outside link to the unedited file should be included for those who need a bigger version. Anyway, just a suggestion.PiccoloNamek 05:15, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's best for Wikipedia to have the highest resolution images possible. (I disagree with the above about downsampling; depends a lot on the camera). According to the image use policy images must be less than 16 megabytes. For comparison the JPEGs that come out of my 8 megapixel Canon 350D are about 3 megabytes and compress down to 1 meg with a reasonable quality JPEG (photoshop 8 or Gimp 80). Don't scale the image down! -- Nelson 17:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of using 2MP. Its relatively small but if anyone needs a 4R print, it has just enough pixels ( 4" x 6" x 300ppi x 300ppi = 2.16MP) to handle the job. Besides, I'd rather cut down file sizes (hence loading time) but cutting down the size of the photo, than using more compression. btw, I'm using a hi-res LCD monitor, and even that only has 1.73MP. --218.111.245.241 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Old photographs?

Since there isn't a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Photos) page, I would like to ask this question of some of the photo experts here. What should one do with old photographs that you are planning to upload to the Wikipedia? I've uploaded a few old photos from the Library of Congress. Unfortunately, like many of the pre-1923 public domain photos at the LOC, they were darkened and yellowed. Most of the photos I uploaded I have used "as is". For one of the photos, however, I cropped the image, and then converted the image to greyscale and lightened up the image, which I think gave a much better picture. I am wondering if there should be any sort of Wikipedia guidlines for this type of photo manipulation. BlankVerse ∅ 13:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Photo Editing

Perhaps a list containing photos that need to be edited or enhanced should be created? It would make it much easier to have them all in one spot, and many more of them would be fixed in a smaller amount of time. I propose that there should be a section on the main page (or maybe even a link to a sub-section) for Photographs that need attention.

Edit: Here's a perfect example right here. [1] Compare the new and old versions of the same file. See how much better the new one looks? We should have a group of people to deal with this kind of thing, I say! PiccoloNamek 04:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

All right, check this out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Photos that need attention. I've only just created it, so there are probably a lot of things that could be fixed, but it's a start, ne?

Commons

Is this WikiProject still active? If so, should it include some discussion of Commons?

There is a brief intro to commons for WPians at Wikipedia:Commons that may be of interest. pfctdayelise 12:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask in a stronger way - is there any reason why this project shouldn't be turned into a giant redir to commons? Stan 23:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. There's precious little useful content, and the broken templates at the bottom of the page make it look very unmaintained. Algae 09:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Commons is not quite ready. I think Eloquence once suggested we have commons:Portal:Photographers but I don't think commons has the portal namespace. So we could just have commons:Commons:Photographers. or commons:Commons:WikiProject Photography, although I would also think it would include animators and illustrators. It has been on my commons "to do" list for a while, but so have a few other things, so if anyone wants to jump in and set one of those up, it would be cool. Once we get it reasonably established, people here would have less reason to complain about what they'd be losing.

Also, I read that they're aiming to implement single login across all projects by March or so. that will make life easier too. pfctdayelise 10:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This project isn't so much about managing the existing library of images (there are other projects for that), but about the contribution process. On the other hand, it's not clear that this project actually plays any useful role anyway; no recommendations, no policy, no process, no standards. (I think it could have such things, but nobody seems motivated.) Stan 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question

Can you claim copyright on alterations made to a public domain image? Ex: Image:Wpdms nasa topo wind river range.jpg --Hetar 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can. Rklawton 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you alter a public domain image and then claim it as your own, you only have a limited amount of copy right as the original image can still be used in the same manner. If you attempt to claim your image as the basis of the other work (used from the public domain) your would be wrong. Therefore legally you may not win any copy right infringement based on the original public domain image.--Amadscientist 01:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Notphoto

There's a discussion about the category associated with this recent (3 July 06) template for tagging images which are claimed to be photographs but "obviously" not. It's been used twice. I think that this project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration should be given some input as to what happens. Discussion here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

portal:photography and wikiproject photography

Hello everyone at this wikiproject! If this project is active and anyone is around, please tell me so that I will know whether or not to place this wikiproject prominently. Also, if there is no still involved with this project, I was wondering if I could give it an overhaul? Thanks, -Gphoto 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm actively photographing and adding images to articles. The wikiphotoproject is a great idea, but it's poorly organized. For example, is there a "Needs Photo" tag that can somehow also relate to geographic region editors can insert into their articles? If we can provide a link in this project to an automated summary of those links by geography, then we'll have a quick-hit list active photographers can reference. Those who are active in that area or plan to visit will find a quick-hit list of stuff that needs shooting. For example, if I know I'm visiting Waco, Texas, next month, it would be great to have a list of articles in that area that need illustrating I can print out an bring with me. As it stands, I'm working from the National Register of Historic Places list because it lists articles by state, county, and city. Unfortunately, most of the places on these lists lack articles. At least they'll have images once someone rights an article (... yeah, I know, and I've created a stub or two here and there). I also realize that not everything is geographyically bound, but it would make a great start. If such lists already exist, please point me to them! Rklawton 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Yeah, this project is very poorly organized, and a geographical system would be nice. I will try and see what I can do. Thanks, -Gphoto 12:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

I don't know if this is the place, but I'll try. I was looking for a photo of Robert F. Engle (Nobel Prize in economics, 2001) and I found this photo [2] which, since it's been made by the White House, is free for all purposes/not covered by copyright. The thing is, I would need to crop Engle out of that picture (he's the 3rd from left, white hair, next to Bush) to produce a portrait as good as possible. But I don't really know how to do that. Can someone help? AdamSmithee 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You actually want to put this over at Requested Pictures. As for the photo you're talking about ... it's a little too small for me to do much with. Hopefully, someone else will be able to help you. Nathan Wert 12:48PM Monday 10/30/2006

Technically the wrong place to post a request, but I'll see what I can do! — Pumpkin Editor, at Large! 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feed-back! I looked around, but didn't notice Requested Pictures. I know that it is low res, but... they say a low quality free photo is better than a high quality copyrighted/fair use photo. Pumpkin Editor, I'd really appreciate any help! AdamSmithee 09:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year competition

Voting is now open at Commons to choose the finalists for Picture of the Year 2006. The voting page is at Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. All editors having at least 100 edits either here or on any Wikimedia Wiki are welcome to participate. --MichaelMaggs 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. Please come by and state your views. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

no wonder there is only one film guy if he puts Kodak gold in his camera!, whats the point of that anyway, plenty of people like me use both, why separate them.

Camera clubs?

There's several articles about specific ones, but no parent article for them - but one might be useful to have. Шизомби 14:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Added my first photo

Hello everyone, I am quite happy to announce that I added my first photo today, which can be seen in the J-B Weld article. It was taken with my Nikon D80. What do you think of the photo, is it appropriate? Should I have uploaded it at a higher resolution? --jmeeter 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you set about it right – lighting, etc – but finishing could be improved.. it's abit small and there's too mauch space around the tubes. In general for this kind of pic, crop the image fairly close to the subject and then resize it; anything over 1200 pixels along its longest edge is fine. The wiki markup automatically resizes your pic for the image page and article, while leaving the higher res file there, should anyone need it. A purist might add something about shooting pristine new tubes, but I like the way these ones have come staight out of the workshop, much more enc :) mikaul^talk 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for gallery on Chopper (motorcycle) page

Hey, I was considering creating a gallery for the Chopper page, consisting of some new, hi-res pictures of old, classic choppers. Sure, there are good examples in the article already but 2/3 of them are poor quality. What do you guys say? --jmeeter 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RAW versus raw

If you have an opinion about whether "raw" should be all caps or not, please check out Talk:Raw image format‎ and leave a comment. Dicklyon 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviving and broadening the scope of this project

Would anyone be interested in reviving and broadening the scope of this project? Right now the project appears to be dead, but I feel that the project can be breathed new life on it, if it concentrates on Photography articles. Right now there are many photography articles that could use a lot of work. PPGMD 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, if you can get people interested in working on photography articles that would be great. You might want to try and contact some of the current members of the wikiproject before doing anything major. But working on photography articles would be great. If you get anything going, please alert me on my talk page. I can put something about it on the photography portal (which I run). Oh, by the way, photography is up for voting on a WP:AID, so voting on that might get more people interested in working on photography articles in general (though I might be biased because I put the article up for nomination). Regards, -Gphoto^talk 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm here because of this seemingly bizarre edit. WikiProject Photography is a project to better articles by contributing and improving photographs to the Wikipedia. It has six numbered goals, of which it's obvious that all but the fourth (to which I'll return) are purely practical. As such, it's an admirable project about which I've known for some time, and I wish it all the best, though I haven't bothered to contribute to it myself. The fourth goal is to "Provide a focus point for photographers, photo editors and digital artists." In a different context, this could conceivably be taken to include articles about photographers, photography, etc.; but it doesn't seem to apply here. But then we get to the template, which says that WikiProject Photography is "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on photography on Wikipedia." It is? Then why is nothing relevant mentioned anywhere above? To me it looks as if a project dedicated to improving the level of prose in Wikipedia (another commendable idea) announced as an afterthought and with no evidence whatever that it was trying to build a guide to articles on literature. I wrote all the above "offline" and then arrived at this talk page where I discover that yes, the notion of articles about photography is indeed an afterthought, or anyway a recent thought. Although it's a recent thought here, it has been thought about elsewhere. In particular, I'd like to draw your attention to List of photographers (a list that no doubt contains links to some dubious articles but that is defended against spamming and self-promotion much more vigorously than are similar lists on different subjects), to its talk page, and to the embryonic WikiProject History of Photography. The last of these hasn't advanced recently for several reasons, but I still think it's sound. -- Hoary 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hoary, I'm glad you are working on photography stuff. I have added to the template banner to reflect everything that this wikiproject is trying to do. We are really just starting to think about bettering the articles on photography, so not much has happened yet. If you know of anyone that needs help from this wikiproject please direct them this way. If you need anything or would like assistance with photography items, please contact me anytime. Thanks for the links; I have added the history of photography WP to the photography portal list of things to do. Regards, -Gphoto^talk 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, though actually that embryonic project was mostly Pinkville's work (as you no doubt guessed). Since you anyway linked to it, I took it live: Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography. To put it crudely, it's now competing with part of what you propose to do. I don't have any feelings of ownership about it and I very much doubt that Pinkville or anyone else has; I don't care how good articles are made as long as they are made. So if there really is a competition, I'd be happy if WikiProject Photography results in good pages of the kind that interest me and if the "history" project dies in infancy. That said, I do think there's a good reason for a general (though not complete!) separation of photographs and photographers from cameras, the photography biz, etc.; and that reason is the enormous risk of puffery. Anybody can call himself a photographer, many do, and we've seen plenty of unsuitable contenders and have taken them off to AfD. Mix a photographer portal with all the buzz of Photokina (is it called?), Photoshop, etc., and I think the number of self-described photographers may skyrocket. Meanwhile, cameras themselves are done increasingly well over at Camerapedia. -- Hoary 12:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that there is much of a chance that there will be any competition, at least in the near future. So far no one is signed up for WP:PHOTO to work on articles, and I really don't know if anything is happening on the old stuff. I really would like to see this project active and growing, and that is what I am working towards, but nothing is happening right now. I, too, think that there is a problem with people writing articles about themselves as photographers. This might be a problem that we can address with this wikiproject if you don't think it would overlap yours too much. Regards, Gphoto^talk 14:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the project page, the scope of this project is:

