Talk:Photography/Archive 1

message: 69.201.66.32 changed pornographers to photographers in the following:
[Pornographers<=Photographers] also engouraged chemists to refine the process of making many copies cheaply, which eventually lead them back to Talbot's process.
As most early uses of imaging technology are by pornographers, isn't that the reality?
Leonard G. 21:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pornographers

message: Most of this is tangled junk.  We need a concise history of the initial struggle against painting, Pictorialism, the long struggle to 'enter the museums' in the US, and then the 1990s take-up of photography by artists.  1st Jan 2005.
::Then write it for us!! - Adrian Pingstone 10:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photography as an art form

message: I inserted links to two sites with extremely valuable educational and technical information NOT AVAILABLE ON WIKIPEDIA.  The sites happen to be run by people who also sell photographs.  Deleting all such links as "spam" will only weaken this page.  I have re-instated the links.  Before deleting them again, please take the time to look at what they point to.
The policy page reads:
Wikipedia articles are not:
# Mere collections of external links. Of course, there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of content-relevant links and on-line references you used in writing an article.
Having a list of links to informative photography-related sites (even if the also have commercial content) seems perfectly appropriate at the bottom of the photography article. - (comment by 64.30.14.50   05:14, 20 Apr 2005)
:Thanks for discussing the links in question, and yes I did look over the sites concerned - not just the linked page, but their top level home pages too. Now I would agree these sites are better than some of the links people have been adding, but I still don't think they are that relevant to this page. Ask yourself, 'would most of the general readers of this page want to follow this link'.
:Links that connect to external sites containing information 'not available on Wikipedia' is part of the problem. Often times, we would prefer that information to be put into articles on Wikipedia.
:You might also read the advice at Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ#Is it OK to link to other sites.
:The Ken Rockwell site is a site promoting the work of one photographer which also has several articles on technique. But it covers much of the same ground as the Luminious Landscapes site. I think one external link to general photography articles is enough.
:The David Kachel Webzine primarily has articles about the Zone system. There is an argument to connect to this site from the Zone system page, but I don't think it is particularly relevant from the general Photography page.
:However, it would be best if other editors, gave an opinion too. -- Solipsist 07:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not opposed to putting the Kachel link on the Zone system page (and probably also pages on film and paper developing).  I will check out the luminous landscape page and compare it to Rockwell.
Please don't use anything from Ken Rockwell's site. There is a huge amount of erroneous information, luminoius landscape is far more trustworthy! HEADProductions 01:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on external links

message: I am a Wiki newbie, but assume this self reference is not valid.
Should we create a "Photographer" stub, or remove "Photographer" from the "See Also" list?
:Good catch! I removed it. Feel free to create a new article and add the link into Photography. Thanks! Fg2 12:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Reference under "See Also": Photographer --> Photography 

message: I have deleted a whole section from the page because it firstly, contains too many inline external links, including horifically, using it to replace internal links for articles we already have, just to shamelessly plug their website. Secondly, some of it concerned some non-notable art critics or photographers with their essays, and if this is contested, I think the section would have to be reworded, in any case. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 23:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inline external links 

message: These have been very nice edits.  I've been learning alot along the way, too.  Kd4ttc
:Me too. & Thanks. Was your Cristmas present a film, or digital camera? Mine was digital :-)
:Pulled out my old Canon AE-1.  I was thinking about going digital, but an 8 MP camera like the Canon 20D plus lens would put me back $1,500.  I thought film was still for me.  Then I went to Walgreens and got the scanned images.  Only scanned at 1200 dpi.  I was a little disappointed.  Then I eMailed to Kodak.  They only scan at 1000 dpi!  So while film is still a high resolution tool, it is treated as just a medium to get 4x6 prints.  It is really bad.  No longer is the paper exposed optically, which would preserve the sharpness.  Now the negatives are scanned, then printed.  Big surprise.  The loss of real photo labs is doing more to kill the quality of film.  With the mediocre results of current film processing digital looks better since the pixels are retained.  But of course, everyone is now running around with an expensive film scanner in their hands, so to speak.  But the physics of imaging is really fascinating.  Like most things, when you write (and get refereed) you learn more.  Steve Kd4ttc   By the way,  get the sig -> Kd4ttc with three ~ marks in a row, and get the sig and time stamp -> Kd4ttc 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still Pro color labs around, see: Fefer Color.Tstrobaugh 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: digital and digital vs film

