Talk:Collodion process

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

As we all know, this article is in need of some serious work

It's mostly about the collodion emulsion process, which was not the main body of 19th century collodion work. It was introduced shortly before gelatin emulsion began to come onto the scene. The article should be shifted back to Focus on wet plate collodion, which was the dominant collodion process.

The text in this article bears striking similarities to works from the period; many of which I've read pieces of. It really seems like portions of text were simply copied from old books onto here. While most of said works are most likely public domain, its still not good form to do this, especially without citing. It'd also probably be wise to convert the units given to modern ones; I'm doubting that most folks know what a "minim" is.

I'm going to work on adjusting this a bit; shouldn't take too long.

-16 November 2007

This article isn't about the Collodion Process as much as it is about the dry plate process.

Working on it...

Collodion process

I have a chapter in my photo publication about the collodion process with comprehensive instructions to prepare and develop wet plates, mind if I put it in instead of yours?

Alf photoman 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would have problems with it as long as it isn't encumbered by copyrights or is already in the public domain. Just as important, it should be written in an encyclopedic tone rather than in a how-to format. There are WikiBooks for those kinds of projects. If it is fairly lengthy then you might want to consider spreading it across several articles covering subtopics as well.--Hooperbloob 23:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article replacement

This entire article was replaced with a different one on November 18, much of which was unusable because it took the form of a how-to. I've attempted to merge together the two as best I could, but it still needs attention from an expert and much cleanup. The alternate version can be found here. Chick Bowen 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[

_{_{Subscript text}_{_{Subscript text}}}

Useless odd article

We have the advantages and disadvantages of the collodion process disscussed again and again in comparison with the earlier dagguerotype process and the later supposedly more convenient and better, later gelatin process.

The number of times we read that the process was messy and inconvenient and difficult is many in this wordy account.

No technical details or why the collodion process is much better than gelatin.

Borrowed information from bloggs on the web that are devoid of any real information.

Must be scrapped - the whole article. Like a blind man in a dark cellar looking for a black cat that isn't there. RPSM (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they are...

"There are many artists working with Collodion for several different reasons,"

This sentence dies off and is a poor ending to the article. If you are not going to list the reasons then don't bother suggesting they have them...

BTW I thought the article was pretty good except the chemical formula. There's no need to list photographic recipes in this article, it doesn't make any specific points or tie back to something needing clarity in the article.

All in all I think the article was pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the sentence to remove the phrase "for several reasons". --Saukkomies ^talk 22:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

came back to check on this..

Looks like it's still sitting here..I'll send this off to APUG.ORG and see if I can't find a person that knows the Collodion process and is willing to rehab this depressing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Timmerman

I included the Dutch modern-day photographer Alex Timmerman in the article, but was reluctant to include a link in the External Links section, due to the warning. At any rate, here is the URL for his home page, in case anyone is interested: http://www.alextimmermans.com/ --Saukkomies ^talk 22:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea not to include a link per Wikipedia's policies on promotion and so on. The existing links are generally to the works of historically interesting photographers who used the process, or information regarding the process itself. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Parts of this article appear to be copied almost verbatim from this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/photography/7871164/Collodion-photography-self-portrait-in-cyanide.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.112.86 (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collodion process. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150909220515/http://image.eastmanhouse.org/files/GEH_1955_04_03.pdf to http://image.eastmanhouse.org/files/GEH_1955_04_03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error

Collodion emulsion preparation example

It is beyond doubt that the units here have been incorrectly converted from the original.

(For example, it is certainly NOT possible to dissolve 80 grams of ammonium carbonate in 30 millilitres of water).

86.141.61.177 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collodion process. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521234312/http://blog.eastmanhouse.org/2012/06/13/photographic-process-2-0-the-collodion-process/ to http://blog.eastmanhouse.org/2012/06/13/photographic-process-2-0-the-collodion-process/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]