Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/Archive 1

message: OK, I'll ask the first question. If you take a photograph and alter it significantly, let's say I use filters in Adobe Photoshop to make the photo look like a drawing, who does the image then belong to?
I have several old photos of which the ownership is unclear. I could use them for illustration if I were allowed to manipulate them.
DWR 05:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How much of the image is altered? If it is radically different that you barely can tell what the original is, then it is copyright under you, technically. Fair use of the other person's work. But I think you'll need to still give credit to the other person for the original image. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By law if the original artist can prove that it was their work that the new work was derived from...you would loose a copy right infringment case. There is no fair use of work in that manner.--Amadscientist 00:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Question

message: * I (and most others I would guess) want to upload my own pictures with the most wiki friendly copyright, which is it? Bluemoose 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: , ,  -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just use . --jmeeter 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the preferred copyright for peoples' uploaded photos?

message: * What is the best size for photos, after all an 8MP camera is probably going to produce files a bit to big, I suggest about 2MP (approximately 1600x1200) is optimal file size/picture quality trade off. Bluemoose 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think size limits should be restricted.  Uploading high resolution photos is a good thing. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The guidelines say that as long as the file size is under 2mb, to upload the highest resolution image possible. I agree, and in my opinion the file size restriction should be relaxed, too. Don't forget that we should be able to use Wikipedia to create print versions (which has much higher requirements for resolution) of the encyclopedia, or in general  to re-use its contents in any way. Brighterorange 15:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo sizes

message: Since there isn't a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Photos) page, I would like to ask this question of some of the photo experts here. What should one do with old photographs that you are planning to upload to the Wikipedia? I've uploaded a few old photos from the Library of Congress. Unfortunately, like many of the pre-1923 public domain photos at the LOC, they were darkened and yellowed. Most of the photos I uploaded I have used "as is". For one of the photos, however, I cropped the image, and then converted the image to greyscale and lightened up the image, which I think gave a much better picture. I am wondering if there should be any sort of Wikipedia guidlines for this type of photo manipulation. BlankVerse ∅ 13:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old photographs? 

message: Can you claim copyright on alterations made to a public domain image?  Ex: :Image:Wpdms nasa topo wind river range.jpg --Hetar 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can.  Rklawton 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if you alter a public domain image and then claim it as your own, you only have a limited amount of copy right as the original image can still be used in the same manner. If you attempt to claim your image as the basis of the other work (used from the public domain) your would be wrong. Therefore legally you may not win any copy right infringement based on the original public domain image.--Amadscientist 01:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright question 

message: There's a discussion about the category associated with this recent (3 July 06) template for tagging images which are claimed to be photographs but "obviously" not. It's been used twice. I think that this project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration should be given some input as to what happens. Discussion here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Notphoto 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Hello everyone at this wikiproject!  If this project is active and anyone is around, please tell me so that I will know whether or not to place this wikiproject prominently.  Also, if there is no still involved with this project, I was wondering if I could give it an overhaul?  Thanks, -Gphoto 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actively photographing and adding images to articles.  The wikiphotoproject is a great idea, but it's poorly organized.  For example, is there a "Needs Photo" tag that can somehow also relate to geographic region editors can insert into their articles?  If we can provide a link in this project to an automated summary of those links by geography, then we'll have a quick-hit list active photographers can reference.  Those who are active in that area or plan to visit will find a quick-hit list of stuff that needs shooting.  For example, if I know I'm visiting Waco, Texas, next month, it would be great to have a list of articles in that area that need illustrating I can print out an bring with me.  As it stands, I'm working from the National Register of Historic Places list because it lists articles by state, county, and city.  Unfortunately, most of the places on these lists lack articles.  At least they'll have images once someone rights an article (... yeah, I know, and I've created a stub or two here and there).  I also realize that not everything is geographyically bound, but it would make a great start.  If such lists already exist, please point me to them!  Rklawton 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work!  Yeah, this project is very poorly organized, and a geographical system would be nice.  I will try and see what I can do.  Thanks, -Gphoto 12:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[portal:photography]] and wikiproject photography 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Voting is now open at Commons to choose the finalists for Picture of the Year 2006.  The voting page is at Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. All editors having at least 100 edits either here or on any Wikimedia Wiki are welcome to participate. --MichaelMaggs 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons Picture of the Year competition 

message: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection.  Please come by and state your views. Thanks, Johntex\talk 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnstar discussion

message: There's several articles about specific ones, but no parent article for them - but one might be useful to have. Шизомби 14:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camera clubs? 

message: Hello everyone, I am quite happy to announce that I added my first photo today, which can be seen in the J-B Weld article. It was taken with my Nikon D80. What do you think of the photo, is it appropriate? Should I have uploaded it at a higher resolution? --jmeeter 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you set about it right – lighting, etc – but finishing could be improved.. it's abit small and there's too mauch space around the tubes. In general for this kind of pic, crop the image fairly close to the subject and then resize it; anything over 1200 pixels along its longest edge is fine. The wiki markup automatically resizes your pic for the image page and article, while leaving the higher res file there, should anyone need it. A purist might add something about shooting pristine new tubes, but I like the way these ones have come staight out of the workshop, much more enc :) mikaultalk 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added my first photo 

message: Hey, I was considering creating a gallery for the Chopper page, consisting of some new, hi-res pictures of old, classic choppers. Sure, there are good examples in the article already but 2/3 of them are poor quality. What do you guys say? --jmeeter 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for gallery on Chopper (motorcycle) page 

message: If you have an opinion about whether "raw" should be all caps or not, please check out Talk:Raw image format‎ and leave a comment. Dicklyon 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RAW versus raw