message: There are three articles deal with pseudo-solarisation: Solarisation, Solarization and the Sabatier Effect. All three are essentially dealing with the same topic, although interestingly none deal with true Solarisation. I am proposing that all be merged into Solarisation (I have an 1898 reference which uses this term) with re-directs for the others. Any views ? Melancholia 17:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable.  Nice to see someon interested in wet work.  I corrected the spelling of Sabatier Effect. Kd4ttc 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solarisation, Solarization and the Sabtier Effect 

message: I have edited the article slightly to remove the common misconception that the f-number is equal to the ratio of the focal length to the aperture diameter. It is not. The f-number is equal to the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil of the lens. The latter is proportional to the diameter of the aperture. It is true that doubling the f-number halves the diameter of the aperture but it is not true that the aperture diameter is equal to the focal length divided by the f-number.--Srleffler 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: f-number and aperture diameter

message: I'm going to organize some pages like this one, camera and science of photography. I would be glad seeing your comments and feedback.
1. I've created to new headlines: "photography types" and "photography styles" and moved previous content to them.
2. I've merged the terminology section to the related sections in the page.
3. I will do more in future :) --Neshatian 12:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing 

message: The photo captioned "A example of composition in golden ratio." is not a good example fo anything - except "don't point a camera at the sun." Can't we find a replacement. Rmhermen 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need better photo

message: Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers.  An online version of a recent issue on the history of photography is available for free download at this address:
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/every_picture/index.html
The issue, titled "Every Picture Has a Story," uses pictures from the Smithsonian's collections to show the development of the technology through the nineteenth century.
If you think the audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.
Thank you so much for your attention.
:Consider it done. Velela 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Smithsonian link? 

message: I've just added a short paragraph to the Photography#Archiving section about the RAW formats. I was just wondering what other people think about the future of various image file formats.
In my opinion, JPEG is probably pretty safe for a good while. It's a pretty good format, it's well understood, and has had a lot written about it. Most importantly, it has been implemented countless times, including the Open source libjpeg and many hardware implementations. Adding to that, you have the millions of photos currently being snapped by people all around the world, which I'm sure will ensure the future readability of JPEG for a good while. Who would make a device or software application that deals with photos, but doesn't read JPEG's? 
The RAW image formats though are in a different boat. For a start, there's several of them. So even if the total number of photos recorded in any 'raw' format was comparable to the number of JPEG photos, each format only has a fraction of the total market. So it's possible that one or more of the less-popular 'raw' formats will not be readable in the future, and all the photos in that format will be essentially lost. Several manufacturers are even pig-headed enough to deliberately attempt vendor lock-in using encryption and/or patents on parts of data in the file. Unless the manufacturers open up about their file formats, I can see this becoming a real disaster for photographers with countless photos in 'raw' formats. Yes, I know a lot has been reverse-engineered, but my understanding is that a lot is still unknown. And there's also the legal aspect of using 'cracks' and other reverse-engineered information. For example, encrypted white-balance data in Nikon's NEF format.
Imroy 13:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of formats? 

message: I had some issues with some of the claims made in the Photography#Price sub-section.
* About digital: Where prints are desired, they need only be made of good photographs
: I can do that with film as well, if I wanted. But getting a set of 6x4 prints is pretty cheap, it's what everybody gets anyway. It's only impractical if you're taking *a lot* of photos. It all costs the same now too, see my last point.
* About film: It should be noted that there is no chance to review photographs before printing with film cameras so all photos taken must be printed before knowing anything about the quality of the final photograph.
: Someone's mistaking prints and processing. I can get a roll of film *processed* and then pop it into a scanner without getting prints made. In fact, I'm looking at exactly this scenario for some slide film I recently got. (Getting the individual frames mounted in slide carriers is expensive and unnecessary for my intentions - digital manipulation).
* Again about digital: There is considerable additional expense required to produce prints using computer printers as the cost of the special papers and inks, and of the special printers, computers and softwares must be included
: I think 199.38.133.55 doesn't know how modern film labs work. It's now a unified digital workflow - the film is processed, then scanned and printed digitally. If you want digital prints, it's printed with the same equipment. Same with enlargements or other modifications to either a film or digital image. Do a Google search for 'Fuji Frontier' some time.
I've removed the first and last sentences, and adjusted the second. 
Imroy 18:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Digital versus film 

message: I made an exelent full length edition in the name of pornography that was unbiased, etc.. and the person who took it off did not even tell me why they did?  If this is offensive to you, I am sorry, but WIKI means free....  
WHY???
Please respond
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24681012 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was it TAKEN OFF?!?!?!?!?!?!!? 

