Talk:History of photography

message: Where do you have these sources from? Peter von Waldhausen, who knows Daguerre like no other, believes this photo was shot between 24 April 1838 and 4 May 1838, so nothing with "late 1838" nor "early 1839". Reference URL: http://www.niepce-daguerre.com/boulevard_du_Temple_de_dag.html So can we please remove this incorrect 1839 alternate date? If there are no objections/reactions of any kind, I will do it myself after some days. -andy 77.7.111.185 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Early 1839??

message: This has been established for a very long time and just because some secular "scholars" want to eliminate the Christian Way of life doesn't mean the established norm for so many centuries can be revoked. It is all still based on Jesus' birth anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.75.196 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)
:Please see WP:ERA: "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word 'era'. Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change." —howcheng  {chat} 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: It isn't BCE and CE, its BC and AD.

message: As far as I can tell, it is not clearly established what photograph was actually the first portrait, as the dates for both of the main contenders are uncertain (although it seems both were probably taken in 1939). Our article currently states that the Cornelius photograph was the first, but this appears to be original research. Would anyone mind if I remove this claim? Kaldari (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First portrait 

message: Conrad Heyer, this picture was taken circa 1852. He was approximately 103 when photographed, having been born in 1749. He was reportedly the first white child born in Waldoboro, Maine, then a German immigrant community. He served in the Continental Army under George Washington during the Revolutionary War, crossing the Delaware with him and fighting in other major battles.  http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/the-worlds-first-eyewitness/  • Sbmeirow • Talk •  08:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Portrait photography had already become practical ten years earlier, when Mr. Heyer was 93 and older, earlier-born nonagenarians and then-centenarians were also still alive, so this unqualified claim, like so many "first" "earliest" and "oldest" claims, is reckless at best. AVarchaeologist (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Follow-up: Here you can see Revolutionary War veteran Baltus Stone (1744-1846), photographed at age 101 in 1846...and the author of the page prudently writes only that he is one of the earliest-born men ever photographed. Even academic sites can be wrong, but before swallowing any such claims, do some fact-checking and figure that Cornell University is probably a much more reliable source than somebody's blog. AVarchaeologist (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest photo of an oldest person 

message: It hardly seems feasible that the man having his boots polished would stay in the position shown for "at least ten minutes", so why is there not a whole series of smeary ghost images around that spot? What plausible sequence of events could have caused the observed result from a 10-minute+ exposure? 109.157.10.129 (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Paris in 1838 and the notion of a French gentleman chatting it up with a bootblack for ten minutes while one of his high patent leather boots gets a thorough cleaning and polishing does not overly strain my credulity. Compare a modern-day leisurely session in a barber's chair. The clearest available enlarged views of that part of the plate show that, despite the anchor points, the customer's arms and head, and most of the bootblack, are themselves either invisible or in the "smeary ghost image" category as the result of movement during the exposure. Some commentators claim to see "smeary ghost image" traces of other people elsewhere in the scene, but unlike the immortalized pair on the corner they are too indistinct to justify any definite identification as human figures. 66.81.220.24 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposure time 

message: Invisibly means not visible. Faint means barely perceptible (in this case visible) and a latent image is by definition an invisible image. 
It's in paragraph 6 of the Development of Chemical Photography section. I don't know what is meant so I can't fix it. Stephlet  00:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed with "faint"-->"slight" etc. Intent is to convey that it is essentially a matter of degree only. 66.81.241.5 (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is an "invisibly faint latent image"  

message: The lead section gives a brief but well written and inclusive introduction to the topic. However, the section “Etymology” could easily be added to the lead section as it is an extremely short section on its own and lacks the ability to be considerably lengthened. The information of the section “Technological background” also seems out of place. The information is either repeated elsewhere in the article or could be more strategically placed in a different section for the most clarity. 
The section “Development of chemical photography” is lengthy and filled with excellent information but perhaps further sectioning it off would make the material more readable and comprehensible. 
The section “Development of digital photography” in comparison is very short and lacks the same depth of information the previous section contained.  For instance the bullet point featured in this section could be elaborated on.  Pictures depicting the progression of digital photography over the years would also be a valuable addition to this section.
Jmmcgill (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review #1 

message: Could someone please check my question on the Talk Page of Rabindranath Tagore? Wiki-uk (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture from 1850s or 1880s? 

message: Can you please explain further your reasons for reverting my copyedit? My edit converted the sentence to the active voice, which is generally considered clearer. Also, "the year of 1848" is more succinct as just "1848" — another change you reverted. Qono (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was initially considering just fixing the number agreement error, but then on reading it decided there was no improvement that I could see that I'd want to keep.  The obsession with active/passive is not a good reason for the edit.  If someone wants to make it actually more clear, that's fine. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active voice copyedit reversion 

message: The following, (with the arguable exception of a possibly photographic process used to create the mysterious shroud of Turin) requires removal. The Shroud has been examined and proven not to be created by any photographic means.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A3C0:1D0B:D429:A9D4:EB87:B068 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time I'm removing this claim, sourced to the theory of an art student and with no apparent scientific update after almost 30 years. EEng 15:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shroud of Turin suggestion in opening remarks 

message: The first and only mention of film is near the end of a sizeable paragraph, the third one o think, which waxes lyrical on daguerreotype. Boscaswell talk 07:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film in the lede/intro - it’s as if it’s afterthought