Template talk:Photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject History of photography (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Photography (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

Isn't this a very old-fashioned view of photography?[edit]

I'm guessing that young people today will find very little of interest in this template. They'll be scratching their heads and wondering why things like digital photography, DSLRs, digicams, and mobile telephones aren't anywhere to be found.

If there are no objections I'll try to add some more up-to-date stuff tomorrow or the next day. --RenniePet (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the content is clearly of historical interest only: e.g. daguerrotype, gum printing. Contrary to that is Lomography, a present-day marketing gimmick. Film format (listed) should be paired with Image sensor format (not listed). There's some other stuff that's specific to film, so I suppose digital could be added. But three of your four examples are of newish kinds of cameras, and the template doesn't do much in the way of listing oldish ones.
It would be easy to add "DSLR", "SLR", "rangefinder camera", "camera phone", "TLR". "folding camera", "subminiature camera" and more just for cameras; and then to add "Print Club", "Photoshop", "sharpening", "gamma", etc etc as other terms that have recently either emerged or been popularized. What would you then wind up with? I think it would be a bloody great big template that would encumber rather than help an article on which it appeared.
It needs a rethink rather than augmentations. -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
IMo, it needs a jolly good clean-up. Some items that are in the wrong category. 'Related Topics' seems strange - those topics have *everything* to do with photography! *Eyeshine* and *drybox* are peripheral.

Maybe 'Genres' rather than 'Forms'; remove the peripheral subjects to another area and maybe make new templates for sub-categories. Might take on this if i get the time and patience. Ideas anyone? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 'spin-off' of digital and analogue subjects into new templates[edit]

If no-one objects, I may spin 'digital' subjects off into a new template; that subject area could then have a more comprehensive template without overloading this one. I may do the same with 'analogue' subjects and leave this template as as a general one for both areas. But I'll see. Comments? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you mock up what you want on a sandbox page, and let us see? Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The 'digital' mock-up is at User:Baffle gab1978/Sandbox, I'll create the analogue one later this week. The current template is there for reference. Thanks Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
So far I think the Digital Photography mockup is a good start but has too much overlap with the existing Photography navbox. If the overlap was removed, the remainder would be mainly about photo manipulation. Rather than trying to split film and digital photography from the Photography navbox, I'd suggest keeping the Photography navbox and adding new specialized navboxes based on aspects of the discussion so far: "digital cameras" and "photo manipulation". Ikluft (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Due to RL matters, I haven't had time or inclination to edit the trial template - I guess the idea of expanding the original is good, but I was considering the possibility of it becoming messy, with too many sections. I'll leave it alone for the present. Thanks for your input. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Add?[edit]

Would Free-Form Select be subject to insertion? --Bapho  talk  14:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation of "bokeh"[edit]

Bokeh should be in "Technical terms" instead of "Techniques". It is not a technique, it is a way of describing the manner in which a lens defocuses. 86.43.160.48 (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanded or Collapsed by default?[edit]

I feel that using this template on a page can make it dominate a small page. I have felt inhibited in using it, where I would not have hesitated if its default state had been "collapse". (Have I got the terminology right?) For example, Royal Photographic Society is about "Photography" (of course!), but the full content of the template would probably rarely be of interest to the typical reader of that page. Digital Negative has 3 templates, but fortunately 2 are normally collapsed. Yet there is no good reason why this one should be expanded and the other 2 collapsed. Perhaps there is a good reason why it is how it is; or perhaps I'm the only one who cares either way. Views? Barry Pearson 16:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have checked this earlier. The change from collapsed to expanded was made on 31 October 2010‎ by Fixblor. No reason was given as far as I can tell. Given that this is a "Highly visible template", I don't want to step on any toes, so I'll wait for discussion before considering a change. (I am an autoconfirmed user). Barry Pearson 16:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no response to the above, so I've reverted it to the pre-31 October 2010 state of "autocollapse". (The effect doesn't appear to be consistent across the pages that use it. Perhaps this is to do with caching?) Barry Pearson 16:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The "autocollapse" was not the effect I wanted. It is better than nothing, because it collapses the template when among others, but not when by itself, which is often the case. (Especially with shortish articles where the template tends to dominate). So I have changed the state to "collapsed". I now have more confidence using the "Photography" template on articles that are certainly about photography but where most users won't need the expanded template. Barry Pearson 07:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fire photography[edit]

Add Fire photography to genres. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be classed as reportage - anyone? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I was initially inclined to consider fire as a photography subject, not a genre. However, the Fire photography article seems to have sufficient sources and links to organizations to suggest that it is, in fact, a genre. If Cloudscape has a place on the list, then so should fire. MrX 12:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done DMacks (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

35 mm equivalent focal length[edit]

Would you add 35 mm equivalent focal length to the "Technical terms" group? --Madcrayon (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for the suggestion. - MrX 03:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please replace Category:Visual arts templates with Category:Visual arts navigational boxes. --86.40.107.73 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Thank you for lending your time to help us improve Wikipedia. If you are interested in editing more often than once in a while, we welcome you to log in and participate in our WikiCommunity. - MrX 15:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)