message: The section on Popularity mentions that black and white film is unchanged (as is its processing) since the 1950s.  This is not true: monochromatic films which are now available use the same processing technique as color films (and thus can be processed at any local cheap film developer).  These "monochromatic" films are also showing up in grocery stores and other locations that normally carry only the most popular items, suggesting that monochromatic films are surging in popularity.
I'd've put this in the text, except I can't exactly back much of that up.  Anyone else? <SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#006666; background-color:#ffff99; border-color:#ff0000; border-width:1px; border-style:solid; "> DavidDouthitt </SPAN> (Talk) 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These films are mentioned in C-41 process#Use with black-and-white films. You might want to mention these cheap films there. BTW, exactly what section are you refering to? I can see the Photography#Popularization section, but cannot find any mention "that black and white film is unchanged (as is its processing) since the 1950s". The last year I see mentioned is 1901. --Imroy 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Its also worth checking out Chromogenic where these films are specifically dealt with. Velela 09:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monochromatic Films 

message: The caption "Black and White photographs are often aesthetically pleasing" under Photography as an Art Form doesn't really belong.  This is an opinion that doesn't really say anything significant about black and white photography.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poliquin (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black and white photographs are... 

message: The cable car photo in the "Digital photography" section is awful. It doesn't serve as a good example of the possibilities of digital manipulation, as the same effect could easily have been achieved with collage. The sketch of Niépce's photo is also amateurish and entirely unnecessary. The sub-headings under "Photography types" ("Color photography", "Digital photography", and "Digital versus film") make little sense. And why is so much of this article devoted to silly banter about film vs. digital? Perhaps that should be a separate article. This entire page is of surprisingly low quality. Killick 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the cable car photo has been here for quite a while and was good for its time, but I agree we have a lot more images now and could probably find something better. I suspect the sketch of Niépce's photo was from an exhibition about the photo and so probably has some historic significance, but it is not clear what that is. As to your other points I would tend to agree, the article could do with a spruce up and a bit of a rewrite. -- Solipsist 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Is this article limited to still photorgaphy on purpose? Shouldn't there be a section about motion pictures/cinematography? I see that there is an article about Cinematography. At least there should be a link to that article. - Rshaver 09:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cinematography

message: The article for photography should have great photos because this is what the whole article is about.  The current photos are nothing special and some of them are here for reasons I do not understand.  For instance, under the digital vs. film header, the picture of the airplane landing is pointless, and looks very bad.  As said before, the cablecar picture is also useless.  It also seems that there is no reason to keep the picture of the sketch of the first picture because no one can seem to find any reason that it is here.  If some sort of list can be created that has the pictures that are vital to this article, then editors could begin to look for top-of-the-line pictures for the article that needs them the most.
One of the easiest pictures that could be fixed is the digital pictures example.  While right now we have a low-res picture, there are many gorgeous pictures that demonstrate the abilities of digital technology for manipulating images.  Regards, Gphototalk 01:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with that. SteveHopson 17:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Many photojournalists have declared they will not crop their pictures, or are forbidden from combining elements of multiple photos to make "illustrations," passing them as real photographs (for example, the photo above of the two men on the cable car).
Geoffreynham 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd cut the parenthetical statement, not make it refer to the new photo. SteveHopson 00:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Hi,
I note that someone has created the article "Analog photography". Is this a common or valid expression? 
Fourohfour 12:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Analog photography" 

message: In the Social History: Popularization section it says "Ultimately, the modern photographic process came about from a series of refinements and improvements in the first 20 years." The first 20 years of what? Could someone supply a date range in the article?
Wildfire1961 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution of modern process?

