Talk:Gabriel Lippmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nationality[edit]

Not knowing anything about Lippmann except his science, I don't know what his nationality actually was. However, I can see that he was born in Luxembourg, and not France. Hence, I question whether his designation as French comes from his actual nationality or is merely a reflection of residence (which is another field in the infobox altogether). Does anyone know, and can that person please cite a source? Bastin 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new source[edit]

Someone just added this source, but I took it out because as far as I can tell, it has not been used as a source for writing this article. Someone should check it out, and add some info from it, and cite it appropriately:

  • Triarhou, Lazaros C (2008). "The structure of Lippmann heliochromes: Cajal and the 1908 Nobel Prize in Physics". J. Chem. Neuroanat. 35 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jchemneu.2007.08.006. PMID 17904797. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, and |laysummary= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)

Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

According to J.M. Eder (J.M. Eder, History of Photography, 4th. edition (1932), page 670, Dover Publications, Inc. New York, ISBN 0-486-23586-6) an exhaustive biography was printed in the Bull. soc. franç. phot. (1921 pp. 299, 325) --Jack Klaber 13:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photojack50 (talk • contribs)

Lippmann interference color photography[edit]

There is not enough time for me to dig through my collection of references now or in the near future, but seek and you shall find that the image captioned "Lippmann's parrot photo (1891)" was actually made several years later by Herr Professor Neuhauss, one of the few persistent practitioners of the process, so elegantly simple in theory but so fiendishly difficult in practice. The depicted ex-parrot, bereft of life, was his usual test subject, and if there were such a thing as a "common" specimen of the Lippmann process it would surely be one of Neuhauss' many experimental portraits of his inert "pet", which could be depended upon not to move during the minutes-long exposures.

Another matter that needs to be addressed is the use of the term "Lippmann plate" (presently found in the lead sentence here and in the eponymous article) to describe the process itself. In the mostly vintage sources with which I am at all familiar, the term is used to describe the raw material—an ultra-fine-grained gelatin bromide emulsion coated on glass—and sometimes the finished photograph, but never the process, which was usually called simply "the Lippmann process" or "...method", as it never saw enough use to garner it a common shorthand name. The images are sometimes called "Heliochromes" in French and English literature, but that term was used long before Lippmann in both France and the US (e.g., Levi Hill's 1856 "Treatise on Heliochromy") as a generic term for a natural-color photograph. "Photochrom" seems to have been popular in German texts (and "photochrome" in English translations therefrom), but it has even more baggage than "heliochrome", having been used (with the final "e") by French inventor Leon Vidal in the 1870s to describe his process, in which the color was artificially introduced, as well as for the better-known circa 1900 German "Photochrom" ("Photochrome" in the US) printing process, which also depended on non-photographic color injection. There are WP stubs on both of those terms which are also in need of major surgery. I plan to research the histories of WP articles in which "Lippmann plate" appears to see if one individual is responsible for the proliferation of the term here, then try to determine if it is just the result of a misunderstanding or if there is some (uncited) source which has managed to establish it in present-day usage -- but these are all tasks on my burgeoning WP "to do" list which I would be only too happy to cede to some other interested editor. AVarchaeologist (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Only a little digging was needed to discover that the odd use of "Lippmann plate" began innocently, very early in the article's history, with the term used correctly albeit amid some errors. It then mutated as the side-effect of various subsequent edits. Simple excision of the phrase seems the best cure. In the absence of an available citation regarding Neuhauss' authorship of the parrot image, as noted above, and of any evidence here in favor of the current attribution except the image uploader's description, I am revising the caption to omit mention of authorship and generalize the date to the 1890s. The word "Lamellae" found here had me scratching my head, as the term in every source I have ever encountered is "laminae". "Lamellae", I now find, refers to fish-scale-like structures and is simply incorrect, so "laminae" it will presently become. Everything else here looks good, or at least good enough. The related articles are another story. It seems that one well-intentioned editor, not presently active, made quite a muddle of things in the "Lippmann plate" article. The heavy use there of "photochromes" is apparently due to reliance solely on an English translation of a book originally in German, proving the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the description of the process here is a model of clarity and precision by comparison with the erroneous mess now to be found there. Redeeming that article, short as it is, will be a nasty job, which I am still hoping someone else may take on. AVarchaeologist (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second follow-up: "Looks good" was a shirker's wishful thinking. The more I looked, the more errors, major omissions and bad wording I saw. Substantial changes have now been made, scattered throughout the section. Review by a bona fide physicist, preferably one with a few gray hairs, would be most welcome to catch any remaining (or newly-created) scientific errors or abuses of terminology. In both categories, there are a few highly questionable passages which I have left alone, not believing myself competent to pass final judgment and make changes, but I have used embedded editor's notes to flag them. AVarchaeologist (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third follow-up: Belatedly checking an existing web citation (Biedermann) reveals that it is the source of "lamellae" and most if not all of the other linguistic oddities (e.g., images hitting mirrors and then returning the light) in the WP article as I found it, the color section of which, it appears, was cribbed from that source. Perhaps the article is a benighted translation of an original in Swedish? It is excellent in many regards, but the amply-credentialed author strays beyond the limits of his areas of expertise in a few places, e.g., by his statement that "Lippmann improved photography from black and white to color" he appears to be quite ignorant of all previous developments. I have now added citations of the relevant sections of two public domain books, one by the still highly regarded E. J. Wall and the other by Thomas Bolas, an authority equally eminent in his time, both available from archive.org and from Google Books. Both are in the mainstream of English-language accounts of the Lippmann process and serve to support my recent changes. Beyond that, they are highly informative about not only the process but the context in which it was developed (Bolas is outstanding in that regard), and they provide plenty of how-to detail for anyone who would dare to try. AVarchaeologist (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revisited 11 October 2011: As no gray-haired physicists have answered the call lurking in the overabundant verbiage above, I dug in again and retired the questionable uses of some terms in the course of a general overhaul. The revised edition appears to me to be considerably clearer and more informative than the old, but no claim of supernatural objectivity is made by this editor and constructive feedback is more than welcome. AVarchaeologist (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that "lamellae" is incorrect - as an analogy of the effects of colour interference via reflection within a shallow layered structure (i.e. 'a thin layer, membrane, or plate') as seen in the rainbow hues of fish scale, it seems more apt. Butterfly wings present another example. Lamena/lamenae is simply a plate or scale that does not convey the role of interference within. Jamesmcardle(talk) 04:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriel Lippmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gabriel Lippmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is awesome![edit]

Cool!!!! Light field!!! Rosedaler (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Wikipedia is not a forum, so I will make a relevant suggestion. I suggest that more content pertaining to Lippman’s work on light field reconstruction using lenslets be mentioned in the article. Rosedaler (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gabriel_Lippmann&oldid=1194927862"