“ to contribute and better photographs on the Wikipedia. This project seeks to be a central focus point for photographers, photo editors, and digital artists so that requests to improve articles for photographs and to improve photographs can be dealt with in a timely manner. It is in the hope that this project helps to drive contributions of photographs much like the Collaboration of the Week, and act as a Noticeboard for photographers. ”

OK, that could do with some editing, but the focus is clearly on contributing better photographs, not writing articles on photography. I think the two should be kept separate, as they are quite unrelated. One problem, at present, it that there's no easy way for an editor who wants a photo for an article to request it eg by simply adding a tag to the page. There is a little-known page where requests can be made, of course, but it's poorly used and is stuffed with requests for pictures of famous people which most photographers won't be able to help with. It would also be good to enhance the photo-volunteers list to indicate what type of photos or subjects volunteers are able to contribute. --MichaelMaggs 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point Michael. I wonder if we should create an entirely new wikiproject that deals with photography articles while letting this one deal entirely with pictures. What do you think the exact scope of this wikiproject should be? Do you think the template should have something about getting pictures for a certain article? It seems like the template should be used by those who need a picture, instead of the wikiproject members tagging pages. Regards, Gphoto^talk 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Michael exaggerates slightly when he says that contributing better photographs [and] writing articles on photography . .  are quite unrelated. In practice, I'd guess that there's a significant correlation between (a) happily carrying around and using a camera to help illustrate articles and (b) being interested in the photography of others. But there's also a correlation between being interested in soccer and being interested in scantily/not-clad young ladies. Facetiousness aside, all in all I agree with Michael.

Gphoto: I wonder if we should create an entirely new wikiproject that deals with photography articles. Well [cough] there is something called Wikiproject:History of photography. This doesn't attempt to cover all of photography, carefully avoiding the matter of hardware, but I think that it may go some way toward meeting the requirements. (I'd be happy if somebody else created a third, complementary project for cameras, etc. -- though as I've said, I think Camerapedia already does this well, and I am also a bit wary of any formal or personal project to add an article for every commercial product: the result can easily end up sounding like a collection of poorly written press releases.)

As to It seems like the template should be used by those who need a picture, instead of the wikiproject members tagging pages, couldn't this project have two clearly different templates, one for each of these two very different purposes? Or perhaps instead a single template, with variables that both put the talk page into either of two categories ("done" versus "to-do") and make the template look very different.

Back to the start of this discussion. There's some despondence hereabouts because Wikiproject Photography seems to be dormant; what should be done about that? I don't have any particular suggestions right now, other than the dual template. -- Hoary 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What I said about making a completely new wikiproject was mostly pointless, but what Wikiproject:History of photography covers does not include the basic parts of photography like cameras, hardware, various techniques, types of photography, and some photographers. These subects all are in need of some wikipedians that know about them. Sometime soon I will think of something but right now all I can think of is maybe creating a parent Wikiproject:Photography to cover all the little wikiprojects that cover different areas of photography. The main problem that I can see with all this is getting people involved and actively working on all of it. I think that two different templates is a very good idea and is along the same line as some sort of branching system for the different areas of photography. Thanks for all the advice on this stuff. Regards, -- Gphoto^talk 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:HoP (let's call it) aims to cover any photographer who's worth covering by WP, as well as certain techniques and types of photography. Personally I'd be happy for it to cover cameras and other hardware as well, but only if it did so in a balanced and dispassionate way. (Thus coverage of SLRs would say roughly what they are and what impact they've had on photography, but it would not get into brand wars, lens mounts, limited editions, etc etc.) Experience tells me that such coverage of any kind of consumer good of interest to teenage boys (of all ages, and perhaps including the ladies) is not possible, and intuition tells me that once articles on the Canonosonic DX2000, DX3000, DX3000P, DX4000PX etc etc are added to a project, their keen users will then be tempted to add articles on themselves, their best buddies, etc etc ... so no thanks. -- Hoary 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ..... slightly reworded 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I myself understand this as I am in this category, and I see the uselessness of covering the camera market. It would be great if WP:HoP covered photography articles, because then the current WP:Photo could cover what it was originally intended to cover and WP:HoP could cover articles. Regards, Gphoto^talk 02:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're pretty much describing WP:HoP as Pinkville, I and perhaps others see it. And of course there's nothing sacrosanct about our "vision": you're welcome to nudge it as you want. (Course, we may nudge back! Well, persuade us.) NB "history" most certainly includes the present, but the point of using the word is to remind people that this is an encyclopedia of what's in some way significant, not a compendium of whatever is rightly or wrongly generating a buzz during this or that fifteen-minute period. -- Hoary 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I like how you realize that there is more to this encyclopedia than whatever fills the mind at that certain moment. The encyclopedia needs more people that want to create and maintain articles about history and things that happened in the past and are important now. Whatever you think WP:HoP should write about is fine with me, because you guys are working on photography articles. I guess I can now go back to figuring out how to organize the task of taking the photographs here at wikipedia. Regards, Gphoto^talk 03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to revitalise this project

To allow editors to focus on what's of most interest to them, I do think we ought to maintain two separate projects: this one, aimed at adding better pictures, and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, aimed at improving photography-related articles. I may even join both.

Can I suggest we restate the aims of this project along the following lines:

To improve the quality of photographic images on Wikepedia and to add new high-quality images; to act as a focal point for photographers and photographic-image editors who are able to offer their skills to the Wiki community; and to act as a point of contact for article editors requiring photographic images or photographic advice and assistance.

New photograph required (article template)

It would be good to have an easy-to-use template that article editors could use to request a photo. One template already exists, namely Template:Reqphoto, which puts an entry into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. But this doesn't actually allow requests to be categorised in any sensible way, nor can a photographer quickly review the list without going to each article, one by one, to see what type of photo is needed. So, it's not that useful for Project members to work from.

To enable other project members easily to keep an eye on requests of interest to them, the template should ideally allow editors to specify:

• subject category (e.g. nature, portrait, landscape, buildings, food etc)

• place (e.g. London, New York) where applicable

• any special equipment required (close-up/micro lens, telescope, microscope) where applicable

• any other requirements (free text field for comments)

Also already existing is the page Wikipedia:Requested pictures but, as mentioned above, this is not well-used, and again doesn't allow photographers easily to watch whether requests have been made in their areas of interest. It also overlaps in function with the template, and is confusing for editors. See also Commons:Picture requests, which does much the same thing.

A template of this type would make it easy for me to see, for example, which articles are in need of closeup/macro shots of household items, and to provide them, as well as making it easy for an editor who needs such an image to found out that I'm here and ready to help.

Photograph requiring cleanup or improvement (article template and/or image tag)

This template should allow article editors to request help from Project members to get an existing image cleaned up or otherwise improved (via Photoshop or some similar program).

An image tag Template:Cleanup-image already exists, which adds problem images to Category:Images for cleanup. This could could perhaps be improved. It would also be useful to have an article template as well, given that many editors don't seem to like to get involved in image issues and would be more likely to add a template to the talk page than to go into an image and edit there. Members may also be more likely to work on a problem image that's associated with an important article, rather than simply picking images without much context.

The unused pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Photos that need attention and Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Project collaboration simply duplicate the above, and could be removed.

I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding.

We should also maintain a page where members can indicate their interests and areas in which they can help - something like a combination of Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers and the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but with at least this information:

• Name
• Subjects of special interest
• Location
• Uses SLR?
• Special equipment available
• Will supply new photos?
• Will undertake photo editing?
• Will provide advice?

What do others think? Is there enough interest to move this forward? MichaelMaggs 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

---

This looks very good! Could you actually create the templates so that they can be put on the appropriate subpages? I think that it will help the life of this project very, very, much if images start to get tagged because people will actually have something to work on. Regards, Gphoto^talk 20:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

um I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding. See above! --MichaelMaggs 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs: I do think we ought to maintain two separate projects: this one, aimed at adding better pictures, and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, aimed at improving photography-related articles. You may also be interested to see the start of a draft WikiProject Cameras. -- Hoary 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if there is not actually that much interest in this. A shame. --MichaelMaggs 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

New Photo Matching Service

Have you seen an article on wikipedia that needs a photograph but you can't travel a thousand miles to take it? Do you love taking pictures for the wiki but aren't sure what our needs are? I've created Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service to solve both problems by matching photographers with articles that need photos. To a certain extent it duplicates Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers, but its a bit more useful for finding someone to take a photo because its sorted by location. Additionally, the page also includes a list of needed photos for any given location so anybody can see what photos we need and take them for us even if that person doesn't want to list themselves as a photographer. Anyway, the page is pretty bare-bones at the moment and I would appreciate any comments that people have. GabrielF 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29"

If this works out, it will be the death of our dear, dear, slightly inactive project. --Gphoto^talk 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hubble Ultra-Deep Field

The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field article ('s talk page) has been tagged as being of interest to both the History of photography WikiProject and this one. As this is the more general of the two WikiProjects, I'm wondering whether the {{WikiProject Photography}} template shouldn't be removed from that talk page… - dcljr (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Which of the two following two photos would be best to use as a portrait?