message: Comparison of analog vs digital is so weak in this article and should either be rewritten or deleted. Everything in it is so far fetched .ISO vs megapixel is really not the major factor, Kodak has even same rated ISO films with diffrent lines.
61.216.169.112 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with user 203.69.36.50 on this issue. Gphoto, please don't mix film speed with megapixels, Especially if you consider that most digital SLR's can go over ISO 1600 but that won't increase the size that you can print your photos on (this is neither the case for analog photos). In short, ISO Sensivity is not related to the final print resolution you could get from your analog photos in a lab. I checked other language articles (French, German) and they don't make this kind of comparison. I guess its because it really doesn't tell anything. This article is being voted on right now for Improvement, hopefully this will clean up some of those issues. Personally I think analog and digital exist as two photo technologies and we should only point out the advantages/disadvantages of each cause there are already so many diffrences in cameras itself (analog and digital). ISO is not the mother of all things, neither are megapixels.Engerim 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. The rest of the article could use some work too, so maybe you could fix it up?  Thanks, --Gphototalk 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison of analog vs digital is so weak

message: This has gone on too long.  I now look at the article and find references to the long gone Cable Car photo because the editors here are more concerned with a petty edit war than in crafting a readable article.  I've reverted the last edit because it is now too difficult to ferret out the orphan text.  Just stop here!  Work out some language you can both agree to and then insert it into the article.  Please consider that the article is more important than your ego and stop the unnecessary and destructive back and forth editing.  SteveHopson 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are kidding right? I just have to read the revision history to see who is adding text without mentioning it in his editing summary, you say you revert the reference to the cable car but you removed unrelated text in another part of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Photography&diff=93746407&oldid=93731838 Why you modifed the "Digital versus film" paragraph? I never touched to that. 203.69.36.50 05:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: The last section of this article, which is on photography as an art form and such needs to be moved to a place of prominence, since it fairly important and is a core part of photography's long-lasting part of society.  It also needs some work, but if we can get it moved before and if it is the WP:AID weekly feature, it will get some working-on.  --Gphototalk 03:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last section 

message: There have been many improvements apropos the film vs digital issue, but the intro still seems biased, and badly worded to boot. "Photography is the process of making pictures by means of the action of capturing light on a film." This doesn't fit with the following sentences which do mention digital methods. How about "Photography is the process of capturing light by mechanical means." Of course, this means that any electrial circuit that includes an LDR is a camera, but it does seem better than what is there at the moment.
The second sentence of the paragraph mentions both emitted light and reflected light. Do cameras not also pick up refracted light? I suppose I'm sounding picky but it is a pretty important topic and the place people will head to to learn about all things photography, so I just want it to be as good as possible. --badge 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to the Introduction?

message: Hi Sir /Madam, I have awarded two tiltes for ARPS (London) and APSNY (New York),didn't they related to B.A.in Photography?I have found B.A. that has written in Introduction for Distinction under Royal Photography Society.Kindly explain this matter to me soon. Best Regards, Tan Chuen Ling ARPS APSNY. B.A. in Photography (London) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.74.39.227 (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would ARPS and APSNY related to Bachelor of Arts in Photography? 

message: I don't understand why the Photography types section is divided into "color film" and "digital". Shouldn't it be divided into "Film" and "digital", with "Film" being further divided into "color" and "B&W"?Tstrobaugh 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, and no division of digital into color vs. B&W? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no difference in digital photographic sensors to distinguish between color and B&W, the information is simple stripped out in processing. Again, NO, because there is no difference. I suppose you might just be being a smart-alec though since you didn't sign your post.Tstrobaugh 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wrong, there was a monochrome sensor made by Kodak but the latest model the 760M was discontinued sometime ago, I'm not a digital person so if someone knows more about this please comment.Tstrobaugh 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All digital sensors are monochrome. The colors are made up by firmware/software. The Kodak 760M was just a honest camera :)Atelierelealbe (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Photography types

message: Any body want to help start the composite photography article using data from Averageness; or does this article already exist somewhere? --Sadi Carnot 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Composite photography

message: In August 2004, this diff summarized as "refactor lead" led to the current incorrect and mangled etymology.  Can someone who knows a bit of Greek please repair it?  I'll just take out some of the lossiest part for now. Dicklyon 05:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mangled lead

