Talk:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico
|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated Start-class)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 1, 2012.|
Topics for expansion
I wonder whether we need this article, but if an article is justified for any landscape photograph, this is probably at the top of the list. If the article is justified, I would add
- David Elmore’s initial determination of the time and date (4:03 P.M. on 31 October 1941), described by Sean Callahan in the January 1981 issue of American Photographer.
- Dennis di Cicco’s more accurate determination (4:49:20 P.M. on 1 November 1941), described by di Cicco in the November 1991 issue of Sky &Telescope.
- Adams’s first account of how the image was made, given in US Camera Annual 1943.
- Adams’s later account of how the image was made, given in The Negative (1981) and Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs
- Alinder’s discussion of the disparity between the two accounts in Ansel Adams: A Biography.
I added the date and supporting ref, but have held off on the rest because I think it would give disproportionate emphasis to the making until there is more information about the image itself and its reception. JeffConrad (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Are we at a point where a section Making of Moonrise is justified? The current wording needs to be changed a bit, because Adams’s original account, given in U.S. Camera 1943 Annual, is considerably less dramatic. Alinder maintains that U.S. Camera got much of it wrong, but the original account was contemporaneous, and Alinder relied on Adams’s recollection almost 40 years after the fact. There’s no way to make the call; however, by my calculations, the original account better fits the facts—though it wasn’t really twilight as Adams supposedly said, the Sun was slightly below the hills to the west when Moonrise was made. Further support comes from an assertion from Cooke that they never made the lens Adams later claims to have used. Clearly, we can’t cite either of these, but they do lead me to believe it’s as reasonable to trust U.S. Camera (a presumably reliable source) at least as much as Alinder’s much later account. Adams’s own description is similar to Alinder’s, but again, it first appeared almost 40 years after the fact. In any event, I′m inclined to begin with something like “Accounts differ . . .” JeffConrad (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be afraid to be bold. If you think an idea would improve the article, go for it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fear of boldness has never been a problem . . .
- I’ve added discussion of the differing accounts, as well as attempts to date the image. Though the coverage seems a bit disproportionate, making it shorter would largely miss the point. What’s probably needed is more about other aspects of the image.
- I moved the mention of the number of prints to the lead, because it clearly is unrelated to the making of the image; some of the page numbers in the Alinder reference may need adjusting. JeffConrad (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Jeff Conrad is right that there are a lot of excess page numbers in the reference to the Alinder bio. Also, there is a double reference to the Adams autobiography, one of which has excess page numbers. This is an artifact of my moving content from an article I wrote about Cedric Wright. I will pull the books and trim the refs.
The main shortcoming now is the need for critical commentary on the photo as a work of art. Once we add that, it should be OK to add a low resolution version of the photo under fair use. Thoughts? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)