The consensus is that option 1 has the best of combination of photos because the photos portray them in a similar mood; Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are both smiling. Editors opposed options 2 and 3 because they could be a violation of WP:NPOV in portraying Sanders with a negative facial expression. There was insufficient discussion of options 4, 5, and 6, which were added later in the discussion, so there is no consensus on those options and no prejudice against further discussion of those options.

Cunard (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there,

A few users and I are having trouble agreeing on the best photo to use as a portrait for Bernie Sanders's template.

It will often be displayed beside Hillary Clinton's portrait during the democratic nomination: Do the portraits of each candidate present them equally? The two portraits of Sanders, each presented in relation to Clinton's portrait, follow:

InternetMeme (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Option 1

	This article is part of a series about Hillary Clinton
	This article is part of a series about Bernie Sanders

Option 2

	This article is part of a series about Hillary Clinton
	This article is part of a series about Bernie Sanders

Option 3

	This article is part of a series about Hillary Clinton
	This article is part of a series about Bernie Sanders

Option 4

	This article is part of a series about Hillary Clinton
	This article is part of a series about Bernie Sanders

Option 5

	This article is part of a series about Hillary Clinton
	This article is part of a series about Bernie Sanders

Votes

• Option 2 or Option 3 since Sanders's head-to-shoulder ratio is similar to Clinton's and the photo from Option 1 is already used in United States presidential election, 2016. Also, the Option 2 photo is of higher quality and more up to date. --Proud User (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Now that these new options are available, I am also considering Option 4.--Proud User (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 if these are really the only two choices, though in fact, we can do better.

  We cannot put photos of the two candidates side-by-side with such drastically different facial expressions. It is distracting because it looks like we're trying to make a point. Even viewers who don't care about whether they're smiling are not are going to sense that Wikipedia is deliberately trying to send a message, somehow favoring or slighting one or the other. Any combination of photos of this nature is going to be inherently skunked. It's true that the smiling Sanders photo in Option 1 is not very high quality, but WP:NPOV is paramount, while image quality in this case is purely decorative. It isn't as if the better focus, lighting, and resolution conveys any encyclopedic information, as it might in a scientific or technical illustration.

  If we choose a Clinton photo with an expression closer to Sanders's, then you avoid creating a lightening rod for NPOV debate, as in my first suggestion at the right.

  If we want to stick with the smiling Clinton photos, why did we even choose the lesser quality Sanders photo? We have at least two other higher quality photos of him smiling.

  If aspect ratios and head/shoulder ratios are so important (And why is that anyway? This isn't a layout and design contest, our goal is neutrality.) that can be fixed with a little more cropping. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys. I thought we folk from over at the Sanders article were supposed to abstain from voting, but if it's all fine I'd like to vote for any of the following, in order of preference: Option 1, Option 4, Option 3. (and I also added headings to help clarify vote identification).

(Post edited because I got the numbers wrong initially)

InternetMeme (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I like option 3 - the two people are about the same and all others of Hillary are looking up too much. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support option1. Strongly oppose option 2 & 3: I feel these photos are unsuitable, as they are not professional looking or neutral. They look like he's really uncomfortable, with a pained/embarrassed expression. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 - I agree with the above user, Mrjulesd. I strongly oppose option 2 and 3, because it portrays Sanders in a negative like and makes him look lesser. His facial expression does not match that of Hillary's. Option 1 is the best choice, as they are both photographed in a positive and professional manner. If we are going to choose a photo for him, it has to be on the same playing grounds as Hillary's photo to avoid any NPOV debates. Hope this helps. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 4 seem the most equal mainly because they are both smiling/portrayed in a similar mood and the images are similar size. 2 or 3 seem more biased against Sanders given the facial expression. -KaJunl (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 Smiles are preferred. Calibrador (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Option 1. Oppose 2 and 3 Smiles are good. Option 4 is too dark but otherwise would be fine. Option 2 and 3 are not as professional. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Guessing from what everyone is saying, the consensus would probably support Option 4 if we adjusted the levels slightly so the one isn't quite so dark and the other isn't so light. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Option 6. The following seems more like a good match because (A) the margins of the background showing around the heads is much more similar in proportion, and (B) the smiles are comparable (both look like nice smiles, not forced or gigantic teeth style). Clinton's hair in Option 1 takes up way more of the total frame making her look bigger than Sanders. You can crop-off the bottom of Sander's image so the image heights match, which will also balance the shoulder-to-bottom-of-the-frame ratio a little. Also, whatever pictures you end up with you might need to photoshop the background color for balance between the two images (Clinton's background is much darker, it looks photoshopped already) but that is trivial to do I think. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 02:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Option 1. Option 1 is the only one where both candidates appear to have a similar facial expression and are well lit. Options 2 and 3 show Sanders with an unnecessarily awkward facial expression. Option 4 shows a poorly lit photo of Sanders. Option 5 shows Sanders at an unnecessarily awkward angle to the camera. Option 6 is ok but I think Hillary looks better in the other picture. Either they are both serious, or both smiling, but if the facial expressions are different, it could communicate an unwanted bias and distract from the content. Cheers. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Option 6

	This article is part of a series about Hillary Clinton
	This article is part of a series about Bernie Sanders

---

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Inventor's note" in the article on layers

The article on layers in image editing contains a note by someone who says that he invented them, which is probably against your code. It's written in first person. 82.74.143.127 (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed it. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The claim in the Layers (digital image editing) article that was removed said that the first program to have layers was IWS's Image Wizard. This is worth us researching for validity. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinion on contrast

Contrast?

Does this photo have enough contrast? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Selfie & Self-portrait

Selfie defines itself as "a self-portrait photograph". Self-portrait defines itself as "a representation of an artist that is drawn, painted, photographed, or sculpted by that artist." I previously added a cite check to Selfie with a direct to the talk page where I suggested, among other things, that it is unlikely the consensus is that all selfies are by artists (though artist may have its own difficulties finding consensus). There has been no response, and the cite check remains. Clearly I could be wrong, in which case the cite check should be removed. If I am wrong and Self-portrait is also accurate, should selfies and selfie artists feature in that article? It could be that articles define themselves independently of one another, but I thought this would be a good place to ask. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be overthinking this. It's a bit like erotica vs. pornography (NB softcore pornography) vs. nude (art)/nude photography (art). Most people would probably say they know it when they see it, but no rigorous, universally agreed distinction exists. So we cover all these topics individually despite the overlap. Samsara 21:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Like you, I have a personal opinion. However, Pornography does not define itself as art. I know it when I see it defines itself as "a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters." It also reads "Still, however, this left the ultimate decision of what constituted obscenity up to the whim of the courts, and did not provide an easily applicable standard for review by the lower courts. This changed in 1973". I suppose if your comparison is to call for a selfie equivalent of the Miller test, I'm interested to hear it, but I suspect there are less complicated options available. Perhaps ones that don't involve "unusually inconsistent" court rulings. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

While I appreciate your guardianship of me, I do post on other pages hoping to hear and learn from other experienced editors. No offense intended. Given your level of interest and expertise, perhaps you would write on my talk page as well. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanded Discussion of Perspective Three-Point Pose Problem

Is there any interest in expanding the discussion of P3P in light of recent developments? In particular, I would be interested in including some of the material found at http://www.mqrieck.com/P3P/P3P_Solutions.html, all of which is supported by peer-reviewed articles, mostly published in JMIV. MQR (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Photography/Archive 1 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about photoraphy is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Baby mugging

The article Baby mugging has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Extremely limited content, little to no chance of expansion. Fails to pass 4 and 8 - The article, the link from from Internet Phenomena, and all of the references (except for the daily mail which appeared to be of extremely limited content) mentioned the creator by name and associated website. The article sounds like a free plug for the bloggers website, or a misguided bio of a living person.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sawta (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

PROD Baby Mugging

Note: The WP:PROD request has been declined. I am going to resubmit for AfD, as I still believe the content of the article falls within the confines of deletion. I am going to submit the AfD shortly; I have not submitted either a PROD or AfD request before, there will be a lag time between this post and the AfD request. Sawta (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Link to the AfD discussion page. Twinkle really simplified things! Sawta (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Helping out

Hey all I want to get involved with this group is there a way that members communicate about the project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostwickenator (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Dominique Stroobant

In Draft:Dominique Stroobant I am creating the article about Belgian photographer Dominique Stroobant. He is both a sculptor and a photograph.

If anyone has any useful source to use, that would be nice. I can only use online website... and I live in China where there is no google. I have enough information to prove his notability, especially the fact that he is cited on newspapers and blogs of other artists in many European countries, but clearly without better professional sources it will look a little unbalanced.

I am doing it because I know someone in his family and if I can finish it (even as a simple stub) before his birthday (as a surprise), we have more chances he will be pleased and get some nice pictures for commons. --Alexmar983 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Archive 1/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Photography.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Photography, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

The article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

article reads more like an advertisement for a product someone is trying to sell rather than an actual article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments UK is looking for volunteers

Hi all. Wiki Loves Monuments UK is looking for volunteers to help with reviewing this year’s entries and identifying a long list of images for submission to the three judges who will pick the final winners. You don't need to be a top photographer to volunteer for this, but you should have a good understanding of what makes an exceptional photograph and be able to distinguish good from mediocre images. You'd need to be able to commit to something like four or five hours work, mostly during October but perhaps during September as well.