message: Is it to much to ask for a real Black and White picture with some argentic grain, instead of of digital picture showing classic B & W look ? Ericd 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black and white photography

message: The current introductory sentence essentially repeats the process of creating a photograph as opposed to actually stating what photography is. Given that this is somewhat long-winded and not straight to the point, I was thinking of altering it to something like this:
Photography [fә'tɑgrәfi:],[foʊ'tɑgrәfi:] is the art, hobby, or profession of taking photographs, and developing and printing the film or processing the digitised array image.
What do you think? Chris Buttigiegtalk 17:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current one better; photography is the process, not the art, hobby, or profession.  If you'd like to change it, at least please do find a source for you interpretation of what it is.  There may be room for a compromised, as it appears that many books define as photography as "the process or art..." Dicklyon 18:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right, I had a look in the Encyclopædia Britannica and the definition is essentially the same as the current one. Anyhow, thanks -Chris Buttigiegtalk 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory sentence

message: A quick review of the site seems to be an add farm, with limited content.  I would recommend not using it.  --Rocksanddirt 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I had just removed the link for the reasons you indicate, before seeing your recommendation. --RenniePet 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, now I see what it's all about. Except I'd call it an "ad farm", not an "add farm" :-)  --RenniePet 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photography 101 link spam 

message: i read in a few places that "reportage photography" (As opposed to documentary photgraphy) embodies several styles: news reportage, photojournalistic reportage, naturalistic reportage, street reportage, etc.
something to think about
68.161.125.208 (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reportage photography 

message: Hi, I'm looking for a technique where you take multiple photos with different focus and then somehow digitally lay them on top of each other for a strange hyper-realistic effect. What's that called? Thanks! 77.183.125.143 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Depth of field#Focus stacking. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: photographic technique

message: There isn't an area for the increasing scrutiny, arrests and harrassment of photographers. Something I'm sure that happened somewhat before the digital age but that wasn't always documented. But now we know it's happening a lot, because it's documented, because of the terrorist fear and because so many people have a phone. Look at what they did in England. And in the US, more and more authority figures are telling people to put their camera away.
I've been following the issue at www.photographyisnotcrime.org and thought about just adding it to the resource links at the bottom. But as up to date as wikipedia usually is, I was surprised this topic isn't covered.˜˜˜˜enhager  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enhager (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to write a section on this, but remember to keep a neutral point of view. Arpitt (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And based on reliable sources, please.  The Photography and the law article or section might be a good place to mention something. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Good point. I'll mention it in the intro Owen214 (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the persecution of photographers 

message: I agree with the effort to keep links to a bare minimum on this page, and appreciate Dicklyon's effort to clean off links.  The recent edit to remove the [Center for Fine Art Photography|Center for Fine Art Photography], but I find that this link is appropriate and suggest it be replaced. I'm open to opinions, but will revert this edit after a reasonable period of time without objection. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find it a good link, it's OK by me.  I removed it because it's the only contribution of a new anon IP editor; that makes him a spammer in my book. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've readded it - anyone who disagrees is welcome to discuss here. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam links

message: The image of the Nikon D200 is not a digital single-lens reflex. Please revise this fact.
Ty sk8r boy (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of the Nikon D200

message: The fairground picture with the caption that currently says "Manual shutter control and exposure settings can achieve unusual results." I think it would add value if more were said about how that effect were achieved, so a sentence beginning "Here..." and then whatever is correct. I know nothing on this subject but something along the lines of "Here the shutter is left open longer than usual allowing the lights in motion to etc etc". --bodnotbod (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extend caption to fairground picture

message: Please post here your comment about contributions from nanotech to photography.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.110.102 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanotechnology 

message: Currently this article only covers still photography, but many articles about film photography lead here.
Research Method (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: Shouldn't this be included in the types of photography? Acceptable (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you just make that up, or is there something behind it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Photography of celestial bodies is a type of photography, but it is not included in the list of different types of photography. Should it be added? Acceptable (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude! For future reference: Astrology != Astronomy ;-). And Astrophotography has its own article. --Dschwen 17:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrological Photography 

