Jump to content

Talk:Photography/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Photography. 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, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Snapshots

I would like to propose the addition of Snapshot photography (se also Snapshot aesthetic) to the list of photography forms. Xyzt1234 20:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool Bjsaran (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be the Kodak Instamatic, or its 126 film cartridge ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the gallery is not complete, and that many others could be included. Gah4 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Photography. 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: 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) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017

103.16.155.82 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

hobby

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles in scope, missing one

Next up should be an article on photographic quality, the measurements thereof and examples to wit. 2600:1:9A7E:E963:2C0F:41CA:A624:FAB6 (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

place for early photo editing techniques?

Hi, I recently found this article on early photo editing techniques, which draws from a book my library has digitized. Would information about early photo editing be appropriate on this page? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Photograph manipulation and Image editing are two likely candidates for placement of this content. This article is large enough that substantial additions should probably go in related articles, maybe with brief mention here. See Wikipedia:Article size. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Synthesis photography"

The section Synthesis photography should be removed. The topic does not exist outside of that one linked unreliable source. The source is some blog post added here by a user with a WP:COI. "Synthesis photography" has not been mentioned in any other source.

Another user pointed towards sources discussing CGI that might indicate this paragraph could be salvagable, however those sources are unrelated to the paragraph in question. While computer-generated imagery, photorealistic rendering, and physically based rendering are real things, I cannot find any articles discussing what the paragraph discusses ("...shooting process is modeled on real photography"). "Synthesis photography" is not a term that exists. Even if that unreliable source were removed and switched out with a discussion of CGI I feel that mentioning CGI is out-of-place in that article as photorealistic CGI is only very tangentially related to photography, and it is not related to the history of photography.

130.208.182.103 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Modernist, I opened the above discussion over a week ago without response. 130.208.182.103 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree. This is a term that appears to be only used in this context and definition by one website. I don't know about the journal cited (I don't have access to it), but it does not appear to be about the same subject. Apart from that, what the article says about it is vague jargon, to the point of being meaningless.
It should be removed until more sources are produced and the topic better explained. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox (removal)

Would anyone oppose removal of the infobox? It's currently using the {{infobox tool}} template—which itself seems inappropriate—but none of the info in the box seems that helpful to the reader in the ways that an infobox should be. Other names, types and related all seem potentially helpful, but include odd and unhelpful information. I was considering the removal of each field, but I realised the only one left would be the inventor field… which seems potentially controversial or at least a little misleading itself, as the technology / art form / science was incepted over many years and iterations.

If nobody objects, I will remove the infobox, leaving the image and caption, and I'll add a paragraph to the lead about the two inventors. — HTGS (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

More appropriate to discuss artistic application as a side issue

Photography is not necessarily artful in any way. It is merely a way to record data. Selectively, certainly, but not typically to make any artistic attempts.

Photography is the method. "Artistic photography", or "fine-art photography", is on the other hand more specifically a practice in which the method is applied. 83.190.90.240 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Photography/Archive_2&oldid=1223512130"