If you are able to help, please leave a note on my talk page, or alternatively contact me using the "email this user" feature. More details can be found here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Minolta template

Just to be sure, I'm also leaving my request here. Details see Portal talk:Photography#Minolta Dynax.2FMaxxum template. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Low-key photography

I just finished creating Low-key photography. I think it's important to have an article about this photography genre. I've used some of the photos I shot. I double checked, however, I might of skipped a typo or something. I don't know how to proceed to the Low key stub. Low-key may refer to a lot of stuff, not particularly photography but low-key photography is a well known genre. Also, something should be done in the Low key (disambiguation) section. If you think it's worth it, it should be added to the photography template to the genres section. Robert G. (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A new ID for wikidata

Hello. Sorry if I bother you but wikidata has no Wikiproject Photography, so might I ask you what do you think about this ID for items. It is a database from National Geographic.

I have noticed we have few gaps between the photographers' worlds and the science world, the IDs are often unbalanced on one way or the other.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have linked this discussion from other projects and wikidata items talk.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I am also informing single user who created ID for photographers or scientific illustrators, except one who said I am not supposed to edit his page. Too bad.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: That has potential. I'd be happy to draft a proposal for such a property, but we'd need examples of people listed there who have Wikidata items or, better still, Wikipedia biographies. Do you know of any? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett I have no hurry at the moment, so I can do it later myself but as soon as I have time I can cite also an example. Today it is a "hot day" on the calendar. The one in the link has a SCOPUS ID also, and was a winner of the Royal Society of Photography competition, interviewed on some British newspaper, but for sure there are stronger name.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Negative imprinting

I am aware of the function described in this article, but I am unable to verify that this is actually its proper name; searching invariably finds references to the psychological phenomenon. Could someone more knowledgeable than I take a look and move or cite the article please? Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's the most popular term, but I think it is one term used for the technology. I think we should look instead at the lack of coverage of the broader topic of metadata and photography. We have articles like Exif, Geotagged photograph, or List of cameras which provide geotagging. The article System camera mentions that such a thing as a databack or data back exists, and numerous camera articles mention that they have a data back/databack option. History of the camera makes no mention of databacks, and I can't find any sources that say when the databack was invented. They were a common accessory by 1970, and probably earlier. Metadata#Photographs only covers digital images, without any hint of the practice of exposing metadata onto film with light. Photographic paper fails to mention that printed codes and watermarks existed on photo paper that identified the date, type, and other information[3] Negative film typically had information encoded in it as well, either dates or serial numbers that make deducing a date possible. The NYT Lively Morgue tumblr provides years of examples of how a newspaper archives photos, tags and stamps the back with various information. This type of archive raises questions of how the metadata can be scanned and read into digital formats today. Wikimedia GLAM projects upload troves of photos that require vast volunteer efforts to copy handwritten metadata into file descriptions.[4]

So rather than worry about whether 'negative imprinting' is the best term, we should create a new article that broadly covers all of the topics I mentioned above, covering both film and digital imaging, and outlining the chronology of how this technology was used, beginning with the archiving practices of writing by hand or typing out photo metadata in the earliest years of photography, and progressing to the present. Perhaps photographic metadata would be a good name for this umbrella article that covers all of this. Once we have an overview that summarizes the major topics here, it will be easier to delve into the specific subtopics, like film camera databack hardware or negative imprinting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlisted photography templates

Hi, some of the photography topic templates aren't listed in the search results. For example most ones from the Category:Lens templates. Can they be included in the project? --Angerdan (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Minolta template

Just to be sure, I'm also leaving my request here. Details see Portal talk:Photography#Minolta Dynax.2FMaxxum template. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Template:Minolta Dynax/Maxxum SLR film cameras --Angerdan (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Press camera article update

I have substantially updated the article on press cameras, provided extensive refs for every section and expanded the list of press cameras. I think the images could be improved but I've completed as much of the content as I could find. If there are no objections, I think the "ref improve" and "expand list" tags can be removed. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rhodiotype

Will someone please review this draft and comment on whether it is ready for acceptance as an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we need a Category:Military photographers? (and/or Category:Military photography)

Please see discussion at WPMilHist: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Do_we_need_a_Category:Military_photographers?. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Offer of relevant material

A reader with interest in early press cameras has written a book about the subject and an associated website: www.regholloway.com
ticket:2018032210011131
The author has expressed willingness to provide free licenses for this material. While they directly approach Wikipedia. I'm thinking that wikisource may be a better repository. I'm reaching out to this wiki project because I'm a decidedly amateur photographer and my hope is someone with more interest in the subject will be better positioned to enter into a discussion with the author and determine next steps. If you let me know, I will put you in contact with the author. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Thomas Thorp (scientific instrument manufacturer) mentions a 19th century photographer called Izarn; but that links to a DAB page with no relevant entry. All I can find about him is that he was presumably French; this record cites a paper he published in Comptes rendus in 1893. Can any expert find his given name or at least an initial? (If he appears in a source as 'M. Izarn', that is more likely to be 'Monsieur' than an initial.) I'd be reluctant to redlink him as Izarn (photographer) or to unlink him unless there is no alternative. Narky Blert (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Saigon Execution

There's a lot of re-writes and expansion of articles relating to the famous photo "Saigon execution". In the past, some very dubious sourcing has been used as well as strong POV language added to some of them. I would appreciate if people were to review these pages and add them to your watchlist.

• Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém
• Eddie Adams (photographer)
• Nguyễn Ngọc Loan
• Battle of Saigon (1968)

Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject History of photography

Template:WikiProject History of photography has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Photography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Qono (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Importance ratings

Would project members please join me in reviewing the numerous revisions to article importance ratings recently made by @Qono:? I've commented on one of them here [5]. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

A few have inquired about my recent importance assessments on photographers (here and elsewhere, Hoary, ww2censor), so I will account for my methodology.

I'm using data from the New York Public Libraries Photographers' Identities Catalog (PIC) supplemented by the index to the Oxford Companion to the Photograph. Essentially, I am scoring photographers based on this criteria:

1. The number of prominent museums (MoMA, Tate, George Eastman House, etc.) that hold the photographers work in their collections.
2. The number of references (the Getty Union List of Artist Names, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, etc.) that list the photographer.
3. The number of articles in the Oxford Companion to the Photograph in which the photographer appears.

I've tweaked this score to better represent women and non-Western photographers and have made a few judgement calls when the score seemed way off (usually when a prominent artist is surfaced because of how widely they are collected, but photography was a relatively minor part of their output), but have otherwise let the sources do the sorting. I've been roughly targeting the distributions in each importance level to match the ratios of all of Wikipedia's article importance ratings.

This method isn't perfect, and this scoring might need tweaking and some assessments may need to be revised, but I think this is a good, objective starting point. I'm happy to hear feedback on this process.

I might note that, in doing this, I've also updated the quality assessments of hundreds of articles, giving a more accurate representation of which articles need work.

I'm glad that my work here has generated interest in what has been a relatively dormant WikiProject, and am looking forward to working on articles together! Qono (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally, despite my 30+ professional commercial photography experience, I don't follow many photographer's articles but did notice some of Qono's recent assessments. As I posted on their talk page, I was involved in creating a set of examples of different importance suggestions for the Ireland Wikiproject several years ago. You may decide to create such a table for fellow assessors to refer to and may even want to create an assessment team of experienced editors who can hopefully make reasonably objective assessments, despite assessment by their very nature being subjective. Qono's defining criteria above appears to be well though out so that's not an issue. I did have an issue with his re-rating articles at different quality ratings to those already on article talk pages; the quality rating is the same across all projects but the importance is something you should work on. Unfortunately I do not have time to contribute to this WikiProject and will not join for that reason. Having thousands of assessments under my belt I'll happily provide advise if requested. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful that @Qono: and others are doing this overdue assessment work and I am happy to contribute where I can because the criteria being used is sound as far as it goes, but it seems somewhat biased toward 'art' photographers, which is fine in the majority of cases, however there are important and influential photojournalists, professionals, and specialists (medical and other scientific) who may 'fall through the cracks'. They may be picked up in the Oxford Companion to the Photograph, but perhaps the standing of their clients (and longevity of their contracts with them) is a criteria that could be applied in the case of the professionals, likewise the frequency and prominence of appearance in significant magazines and journals for photojournalists, and association with major scientific researchers and research projects for scientific photographers, could be added criteria? The goal to better represent women and non-Western photographers is crucial...there is a huge bias in the literature of the history of photography toward Western, male, and most predominantly, American, photographers and this is currently reflected on Wikipedia. Photographers who worked in the hermetic Soviet zone and in African, South-American and some Asian countries are only now being rediscovered, many of high significance and making original contributions to the field, but completely unknown elsewhere. In the absence of literature on them, that is where it gets tough on WP to be inclusive. I understand this is about Importance ratings but at the same time some articles like Edward Steichen rated 'B', have become 'eroded' and warrant a reassessment of their rating at the same time as their Importance is considered - in its current state, thin, a hodge-podge of factoids and trivia such as irrelevant shameless puffery for Guy Gillette, reliant for reference on virtually only one text (Penelope Niven's hagiography - and she hasn't a bio in WP), and omitting substantial discussion of his work as a curator, especially at MoMA, it is weak, merely a 'Start' article. The importance of this giant of photography is unquestionable and he deserves a strong article, but the quality of the article really is questionable – should that not be at the forefront in consideration of quality? Jamesmcardle^(talk) 00:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Gohlke vs. Dater and WikiProject gender representation

@Qono: Your "tweak" is what we don't do on WP. It's covered under the link I gave you at WP:NOR. You've way overrated various women, 19th Century and non-US photographers according to your stated methods. And now to return to Gohlke. Please demonstrate to us how your method ranks Frank Gohlke below Judy Dater. Gohlke's career is replete with the sort of recognition and exhibitions that you cite. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Frank Gohlke is listed in 9 collections and 9 sources, Judy Dater 7 and 10. Both are mentioned in one article in the Oxford Companion reference.