message: Dick Lyon, what are you doing man? i was not adding redlink, it was a blue link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESCapade (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have added the link to Panning photography just before moving Panning (camera) to there; unfortunately, I didn't notice the move before moving the article to the somewhat more sensible Panning (photography), so now it's hard to move back; I've requested a move.  I find no reliable sources for calling it "panning photography". Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's right, you need reliaable sources for what you call it.  Compare the breadth of sources for those four examples:    . Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panning Photography 

message: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/wfp/ check out that page, and you can see the first photograph ever taken. Also it has a very nice description of the history of the picture, along with some technical details. Would be good to actually be able to cite something under the first photograph...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venomx3 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Daguerre took the first ever photo of a person in 1838 ..." I found this image of Franz Schubert http://www.allstarpics.net/0087262/012679524/franz-schubert-pic.html  He died in 1828.  I pecked around a bit, but couldn't find authoritative verification of the subject of this image, but it is sited as an image of Schubert on various sites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fussy Gardener (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

text: My two cents: unless every page of text (or diagram, or drawing) printed by offset lithography (or any other process which creates the printing plate by photographic means) is "a photograph", then this very pricey sheet of paper, however historically important it may be, does not qualify. AVarchaeologist (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First known photograph incorrect 

message: Do we need pictures of old cameras in the introduction? They obscure text and there are many pics of cameras in the text below. Peterlewis (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the Wikimedia Commons link in the "sister projects" box near the bottom of the article will get you only a click away from commons:Category:Cameras which looks reasonably extensive. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I am putting my first day in to a new project with the National Trust in England on Monday.
My role as a volunteer will be to photograph the gardens and buildings, which I am sure have been photographed many nany times previous.
I want to try to capture the fauna and flora in mono (in addition to colour) in a way that adds something to the subject.
Any direction to achieve this will be much appreciated.
thank you (Tony)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationaltrust1 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  mono 

message: Wedding Photography was listed twice, so I removed one of the links. CygnetFlying (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a double link from forms list 

message: Even though it was pointed out earlier on the discussion page here that photography is also a profession, someone reverted the introduction of its mention. This wasn't even mentioned in the lacklustre justification for reverting the change, which also saw the removal of its mention as being a science. Studio photographers use light meters, all sorts of attitude measurements with precise mountings and they know about all the various kinds of light. Modern cameras are now making use of many breakthroughs in computer vision, such as the automatic creation of panoramas, face detection and even the use of smiles as a trigger to take a photo. It's therefore too technical to be described as a mere "art". The previous opening sentence classifying it as an "activity" was unnecessary since it was already listed as a "process" Owen214 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The extensive use of technology does not make something a science (or anyone who drives a car would be a scientist). There are a large number of articles dealing with the general subject of photography, this one is more of an overview of the process of photography. The fact that an activity can be done as a means of earning money does not belong in the lede of this article, since it is both obvious and applies to virtually all activities to a lesser and greater extent. See photographer if that is your area of interest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about my interests, I have no association with photography. Your opinions on whether or not photography is a science still leaves no justification for your persistent sabotage to the term "photoreceptors" instead of the bizarre and unscientific "electronic sensors"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen214 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I am not the "saboteur", the cited "sabotage" seems entirely justified to me. "Photoreceptor" is a word normally used to describe the light-sensitive organic structures in the eye. See the Photoreceptor_cell article here. A Google search on the word will demonstrate that its real-world use is overwhelmingly in the field of biology. "Electronic sensors" seems an extremely useful umbrella term which encompasses all the past and present analog and digital image pick-up devices that come readily to mind. As long as the devices or device elements are electronic and are sensors, a rationale for condemning the descriptive term "electronic sensors" as unscientific or bizarre is not apparent. AVarchaeologist (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  photography as a science and profession 

message: I was just looking into why we have so much unsourced detail on the Tay Bridge and its role in photographic history, when I saw that it was all added by User:Peterlewis, including the listing of his book as further reading (here in 2007) though it's no longer listed.  This sounds like WP:COI and self-promotion.  Should we take out that info and look for something actually published on the history of forensic photography instead? Dicklyon (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  I was looking into it as contrary to WP:SUMMARY and too detailed for this broad article.  Yes, for any of the above reasons, this material should be further shortened to a sentence or two in this article, and the pictures omitted.  WP:COI remains an open question relevant to the forensic article and the bridge accident article, and other sources should be sought for those, but anything raising a reasonable suspicion can simply be trimmed away from this one.  Jim.henderson (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tay Bridge conflict of interest by Peter Lewis? 

