Talk:Sepia tone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Color (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History of photography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of History 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.
Start-Class article Start  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Don't use copyrighted photos![edit]

I have reverted the photos back to mine and if someone thinks we need something more relevant, go take your own photo and use that. Do not upload images from Playboy as they have sued people for unauthorized use of their copyrighted images. We can do better than this, people! Paul Robinson 14:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you had read the Wikipedia article on Lenna you would know that "The magazine has since abandoned the threats, instead embracing the use of "Lenna" for publicity reasons." In fact I have read in several places that "Although Playboy is notorious for cracking down on illegal uses of its images, it has decided to overlook the widespread distribution of this particular centerfold". I won't change it back myself, however I still think that Lenna would be the most suitable image to use in this case, given it's history of use in digital imaging demonstrations. I would also like to point out that the Lenna article does have the copyrighted image in question, and nobody seems to worry about that infringing any copyrights. I do agree with you on one point, however: We can do better than a bad photo of a hairy guy with one eye closed. --TexasDex 04:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hope you guys don't mind ... but I replaced the three sample images with the same sample images I use in the Photoshop Sepia Tone tutorial that is linked under External links ... I also "standardised" the spelling of "grey" vs "gray" since we had both spellings in the article ... Not sure what is the correct language protocol ...!! but whatever it is should be the same ... You can tell that I'm from the UK school of thought .... 8-) --Gary56 September 9, 2005

Dashes[edit]

Grendelkhan, your revert led me to look up Wikipedia's policy on dashes. Here's the relevant part from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) (emphasis mine):

  • Editors who do not want the bother of keying in HTML entities or prefer to maintain the readability of the wikitext are free to type their dashes in this fashion. However, subsequent editors are free to convert any double-hyphens they come across to any of the first three types described above, depending on:
    • Personal preference between en dashes and em dashes, and
    • How the hyphens were initially entered. That is, a spaced double hyphen may only be converted into a spaced em dash or a spaced en dash. The original editor's spacing preference is respected.

It turns out that we were both wrong. I was wrong to remove the spaces on each side of the dash, but you were wrong to revert it to two hyphens. Em and en dashes are acceptable. If we weren't supposed to use them, why would they be in the "Insert:" box under every edit field? There they are, right between å and []. Okay? —RadRafe 22:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's get some real photos here[edit]

A digital photograph modified to look like a sepia-toned print is really lame. I won't have a chance to put up an example for another month or so, but it would be nice if someone did.

And i think that we could have a more interesting subject :)
These pictures need to be changed. Those are rediculious.
Done! I am substituting the standard Lenna image, which I think is appropriate given it's history of use in digital imaging. If somebody wants to add a real sepia tone photo (in addition to these three) then they are welcome to, but I think having the color/bw/sepia images next to eachother is very useful. --TexasDex 20:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Is this a good picture?[edit]

I found this picture while browsing trought commons and it just amazed me. I figured this article would be a nice place to put it as I find it not exactly apropiate for the articles related to human anatomy. I won't post it unless someone aproves first... I'll post it and see what happens, figure that if people dont like it, they'll likely remove it.Nnfolz 11:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it as not everyone may appreciate it on a page where one does not expect nudity. Plus it does not add significantly over the other images. Janderk 10:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

Does this article really need the three thumbnail photos at the bottom showing a color, b/w, and sepia toned photo? If a reader is looking for information on a particular type of color toning, can't we assume she understands the distinction between color and b/w photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForrestCroce (talkcontribs)

I found the 3 thumb nails to be very helpful as it showed the clear distinction between a b/w photo and sepia toned - I may not otherwise have realized the difference. I think the definition does well not to assume the reader will have a certain level of knowledge, I found the comparisons very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.164.114 (talkcontribs)

Sepia does not imply "digital"[edit]

I, and many others, remember "Sepia Tone" as a cheap way to simulate color in film. It does not necessarily have anything to do with "digital" photography. It really is a product of the 1970s that predates digital photography. I am making a few targeted edits to reflect this fact. In general I am just making the article less specific.

Beau Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.61.136 (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The original, general, film process is documented at Photographic print toning. There is already a note to this effect at the top of this article. --Imroy 03:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That may be, but "sepia tone" as a term generally has been known as the film process. It is reasonable to believe that an average user searching for the phrase is not looking for the digital topic. I'd suggest that this article be moved to Digital sepia tone or something similar which makes it obvious that the article is about digital simulation techniques, and redirect Sepia tone to Photographic print toning. Does that sound reasonable? Girolamo Savonarola 21:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense. Selenium toning already redirects there, so your idea would make things more consistent. The only problem is that this article also has the section on pop culture references, which really isn't about digital toning. Perhaps it would be better to spin off the digital section into a general Digital photo toning article - then either leave the pop culture stuff here or merge it into Photographic print toning. --Imroy 02:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This article should be merged into there. The section on pop culture references is mostly unsourced trivia, which should be removed anyway. --jacobolus (t) 18:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's also in color photography, something that has gotten lost between the two articles. "Sepia Tone" could accomplished in color photography with a colored glass or plastic filter over the lens. Merennulli (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

true sepia toning is done with black and white photos, and digital color manipulation is not "toning"Landcamera900 (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)