I welcome third-party input on whether or not my goal to better represent women and non-Western photographers in this WikiProject violates WP:NOR, as that policy says specifically "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". Qono (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you really believe those are commensurate lists of sources and public collections for Gohlke and Dater, you should not be undertaking the evaluations you've been doing. I note you omitted prestigious exhibitions, where Gohlke clearly has received top-level recognition among living photographers. You are very new to Wikipedia, Qono. I'd expect you to go slow and listen to feedback from editors with vastly more experience in the way good improvements happen around here. Counting numbers that ignore your own standard published above is the kind of thing that quickly derails constructive collaboration. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Gohlke, Dater gets her own article within the Oxford Companion. But in Photography: The Whole Story, Gohlke gets a mention whereas Dater does not.

I chose nine photographers and looked them up in each of five books that might be claimed to be reference works. Here are the results:

• The George Eastman House Collection: A History of Photography from 1839 to the Present: Cole no, Dater no, Gohlke yes, Goldblatt no, Güler no, Killip no, Parks no, Suda no, Yasui no
• The Oxford Companion to the Photograph: Cole no, Dater yes, Gohlke no, Goldblatt yes, Güler yes, Killip yes, Parks yes, Suda no, Yasui yes
• Photography: The Whole Story: Cole mentioned, Dater no, Gohlke mentioned, Goldblatt mentioned, Güler no, Killip yes in detail, Parks no, Suda no, Yasui no
• Photographers A–Z (Koetzle): Cole no, Dater no, Gohlke no, Goldblatt yes, Güler no, Killip no, Parks yes, Suda no, Yasui no
• 20th Century Photography: Museum Ludwig Cologne: Cole no, Dater no, Gohlke no, Goldblatt no, Güler yes, Killip no, Parks yes, Suda no, Yasui no

Suda is nowhere. What a loser! Yet from a Japanese perspective it's inconceivable that he'd be of little or no "importance". He had a big show in Japan's largest (by far) photo museum; he got a volume to himself in the forty-volume series "Nihon no Shashinka", which covers not just contemporary photographers but the entire history of Japanese photography to the late 1990s. For that matter, there's increasing recognition of him outside Japan (NYT example).

If I wanted different results, I could toss in a couple more reference books or anthologies for my criteria.

All of this is pretty silly and a waste of time even before there are appeals. And there will be appeals: objections to the claimed myopia and/or ethnocentrism of book editors, appeals to the heterodoxy or "transgressiveness" of this or that "outsider" photographer, etc etc. Which is why I say: Scrap it. (See the section below.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Scrap them

If we were asked to rate the relevant importances of fifty randomly chosen but at least moderately prominent photographers, I think half a dozen or so among us could have a discussion on how to go about doing this, and could work out ways of allowing for those who saw themselves strictly as photojournalists, those better known as writers but also exhibited and/or published as photographers, those long dismissed as mere (if idiosyncratic) pornographers but now recognized as somehow adventurous, creators of photograms, etc etc. I can't see this happening for two hundred or more photographers. And there are thousands to be dealt with. I happen to think that The Oxford Companion to the Photograph is good (I have a copy), but I don't claim that it's better than Juliet Hacking, ed, Photography: The Complete Story. What if/when somebody claims that the evaluations give far too much weight to the idiosyncrasies of the Companion, and that we'd better use The Complete Story? One might expect that US photographers, at least, would be well represented in the latter, but I've read that the name Gordon Parks doesn't appear in the index. (I can't check this: I have a copy of this book too, but it's inaccessible right now.)

This is hopeless. And the rating system is pointless too. I happen to agree that Edward Steichen is very important, but labelling his article "Top Importance" won't make me any more inclined to spend my time editing it. Will it influence anybody? (By contrast, what might influence me to work on it is if somebody else puts a lot of time into it and asks for help.)

So I say: keep the "importance" ratings for processes, schools, etc if you wish; but scrap them for photographers. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles about art history

Hello! Wiki Education is developing a guide to help students improve articles related to art history. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that they consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. We’d love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Cassidy_(Wiki_Ed)/Art_history. We're looking to gather feedback by August 16th. Feel free to respond here or on the draft's talk page. Thanks so much! Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC on the use of a photo from a high-school yearbook

Ron Stallworth in 1970 yearbook

There is an RfC ongoing at Talk:Ron Stallworth regarding the use of a high school yearbook photo on a biography, with issues of quality, relevance, consent, copyright, etc. Please visit and comment on the appropriateness of using this image on the page; or comment on a generalization of that question if you prefer. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC on nude photos in Going commando

Please participate in RFC on nude photos in Going commando. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Less surreal and abstract equipment photos are better

Edits like this by Takeaway are a big improvement. I've never liked blacked our or whited out backgrounds. The photoshopping is not subtle, and the result is just surreal. I'd go even further and encourage photos of lenses and camera bodies that include not just visible surfaces and the odd shadow, but actual things, even human hands. How big these things are in human hands matters and it's important information: [6]. When you lead with an image of the camera just hovering in abstract apace, as in Nikon DX format, you lose vital context. I know everyone does that; it's practically the industry standard. But the second image here is far more useful than the first. Weight and scale are not trivial, they're essential. I think one reason these white background cutout photos are the norm is that they're so much easier. Backgrounds can easily turn into distraction and clutter, and everyone's afraid of covering up a small part of the subject with a thumb or finger. But putting the subject in its natural habitat rather than floating in abstract space should be our goal, when possible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That Fujifilm lens' black background was a particularly bad choice. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. A good illustration for an advert is not the same as a good illustration for an encyclopedia. One aims to entice shoppers; the other aims to inform the uninformed. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on 35mm articles

You may be interested in Talk:35 mm film#RfC: 35mm articles, an RfC to overhaul the various articles related to the 35mm film format. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments on List of Photographers

You are invited to join the discussion regarding edits to List of Photographers. The discussion is addressing the following questions:

• Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
• Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
  • Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
• Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
  • If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?

Your contributions are welcome. Thank you! Qono (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice pages

Wikivoyage (the travel guide) has a short article on voy:Wildlife photography. If anyone's interested in the subject and wants to provide travel-related advice, then please feel free to Wikivoyage:Plunge forward and expand the article. (No need to directly cite sources in their articles – the focus is on good advice, written fairly.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Gorō Hobo

• Gorō Hobo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

I suspect this subject may be notable, but I can't support preserving the article as written, given its unsourced claim that the subject is "renowned" (apparently the result of reading too much into a colorful translation of the title of a book that has a short article on him); however, if anyone has quick access to that book and could fix the article. Wikipedia has a systemic language problem on this one, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have quick access to that book. A copy sits on my lap as I type this. Its short piece about Hobo is on page 278. I also have quick access to another all-Japanese-language book that for some reason also has a title in English: Biographic Dictionary of Japanese Photography. My copy of this too is on my lap. Its short piece on Hobo is on page 363. It lists four other books that (perhaps fleetingly) deal with Hobo. I don't have any of these on my lap but I could get hold of them easily. So yes, I could fix this article. But I'm not going to; first because I've no solid reason to think that Hobo meets notability standards, and secondly because, with ever-diminishing enthusiasm, I've done quite enough of this sort of drudgery over the years: concretely, Akiyama Tadasuke, Arita Taiji, Chiba Teisuke, Domon Ken, Ei-Q, Fuku Mitsutarō, Fukuda Katsuji, Fukuhara Rosō, Fukuhara Shinzō, Gōzu Masao, Iwamiya Takeji, Kijima Takashi, Kodama Fusako, Komoto Akira, Kondō Tomio, Kubota Hiroji, Kumagai Motoichi, Matsushima Susumu, Miyazaki Yūhi, Morikawa Aizō, Moriwaki Eiichi, Nagano Shigeichi, Nakamura Masaya, Natori Yōnosuke, Nishiyama Kiyoshi, Ōishi Yoshino, Ono Chizu, Orihara Kei, Satō Akira, Satō Kōji, Shimizu Bukō, Shiomi Mieko, Suzuki Shin'ichi I, Takagi Kaietsu, Tanaka Kōtarō, Tokiwa Toyoko, Tomiyama Haruo, Ueda Shōji, Usui Kaoru, Yamane Toshio. (Some of these people interest me, some I did out of an odd sense of duty, one I did for my own amusement because the person in question seemed to have the most tenuous claim to notability out of any of the "328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers".) ¶ There are quite a lot of genuinely outstanding Japanese photographers who, for one reason or another, didn't make it into that book. As for those who did, (now long-retired) User:20th Century (Zenhan) Art created a list of its contents: potential copyright issues aside, OK. But then (now effectively retired) User:Quadell got (now moribund) Polbot to create dozens of near-identical substubs from these, and people have wasted a great amount of time over them ever since. This junk has already existed for well over a decade, and as long as it remains, it appearance in Category:Japanese photographers does a disservice to readers. So let the non-article Gorō Hobo and anything much like it die, without prejudicing any later attempt to create a worthwhile article on the particular subject. Doing so won't harm current or future Wikipedia and indeed may well improve it, by wasting much less time (via one tedious AfD after another) of the people who might spend that time actually writing articles. ¶ Indeed, here's an offer. I'll honour the first request I receive on my user talk page to create an actual, worthwhile (though perhaps very short) article about one of the people who currently gets a dreary substub. Just (i) succeed in getting these tiresome things deleted; (ii) name your one biographee. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Step versus stop

In Sunny 16 rule there is this sentence: "More in general, the adjustment is done such that for each step in aperture increase (i.e., decreasing the f-number), the exposure time has to be halved (or equivalently, the shutter speed halved), and vice versa." Should "step" be "f-stop"? "Step" seems ambiguous. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"One stop" works well I think. "One f-stop" also works. I agree "step" is ambiguous because a step on a digital camera's could be half or third of an f-stop. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ernest Eugène Appert

This is a request for those who are knowledgeable in the history of photography to have a look at the above article. Recently I have been creating stubs from museum collection listings. This one came from the National Gallery of Canada. Once created, DGG rightly pointed out that there is some confusion as to the identity of the photographer. It might be him, or it might be his brother, or the brothers might be the same person. I might have that right or wrong; it's entirely confusing as the era is long gone and the names are very similar. Thanks in advance.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this book may solve it, but I defer to those with photo knowledge. The book says (It's in French, so I am translating roughly):

• There is frequent confusion between Eugene Leon Appert (13 March 1830) and Ernest Charles Appert (10 September 1831)
• "The two brothers were brought together into one individual (?) named Eugene Ernest Appert (1830-1890)"
• "Their lives are intertwined and it is difficult to tell the difference." (Yes the books says that.)

ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinkville, would you happen to know? -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. Not much I can say, except that to add to the confusion there is a Eugène-Pierre Appert (1814-1867), painter. Probably another relative. I only know the names of the photographer(s) and thought it might be a case like that of Felice A. Beato, and it indeed looks like that’s correct. Pinkville (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Glen M. Dye - Developed the first photo processing machines

Glen M. Dye [cut] <http://www.minnesotainventors.org/inductees/glen-m-dye.html> posted by Njnnget at 19:01, 23 August 2019‎

Njnnget, that was a lengthy quote from this web page, which also says "©2019 Minnesota Inventors Hall of Fame - All rights reserved." That means "not copyleft". You can't copy and paste such stuff to Wikipedia, even if you say where it's from. Because it violated copyright, I deleted it.

Copyright issue aside, I don't know why you posted it here. (Were you hoping that somebody would make an article out of it?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Photography for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Photography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Photography until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Albertype

I have just finished "Albertype" article, that was a stub in this WikiProject Photography. I´m spanish art historian woman , and I often create my editions in Spanish wikipedia. I ask some of you if you want to check it, because I am quite new in the english Wikipedia.
Thanks...--Pirandello3 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pirandello3: you'll have to take down the under construction template if you want others to work on it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:: Ok Í´ve already done it, thanks--Pirandello3 (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The Photographic Journal

Hi, I was looking over the page on The Photographic Journal, and while doing some research noticed that it does not mention George Shadbolt as an editor, yet while looking through an old issue of the Journal, it lists him as Editor I was going to add this, and perhaps something about the RPS/Photographic Journal not being connected to ThePhotographicJournal.com. Thank you. (ShkinZwiKi (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC))

you are likely better off placing your note on The talk page for The Photographic Journal, as the question relates to article content. And if you think the edit is correct and have a source, go for it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles with no images or drawings

I suggest track articles without an image or picture. And, using big data with Wikidate, see the most interesting for the Wikimediasphere (Commons, Wikipedia... as a whole). And make campaigns to upload these images. . BoldLuis (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Photography in Washington D.C.

Could somebody look at Draft:Photography in Washington D.C. and figure out what we can do with it? It's really much to much of an essay to accept in its current form. But, it's a nice piece of writing and it would be a shame to lose it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Studio fotografico Vasari

Hi everybody. I translated this article related to a historical photo studio in Rome. I have some doubts: is mandatory to I put a translated from template on the discussion page of the article (as we do in Italian Wikipedia). The title, could stay as it it, or must be translated into a "Vasari Photographic Studio" or similar? Can you please see if is everything ok with the translation too? Thank you, :-). --Camelia (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is usually done, to indicate the source for copyright purposes and show the original. I placed the template on the talk page of the article you are working on. If you ping me once it's published I'll be happy to look at the English. I gave the text a brief edit as well, per your request. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Thank you, is now published. --Camelia (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Polaroid Collection

I couldn't find much coverage on WP of the DRAFT:Polaroid Collection, so I threw this together. Does it seem like an appropriate addition to article space? Photography is not my main field, so I thought I would seek input from some of the professionals here... 18:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @ThatMontrealIP:. This is a worthwhile addition. One thing though, it says that the Artists Support Program "provided access to its 24×24 inch Polaroid camera studio". I presume this is Polaroid 20×24 camera? And if so, then it may have given access to its "camera" rather than to its "camera studio". -Lopifalko (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There was at least one studio with a 20/24 and Polarioud technical assistant that was rented or granted by the day for photographers' use. I think there may have been another camera that traveled, but I do not remember any details. One place to check might be the websites or other sources about the photographers whose 20/24 photos were noted by collectors or museums. See [7][8] and oddly, [9] SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips! I have corrected the camera link to the 20x24 inch studio, and added sources to show that you could indeed borrow it. I only added a sentence as it is a bit peripheral to the collection, and we have a whole article on the studio. As far as I can tell they had six cameras and two camera studios: one studio in Boston and one studio in Amsterdam. You could go there to shoot as part of the Artists Support Program. Going to the studio made sense as the camera was large and delicate and there were only six ever made. That said, some artists (William Wegman is listed in one of the sources) got to borrow the actual beast and take it to their studio to work. I vaguely remember seeing some kind of video about someone doing an outdoor landscape shoot with the camera as well, but this may have been post-bankruptcy. After the bankruptcy the cameras split up and took on different lives at different studios, which are separate from their role in making work for the Polaroid Collection. Feel very free to edit the page, of course. I am pretty much done there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

George Hoyningen-Huene

For somebody more than averagely interested in photography, I'm pretty ignorant of fashion photography. But even I have heard of, and on occasion have admired, the work of George Hoyningen-Huene. The article is virtually unsourced, and I have just this evening reverted the addition of a patchily sourced but overly promotional text (see Talk:George Hoyningen-Huene). Time permitting, I suppose I could source some of what's there and improve it a bit; but I can't feign enthusiasm for the task. Somebody who's interested in fashion photography please step in! -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Joseph Podlesnik

Hello! I am a new editor and was hoping for your advice on my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joseph_Podlesnik Specifically, he has two books coming out -- how do I list them without links? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherine311MH (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Katherine311MH: Hi, and welcome. Basically, list the books in the manner you have already. However, if they're not yet published, and you haven't independent reliable sources discussing them (thus demonstrating their notability before they're even published), then you shouldn't list them until they've been published. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have made amendments to the draft, and used the edit summaries to indicate what I have done, often with links to Wikipedia policies. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I'll wait. -K

And, thanks for your help with editing the Joseph Podlesnik page. Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherine311MH (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Katherine311MH: Self-published books (apart from maybe 1); exhibitions at private galleries, largely without indication as to whether they are solo shows or of numerous people, and without sources. Where are the independent, reliable sources, with significant coverage of the subject? The article needs to demonstrate notability by passing WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll continue to work on it. -K.

@Katherine311MH: Did you make any progress with addressing those concerns? If not, then only a reviewer who isn't paying attention will pass it at draft, and even then it has to get past more reviewers at other stages who may be paying more attention; as such it could waste peoples' time, so better to get this sorted out at the draft stage. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, I will definitely follow up. Katherine311MH (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Katherine311MH: I had a look at the draft. I removed all the instances of Blurb.com and Magcloud as sources. Blurb is self-publishing, so as a source all it tells us is that someone opened a blurb account and published something. Magcloud appears to be selling books. I doubt this subject is notable enough for a wiki article, unless you can dig up some independent reliable sources as suggested above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will see what I can find out. I'm new to this and am making mistakes, so I really do appreciate your time. Katherine311MH (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul Fusco (photographer)

Recently deceased photographer. He did some nice work, including these moving photos of mourners along RFK's funeral train route. I took the opportunity to clean up the article and add sources, but it would of course be much better with the attention of some of the finer editors who frequent this page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ThatMontrealIP, I'd taken a look at the cumulative changes you'd made, good work. I've taken my eye off the ball regarding his death, happy to not take on that responsibility just now, assuming others were diving in, happy to see that you had. I will take a look when I can. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: Thanks. I am good at finding the facts, but not great at the writing side beyond basic exposition. Regarding Fusco, I was quite struck by those train photos.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kevin Krautgartner please help review this submission - thank you

Draft:Kevin Krautgartner please help review this submission - thank you Neuralia (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Neuralia: There are quite a lot of sources, can you please indicate 2 or 3 of them that are independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, that you would like us to use to base our judgement on whether the subject is notable. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Lopifalko. I would say the best sources are ones that got removed: from Der Spiegel https://www.spiegel.de/consent-a-?targetUrl=https://www.spiegel.de/reise/europa/fotoreise-durch-europa-ueberraschung-von-oben-a-1278249.html&ref=https://www.kevinkrautgartner.com/about and from Colossal https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2019/02/kevin-krautgartner-squarespace/. I just re-added them at the end of the opening paragraph.Neuralia (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me add: hopefully Krautgartner's record of awards would amount to his work having won significant critical attention, as required. Does it not?

The subject appears to only just manage to clear the bar for notability. There is no claim of important or significance because the awards are not major (and do not represent "significant critical attention", without independent sources discussing them). What there is however is the above sources, plus Yahoo News, so I have accepted it based on that. So it scrapes through. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Photographers from Yorkshire", etc