message: Technically speaking all digital cameras shoot monochrome. Maybe is a ref to Kodak 760m?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelierelealbe (talk • contribs) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and some manufacturers produce digital cameras that exclusively shoot monochrome 

message: I don't think this category fits. Is there a resource?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.23.98 (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear user,
I think this article written for the Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York may be a good source to settle this matter. It states: 'From the moment of its birth, photography had a dual character—as a medium of artistic expression and as a powerful scientific tool'. Here is the link: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dagu/hd_dagu.htm
Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science? 

message: Can anyone recommend a free panoramic stitching program online? Jamaolo (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panoramic Composites Using Several Overlapping Pictures 

message: Could this be included as a recognisable form of photography, (even though though there's no Wikipedia article on it as yet)? See for example...
Scientific Photography: photographic journeys into the unknown! 
1906: exhibits in section "Scientific and Technical Photography and its Application to Processes of Reproduction. By Invitation from the Council"
Technical Photography at Appalachian State University
Historical Survey of Scientific and Technical Photography in Canada
...and so on. Double Happiness (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed Scientific photography was missed when I was editing Astrophotography. Sidney F. Ray wrote a whole book on it, "Scientific photography and applied imaging" 1 so lots out there for an article. Looks like we would have 85 articles linking to topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forms - add Scientific / Technical photography? 

message: Since photography may simply be described as "a way to record light", could first sentence be considered as containing too much information? Edouard Albert (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Edouard Albert, even if it could be described in a simpler manner I believe it is better for the article to have a more complete definition of Photography. It also has a good reference, so I don't think it should be an issue. Many thanks, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: Greetings,
I would like to inquire about adding a new external link to the page.
http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/scn
I did see that no new links were to be added without submitting to the discussion page first. We think that collection of images would be relevant to the page and would like to add it. Please view the collection and share your thoughts afterwards.
Thanks,
Claremont Colleges Digital Library
````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccdlstaff (talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the images are lovely, Wikipedia is not a web directory. External links from an article should lead to resources elaborating on the subject in a meaningful way. Mindmatrix 02:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Link 

message: The only old color photograph in this page is File:Taj Mahal 1921.JPG.  A nice picture, but it's not iconic.  Could it be replaced with File:Tartan Ribbon.jpg or something by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii?  Pictures like File:Alim Khan (1880–1944), Emir of Bukhara, photographed by S.M. Prokudin-Gorskiy in 1911.jpg and File:L.N.Tolstoy Prokudin-Gorsky.jpg would be good SMP-G pictures.  2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:789 (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with the Taj Mahal image is that it shows a mechanically printed reproduction of that Autochrome, as published in the pages of National Geographic magazine, not the original Autochrome plate. Standard practice at the time was for the printing plate maker to locally adjust and retouch the three halftone printing plates, to compensate for shortcomings of the then-available CMY inks and other limitations of the printing process, which further removes what the image file shows us from the actual photo. Someone swapped the Taj pic in some months ago, replacing the so-called self-portrait of Prokudin-Gorsky now at the head of his WP article and which was a much more striking demonstration of the quality possible circa 1915. Rather than simply revert that edit or substitute some other widely reproduced "iconic" example (the 1861 "tartan" ribbon is already grossly ubiquitous), I have replaced the Taj with a fine 1903 portrait by Sarah Angelina Acland, an advanced amateur who tried out any and all available color processes beginning in 1899, three years before Prokudin-Gorsky was initiated into the mysteries by Miethe. AVarchaeologist (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color photography 

message: I added film and video production to the direct uses of photography because motion pictures derived from still images.
Cameron Roper (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Motion Pictures 

message: Shouldn't we add a ref-improve tag? So many paragraphs are unsourced. If everyone agrees with me, I'll add it in the next few days. Keivan.fTalk 12:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Photolithography, History of photography and History of the camera also have the same situation. Keivan.fTalk 12:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be more useful to add the tag to sections or paragraphs that need citations rather than tagging the whole article. N0TABENE (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref improve