Talk:Night photography
I've just finished reworking the published photographers list, and included some representative works for each photographer. I've also removed the link to each photographer's personal site - Wikipedia is not a link farm, nor is it an advertisement site. One photographer I removed who is definitely notable, but I couldn't find any night-specific work by him, was Bill Brandt. If there is such a work, please add it back in and list that work. A couple of the photographers who were in the published list, but only appear to sell prints from their personal sites, I've moved to the other night photographers list, in the external links section. I'm not too sure I like the links on them either, but I'll leave them for now. — Wwagner 15:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge with new article?
A new non-encyclopaedic article Night photography tips has been created. I believe that it would make more sense to merge relevant parts into this article. Velela 08:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that, although interesting, the new article isn't encyclopedic. Since it's basically a how-to, it's probably more appropriate to transwiki it over to wikibooks. — Wwagner 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suggested on Picturetokyo's talk page (the author of the tips article) that the information could be rephrased as issues or difficulties and included in this article. It's not really a book or a large piece of information. --Imroy 16:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the suggestion to merge.SteveHopson 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've added two new sections - "Technique and equipment" with some of the info from the "tips" article, and "Subjects" with a short list of things typically photographed at night. What do people think? I had a little trouble with my overuse of uncertain adjectives e.g "often", "usually", "may", etc. I have difficulty wording stuff that has to be encyclopedic and therefore authoritative, but also being general and allowing options. This could be used, but might not, or this other thing could be used as well.... --Imroy 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Removal of "Additional night photographers" list
It doesn't belong here. First, as I said in the edit summary when I removed the list, it's just a big pile of promotional links (see links normally to be avoided, number 4), also known as external link spamming. Almost all of those links are to sites where the photographers in question sell their work. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox (number 2), nor is it a link repository (number 1), nor a directory. — Wwagner 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Photographers listed here should meet the tests of notability for photographers (WP:Bio), and have a Wiki article. Otherwise this list becomes a link farm and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. SteveHopson 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agree * 2. Thanks/wangi 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
So if instead the photographer links to his or her own wiki page that would be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.36.116.37 (talk • contribs)
- Of course. The "Significant published night photographers" section already has a few wikilinks. But before you run off and create a whole bunch of articles for people you want to link to, I should warn you that Wikipedia has rules about notability. Unless the subject is notable, the article is just going to be deleted. --Imroy 20:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I was not signed in for the above. I dont mean to cause wiki any trouble and find it very useful and hope to add to it but often find it hard. I made the comment above yours. Notability is hard to define and to whom is the better question. Im sure a father is notible to his children but other families in the world could care less. Maybe someone is notible in a genre and if you wernt interested in it you wouldnt think so at all. I made the page Leonard Carlson as mine was one of those listed to be removed.--Picturetokyo 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
More images
If anyone feels we'd benefit from a few more images on the article then I'm willing to upload some from my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/wangi/night - let me know. Thanks/wangi 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I think your photos are really good and should be included in article, either as an addition or a replacement for either current photo. SteveHopson 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm off on holiday tomorrow for a few weeks - if you suggest a few from the gallery and post the links here I'll upload them on my return. Thanks/wangi 23:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Blurry new photos
User:W.M.DeJardine recently added two photos to the article, but they're quite blurry. I'm afraid he should have followed two of the 'tips' given in the 'technique and equipment' section. He certainly should have used manual focus, and possibly also a tripod. Do other people think they're suitable for this article, or should they be removed? --Imroy 08:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- At the very least, the thumbnails of the new ones should be the same size as the rest of the images; I'll make that edit in just a minute. We could use one of the new blurry photos as an example of camera shake due to long exposure, or poor focus due to low light, though I think the photographer might remove any such description that we might add. Hooray for edit wars? OK, bad idea.
- Anyway, I'm quite satisfied with the Rainbow Bridge and Garden of Five Senses photos, but the others I could just as soon do without. The streaking headlights photo is a classic night subject, but surely we can find a more interesting image than the one we have? I'll check my archives and see if I've done anything that would go well. Also, I toyed around with the idea adding an "Examples" heading and putting all the images in a gallery there, but I wasn't too excited about how it looked. — Wwagner 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about this for a streaking headlights photo? Perhaps it can be cropped a bit from the top to remove the power lines near the top-right corner. There's also a streaking aircraft lights photo. --Kprateek88(Talk | Contribs) 17:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Although I do agree with you that they are a bit blurry, mind you that it's most likely contrast and shutter speed. I've only tried to widen the aspect of night photography by showing the radiant tone of colours rather than the fast motion of car lights. I'm only trying to contribute my photographs to give a better detail of night scenes, rather than just darkness and light and the stillness of the camera. I will review the 'tips' in the 'technique and equipment' section; but i do feel confident enough that my work presents a tone of 'glowing' colours. If need be, i'll either increase or decrease the ISO rating and use a tripod if you would prefer; but may I say, these are representations. I don't think I noticed any 'camera shake' in the first photograph? Maybe one of you fellas can carry my 45-pound tripod downtown and see how you feel. - User:W.M.DeJardine 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)