I'm puzzled by Category:Photographers from Yorkshire (created by Rathfelder a couple of days ago), and the other subcategories of Category:English photographers. I don't see "Merseyside", "Tyne and Wear", or any other name that might have surprised my long-dead grandparents: Are these where photographers are from, or where they would have been from if born in the first half of the 20th century? (If Neil Bedford was born in Bradford in 1981, I think there was no "Yorkshire" -- other of course than historically/informally -- and that he'd instead be from West Yorkshire. Or in reverse: G. P. Abraham wouldn't have been born in "Cumbria" but in "Cumberland" ... er, no, in Wiltshire, according to his article.) That aside, are counties or administrative areas (or their successors, or predecessors) of much significance either to photographers or to the people viewing their work? (I haven't been to Britain for years, so don't know; but my impression is: For some geographical extremes -- Cornwall, Norfolk, Northumberland, etc -- maybe; but for Hertfordshire and the like, no.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm still working on this. It isnt clear that there are enough photographers from some places - more than half so far are from London, so I am using big areas to start with. Local government reorganisation isnt helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• And these articles dont say much about geography. Rathfelder (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Putting aside photographers "from" major cities, what about the others? Is a photographer "from" the county or similar administrative area of the time when they were born, or the one that the birthplace is in today, or (regardless of birth date) that before 1965, or that before 1889? My hazy understanding of the article Historic counties of England is that a unitary "Yorkshire" hasn't had any real meaning since 1889, though I wouldn't be much surprised to be proved wrong. (I'm baffled by so many aspects of Britain.) Will we have photographers "from Huntingdonshire", "from Middlesex" or "from the Isle of Ely"? ¶ One response would be "%$@#ed if I know or even care. If somebody was previously in both 'English photographers' and 'people from XYZ', then they can instead be in 'photographers from XYZ'; and if you have niggles about the 'XYZ' classification, these are photography-unrelated and so you should bring them up elsewhere." Fair enough. Also, if not subcategorized, "English photographers" is so populous as to be unwieldy (unlike, say, "Estonian photographers"). But before continuing to chop up the content of "English photographers", it might be a good idea to decide on the best way to continue. (My hunch is that the chopping is modeled on that into "Photographers from Maryland/Delaware" and the like; but the States have been pretty stable since the 1860s or so, and have I think much more significance than Britain's counties, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• This problem is not confined to photographers. It's hard to know the right way of dealing with people from, for example, Stockport, which was in Cheshire when some of the people were active there, but in Greater Manchester for others. And "from" is entirely ambiguous. We dont always categorise people by place of birth if what made them notable happened somewhere else. Rathfelder (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Here we go. Category:People by county in England says This category groups English people by current ceremonial county. People from areas affected by boundary changes are categorised by the county at the time they were alive. It's illustrated with this labelled map for 1998–2012 (and for all I know, beyond), which shows that not only Rutland but also Tyne and Wear, Merseyside and Greater Manchester were/are among the "ceremonial counties"; and that "Yorkshire" and "Sussex" were/are not. The article Ceremonial counties of England explains all this (I suppose). Or anyway, it explains for those whose minds are equipped to understand it. Its opening sentence: The counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies, also referred to as the lieutenancy areas of England and informally known as ceremonial counties, are areas of England to which lords-lieutenant are appointed. I'm sorry; this mumbo-jumbo utterly defeats me. Meanwhile, Category:People by former county in England has a lot of "People from Staffordshire (before 1974)‎" and the like, "People from Yorkshire", "People from Sussex", but, disappointingly, no "People from the Isle of Ely". If you can make sense of all this, good for you! -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that isnt true. What is categorised is places, which may, like Stockport, appear in time limited counties. It's not practical to do that for people, who may well have been in two counties, sometimes three, while staying in the same place. Also the boundaries of counties have been changed, even when the name is the same, and not many articles give exact locations for people.Rathfelder (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• But but they are "Category:People by county in England" (meaning, we're told, people by the counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies, from 1998 onwards I swear I am not making this up) and "Category:People by former county in England". -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• It may say that, but it is not how the categories have been used. So, for example Category:People from Berkshire (before 1974) doesnt have any articles about people in it. It's the villages that were formerly in Berkshire. The people in the village categories may have been there before or after 1974, or even before Berkshire existed. Rathfelder (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't followed what is going on enough above, but am dismayed to see that British photographer Lisa Barnard has now become "Category:Welsh photographers"; and that Mahtab Hussain, born in Glasgow and later living in Birmingham, has had "Category:People from Glasgow" swapped for "Category:Photographers from Birmingham", West Midlands, and been removed from Category:21st-century Scottish photographers. This seems unlikely to be correct. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the questions of where these photographers are from (and the question of which administrative/lieutenancy_(!)-related areas a given place was in then or is in now), can we at least agree that a photographer can be "from" more than one place? I mean, if a photographer lived in Leeds till she was ten and in Newcastle thereafter, I'd say that she's from both. -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• With occupational/geography categories it seems sensible to go for the place where the person did what made them notable. Lisa Barnard seems to have operated in several places, and is in several categories. Mahtab Hussain left Glasgow when he was six, so it seems unlikely that he did much photography there. NB I am going on what is in the articles, many of which say little about geography. If people can improve that, please do.

Brooklyn Beckham

Does he qualify to be an English photographer? Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested Interwiki Link

Can someone with a Commons account or who knows how to do it please link en:Reversal film to es:Diapositiva ?

Thanks ~ 2601:1C0:5301:9F40:EC6F:3F30:5632:3758 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Bodyscape

Is there an effort to not have an article or redirect or section on bodyscapes? Midgley (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

and, how do I join the project? Is there a list, link, button? Midgley (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Could you explain what you mean by bodyscapes?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Pictures of part of a human body usually in a studio with controlled light producing an image with similarity to a landscape. There's a reference in WP to a chap who took some and exhibited them in a show called Bodyscapes. Not uncommon to do. Midgley (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

See also https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=bodyscape+photography+definition

November focus on women in behind-the-scenes occupations

This November, wp:Women in Red is focusing on women working behind the scenes in theatre and broadcasting. As photography is an important component here, we hope members of WP Photography will be inspired to participate. You can find further details at Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast. The Women in Red invitation for November is copied below. Please feel free to send it to any potentially interested participants or projects.

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Additions to Canon EOS R article

I've added additional information and sections to the Canon EOS R article, and included references for almost every new claim made.

Can you reevaluate its score with respect to the WikiProject Photography quality scale, and let me know if you can think of any sections or data which it still lacks? --Bob (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in research to understand how you work with media

Greetings everyone!

If you work with media files — either regularly or occasionally — we want to invite you to join a research session to help us understand this process and the challenges you face during it. To participate, we ask that you first complete this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.

You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls.

Thank you!

(MRaish (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

This survey will be conducted via Google Forms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information about privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

Film photography

... is a redlink (spotted by vaticidalprophet). Curious what people here think. It feels a little retroactive to frame it that way, but for years since digital photography developed, people have begun to talk about it in different terms to the point that it's now not the default but its own form. Sort of stating the obvious there, but it's just to say that whereas 25 years ago I'd understand seeing film as the default, covered in the main photography article (and photographic film), while writing about digital as a separate topic... but now? Maybe there's room for a stand-alone article, but I'm also not entirely sure what it would say beyond repeating some of photography, photographic film, and a comparison with digital... Pinging a few enwiki people who I know are interested in photography broadly and may be interested: @King of Hearts, Daniel Case, Colin, and W.carter:. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, our resident Commons expert on film photography, might be Martin Falbisoner. Not sure how active he is here, but he might give us some pointer/clues/whatever. The topic is interesting as this sort of photography has developed into an art-form of its own, it's become something of a fad with younger generations (including polaroid photography) and also people who are proud to declare that they "take photographs, not build them" as some sort of protest. Perhaps a better title for such an article would be "Conteporary film photography". So there is definitely a lot to include in such an article that goes beyond what has been written about photography in general, but it's getting late here so I'll say goodnight for now. cart-Talk 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cart, I didn't get a notice that I had been pinged until now. Very interesting discussion! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I went to take one last look at how this topic is described online, but I used the other term for it: Analog photography, and the first thing that popped up was a WP article. I've fixed the redirect to it from Film photography. So, you/we can use our energy to expand/improve that one instead. cart-Talk 23:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Voila. Thanks for finding it. Strange it has it bolded but still didn't come up near the top of my search. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

While I am old enough to have used film, that was really just for holiday and family snaps, rather than anything serious. Today, although the cameras are cheap, film and processing are still expensive and a very slow way to learn your shot didn't work (or you spent a long weekend in Bath and the film hadn't wound on properly at all). I don't really see the attraction myself, unless you already had all the skills to make it work reliably. -- Colin°^Talk 08:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The things that attracts most people to film photography these days, are the pure craftmanship of the process and the rather demanding limitations of it. Film/Analogue photography can be said to be the the photo-equivalent of Slow television vs normal shows. The revival is mostly an artistic movement. The technique of film, has also spawned some new concepts like contact sheet art aka contact sheet photography, and challenges that are limited to the 36 frames at your disposal in a normal roll of film. Artists are also fond of it for low light photos where the film grain is a feature, since this is a "natural" process and more aesthetic than the noise you get in digital photos. cart-Talk 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I know there are people who take "serious" pictures with film cameras still, but nearly all of the people I've known who liked film photography post-2000 like it for the imperfections, the unpredictability, and materiality of it (along the lines of what you're saying). For example, one of the film cameras that I've had friends rave about is the Holga, and I think that speaks to a lot of the appeal: without much effort, you get vignetting, distortion, odd exposures, etc. that fit well with indie, DIY, "retro" aesthetics. That they are sold not just in photography stores, but at Urban Outfitters and music stores (when those existed) speaks more to the primary market. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that most people who make serious art photography in the 202s, those who makes books of their personal work, do so using film (35 mm, medium format and large format). This is not the world of quirky results from toy cameras. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course most users of this tech are not serious photographers, but the thing is out there, embraced by a lot of people, texts are written about it, refs can be found and we have an article about it. As we have about so many other popular phenomena. I have fixed up the article a bit. cart-Talk 17:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Louis-Emile Durandelle

Le Nouvel Opéra de Paris (Sculpture Ornementale) MET DP200355

I came across this photographer by accident and have created a small article. He looks to be quite a big fish in the category of French architectural photographers, so I mention him here in case anyone has something to add to the article. Commons has many images, (example at right). The Met has 147 of his photos.--- Possibly (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

VR photography

This is the article for photospheres, 360-photos, etc. Whatever you want to call it, the page needs help. Badly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Pierre Rossier

I have nominated Pierre Rossier for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:History of photography articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:History of photography articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Scope, organization, and naming of pages related to Wide dynamic range

This is a notification to 6 relevant wikiprojects. Most of the talk page Talk:High dynamic range, though it seems like a long-running discussion, is only the last day or two since I discovered the renaming and other things going on there, much of which I reverted pending discussion. Please see and comment if this area interests you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Alessandro Bergamini

Hi, this is Jo, nice to meet you all! Sorry if I'm disturbing you, I'm pretty new in Wikipedia. I wrote this draft about an Italian photographer: Alessandro Bergamini. I was been in many of his photo conference and i bought his books, I know him personally but only concerning his work. (we are not friend or colleague). I know him just thanks to my passion of travel and photography. I decided to try to insert him on wikipedia because he is a really great artist (photographer). I follow many of them, and I'm sure about it. I'd like to ask you to read my draft, and help me (if you will be agree with me) in any kind of ways for a good result.

Thanks to all again

--Giorgia1103 (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Giorgia1103[[10]]

It's here: Draft:Alessandro Bergamini. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Giorgia1103: Hi. I have tried to bash it into a shape that might be fit for publication. We now need to assess its source with regard to WP:GNG, in order to judge whether it demonstrates notability enough to move it from draft space into article space. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Emi Anrakuji

I wonder if any of the photo-savvy people who read this page have access to sources for the above? I am coming up empty-handed beyond what is there. I found her by scraping the collections page of the Museum of Fine Arts Houston, which has a fantastic photography collection! Thanks in advance for any sources that are found for the above article.06:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Lee Katz

Here is another one from the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. She mostly photographed creative people (artists, musicians, writers). After I created the stub, her executor (user Eightheads) showed up at the page. In the process of explaining how our COI guideline works, he revealed that Katz was professionally unknown as a photographer in her lifetime, but that he had managed to have her work accepted by 14 museums so far. Here's a few examples of her work:

• Roy Lichenstein
• Richard Serra
• Phillip Johnson
• Maya Lin

He's considering releasing some images to Wikimedia Commons as well, but does not want to give away the entirety of the rights. I am not so knowledgeable on photography, so I am leaving a note here if anyone can advise him on the best way to do that. I suggested he release low-res versions. --- Possibly ☎ 16:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Jules Richard (photographer)

Also discovered in the Museum of Fine Arts Houston collection. Richard made the most popular stereoscopic camera of the 19th century, invented numerous other cameras and has 1,165 items in the Eastman Museum. --- Possibly ☎ 01:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

HDR

This requested move at High-dynamic-range imaging could use some input from people who understand HDR more than I do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hello, WikiProject,

I'm not sure how active this project is but I'm hoping an editor familiar with photography can help me out with Photolith film. A brand new editor has really been editing this page, including adding a broken redirect at the top of the body of the article. I have removed the broken redirect but I don't know anything about film to know whether he has done damage to this article. Could someone who knows about the subject look this article over and see if any of their edits need to be reverted? Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Fujifilm FinePix F series

Detailed, albeit promotional and unsourced article on the various cameras. Article has been this way a long time, so seeing if anyone with expertise can take a look and see if article can be improved.Slywriter (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A Sharp Eye on Wildlife Photography

I had put links to my magazines in the article Wildlife photography, but now understand that Wikipedia doesn't like tips and how to guides. Any suggestions as to how to let people find the magazines? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really the place to promote the magazine, better to promote it on social media sites like Twitter or Instagram. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Rangefinder"

FYI, the usage of Rangefinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion; see talk:Rangefinding telemeter -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for articles about cameras, give sample photos taken on that camera

Hi all

I've recently realised that the camera model is often given in the EXIF data on Commons and photos taken on each camera are added categories e.g :c:Category:Photos_taken_with_Hasselblad. One way this could be used on Wikipedia is to provide sample images for each camera on the article for that camera or camera company. Does anyone know if there is more efficient way of doing this that just matching them manually?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Cyanotype

I have merged Cyanotype and “Cyanography” and expanded the article. Do other editors have suggestions/advice for further improvements? It remains rated ‘C’, as of 2018 (by User:Qono). Jamesmcardle^(talk) 22:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

For others' convenience: Cyanotype Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Look really good to me. I've upgraded this to a B article. Nice work. Qono (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Do you think you could check Gelatin silver process and Dry plate as well? Seems to be the same subject. Ain92 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:PH" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:PH and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#Wikipedia:PH until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sanglahi86 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated André Kertész for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

A society and a societies of photography

The article Society of International Nature and Wildlife Photographers tells us that:

The Society of International Nature and Wildlife Photographers (SINWP) is a professional photographic organization formed in October 2008.

The association encourages development and discussion relating to photography and promotes the interests of photographers via seminars, workshops, roadshows and industry recognised qualifications. The group provides lists of recognised and qualified professional photographers throughout the world, all of them meeting strict standards of conduct as laid down in the group's rules.

When I first read that, it had a certain ring to it. . . .

Got it! There's a certain similarity to Draft:Societies of Photographers, which tells us that:

The Societies of Photographers is long-established Professional Photographers Association based in the UK for full-time and aspiring photographers all around the world. 'The Societies' is one of the UK’s leading qualifying bodies for photographers.

The association encourages development and discussion relating to photography and promotes the interests of photographers via seminars, workshops, roadshows., webinars and industry recognised qualifications. The group provides lists of recognised and qualified professional photographers throughout the world, all of them meeting strict standards of conduct as laid down in the group's rules.

And yes, I too am surprised to see "Societies" taken as syntactically singular. Grammar and prose-cloning aside, the (unsourced) first version and the (sourced) second version seem to claim that the photography trade association does what I'd anyway assume a photography trade association would do. Any comments on notability? (And are "qualifying bodies" important for photographers in Britain? I'd have guessed that the combination of connections, experience of working as a dogsbody for a known photographer, and an impressive portfolio were what would matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC) edited Hoary (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Photo Ark

I wrote a page for The Photo Ark and keep it updated with new info, including a section "Progress," which captures the large milestones of the project. (I also note this on each of the milestone-animal's articles)

Along comes an editor who decides without discussion that the Progress info "is relative trivia and indiscrimnate info. Wikipedia is not a vessel to promote everything Nat Geo posts, no matter how neat the content." and takes it upon themselves to delete the entire section.

This was done a while ago, but I noticed it just recently. I restored the section, and even updated it. Please add this page to your watchlists and chime in if this becomes a battle, whichever way you think it should go. Rp2006 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Hi. I'm sorry you feel the other editor's actions are undue but I would have done the same myself. There is a principle here, WP:BEBOLD; and if you don't like what someone has done then you have the option to revert their change and/or discuss it. I haven't yet read all the prose of the article but I can tell it is WP:TOOMUCH. The Progress section is a case in point, with arbitrary points of progress and all sources from Nat Geo apart from one not being an indicator of notability. This article in general needs to be less detailed and less skewed toward Nat Geo sources. I suggest we remove this section. What do you think? -Lopifalko (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the Progress section is WP:TOOMUCH for the reasons stated above, and should be deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. I seem to be in the minority on this. What about a very condensed version? See the article Talk page for my suggestion. Rp2006 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance

Hi all,

If someone would be so kind as to what reading/research I'd need to do to qualify for assisting with this project, it would help. Thank you. Cryptohydrate (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback for Article on Provoke (magazine)

Hello all. I have recently made some edits to the wiki article for Provoke (magazine). Seeing as that article falls under WikiProject Photography, I was wondering if people would like to provide some feedback on the article. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or comments in my user talk page, or in the Provoke article talk page. Thank you. - Andrew34jack (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Digital colorization of still images

I can't find an article that covers the digital colorization of black-and-white photographs, which is now done using dedicated algorithms or artificial intelligence. It has been alleged that this technique has been used to misrepresent history.[11][12] The Film colorization article only covers movies, and directs readers to Hand-colouring of photographs for still images, but that article does not cover digital recoloring. Photograph manipulation addresses the ethical issues, but it does not cover colorization as such. Where and how should this topic be covered? Verbcatcher (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Improving Film speed

Hi there, I just wanted to get my suggestion sped up a little by pointing it out here: Talk:Film speed#ASA: 1943 vs. 1960. --2003:DA:CF39:B861:60FA:97C4:BA2C:67AC (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback for Article Draft:Ruben van Schalm

Requesting Feedback for Article on Draft:Ruben van Schalm

Hello all. I have recently made some edits to the wiki article for Draft:Ruben van Schalm. Seeing as that article falls under WikiProject Photography, I was wondering if people would like to provide some feedback on the article. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or comments in my user talk page, Thank you. Rockywriter88 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Tables of sensors

Both Exmor[13] and ISOCELL[14] and I'm sure many more pages contained giant tables of various models based entirely on primary source material. Has there been any consensus on the tables and their level of detail? I think model and cameras it is used in is the best we can legitimate source without being ridiculous (assuming there are even independent, reliable third-party sources that discuss this and there don't seem to be). At the very least, the tables should be organized in chronological order from historic old models to current ones which was how Exmor organized it as opposed to ISOCELL. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback for newly created article "Draft:Fujifilm GFX100 II"

Hello wiki photography afficionados! I have just created the Wikipedia article "Draft:Fujifilm GFX100 II" for the new camera body which was released on 12 September 2023.

• After 5 years mostly spent within Wiki commons and Wikidata I wrote this - my very first newly created - Wikipedia article. The main reason being that I noticed this new camera model is already being referenced by a few articles and tables within Wikipedia (e.g. as successor to above stated cameras); as to now, all dead links of course. In the meantime I have also created the corresponding Wikidata item Fujifilm GFX100 II (Q122731264) and an appropriate Wiki Commons category Category:Fujifilm GFX100 II.
• This article is based on the existing Wikipedia articles Fujifilm GFX100 and Fujifilm GFX100S, and is IMHO now comparable in scope and quality with both, especially having added detailed data to the Infobox.
• I have consulted, updated, and referenced a flurry of sources; of course mainly drawing from the Fujifilm company's own specifications.
• On submitting this draft article I have determined the closest project as being "WikiProject Photography", relying on the fact that cameras and lenses are, well, the very backbone of photography.
• Previously having improved articles within Wikipedia I know well that endless time and painstaking effort are required until an article has progressed to a satisfactory, at best higher-than-before quality standard. Taking this into account, I would appreciate if someone within the scope of this project would check out on this draft and/or provide some feedback, ultimately removing the current "draft" status.
• Please let me know on my user talk page whether you have any comments or questions.
• Sincere thanks in advance from Dortmund, Germany. --Franz van Duns (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE 7 November 2023:

• Just to let you know, reviewer Ozzie10aaaa has already accepted this, my first ever Wiki article, and has rated it as classification level start (MANY THANX!) as follows:

--Franz van Duns (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)