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: To allow editors to focus on what's of most interest to them, I do think we ought to maintain two separate projects: this one, aimed at adding better pictures, and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, aimed at improving photography-related articles.  I may even join both.
Can I suggest we restate the aims of this project along the following lines:
: To improve the quality of photographic images on Wikepedia and to add new high-quality images; to act as a focal point for photographers and photographic-image editors who are able to offer their skills to the Wiki community; and to act as a point of contact for article editors requiring photographic images or photographic advice and assistance.
====New photograph required (article template) ====
It would be good to have an easy-to-use template that article editors could use to request a photo. One template already exists, namely Template:Reqphoto, which puts an entry into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. But this doesn't actually allow requests to be categorised in any sensible way, nor can a photographer quickly review the list without going to each article, one by one, to see what type of photo is needed. So, it's not that useful for Project members to work from.
To enable other project members easily to keep an eye on requests of interest to them, the template should ideally allow editors to specify:
*subject category (e.g. nature, portrait, landscape, buildings, food etc)
*place (e.g. London, New York) where applicable
*any special equipment required (close-up/micro lens, telescope, microscope) where applicable
*any other requirements (free text field for comments)
Also already existing is the page Wikipedia:Requested pictures but, as mentioned above, this is not well-used, and again doesn't allow photographers easily to watch whether requests have been made in their areas of interest. It also overlaps in function with the template, and is confusing for editors. See also Commons:Picture requests, which does much the same thing.
A template of this type would make it easy for me to see, for example, which articles are in need of closeup/macro shots of household items, and to provide them, as well as making it easy for an editor who needs such an image to found out that I'm here and ready to help.
====Photograph requiring cleanup or improvement (article template and/or image tag) ====
This template should allow article editors to request help from Project members to get an existing image cleaned up or otherwise improved (via Photoshop or some similar program).
An image tag Template:Cleanup-image already exists, which adds problem images to Category:Images for cleanup. This could could perhaps be improved.  It would also be useful to have an article template as well, given that many editors don't seem to like to get involved in image issues and would be more likely to add a template to the talk page than to go into an image and edit there.  Members may also be more likely to work on a problem image that's associated with an important article, rather than simply picking images without much context.
The unused pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Photos that need attention and Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Project collaboration simply duplicate the above, and could be removed.
I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding.
We should also maintain a page where members can indicate their interests and areas in which they can help - something like a combination of Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers and the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but with at least this information:
*Name
*Subjects of special interest
*Location
*Uses SLR?
*Special equipment available
*Will supply new photos?
*Will undertake photo editing?
*Will provide advice?
What do others think?  Is there enough interest to move this forward?  MichaelMaggs 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: um I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding. See above! --MichaelMaggs 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MichaelMaggs: I do think we ought to maintain two separate projects: this one, aimed at adding better pictures, and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, aimed at improving photography-related articles. You may also be interested to see the start of a draft WikiProject Cameras. -- Hoary 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as if there is not actually that much interest in this. A shame. --MichaelMaggs 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to revitalise this project

message: This template should allow article editors to request help from Project members to get an existing image cleaned up or otherwise improved (via Photoshop or some similar program).
An image tag Template:Cleanup-image already exists, which adds problem images to Category:Images for cleanup. This could could perhaps be improved.  It would also be useful to have an article template as well, given that many editors don't seem to like to get involved in image issues and would be more likely to add a template to the talk page than to go into an image and edit there.  Members may also be more likely to work on a problem image that's associated with an important article, rather than simply picking images without much context.
The unused pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Photos that need attention and Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Project collaboration simply duplicate the above, and could be removed.
I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding.
We should also maintain a page where members can indicate their interests and areas in which they can help - something like a combination of Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers and the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but with at least this information:
*Name
*Subjects of special interest
*Location
*Uses SLR?
*Special equipment available
*Will supply new photos?
*Will undertake photo editing?
*Will provide advice?
What do others think?  Is there enough interest to move this forward?  MichaelMaggs 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: um I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding. See above! --MichaelMaggs 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MichaelMaggs: I do think we ought to maintain two separate projects: this one, aimed at adding better pictures, and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, aimed at improving photography-related articles. You may also be interested to see the start of a draft WikiProject Cameras. -- Hoary 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as if there is not actually that much interest in this. A shame. --MichaelMaggs 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph requiring cleanup or improvement (article template and/or image tag) 

message: Have you seen an article on wikipedia that needs a photograph but you can't travel a thousand miles to take it? Do you love taking pictures for the wiki but aren't sure what our needs are? I've created Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service to solve both problems by matching photographers with articles that need photos. To a certain extent it duplicates Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers, but its a bit more useful for finding someone to take a photo because its sorted by location. Additionally, the page also includes a list of needed photos for any given location so anybody can see what photos we need and take them for us even if that person doesn't want to list themselves as a photographer. Anyway, the page is pretty bare-bones at the moment and I would appreciate any comments that people have. GabrielF 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this works out, it will be the death of our dear, dear, slightly inactive project. --Gphototalk 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Photo Matching Service 

message: The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field article ('s talk page) has been tagged as being of interest to both the History of photography WikiProject and this one. As this is the more general of the two WikiProjects, I'm wondering whether the  template shouldn't be removed from that talk page… - dcljr (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubble Ultra-Deep Field 

message: The article on layers in image editing contains a note by someone who says that he invented them, which is probably against your code. It's written in first person.
82.74.143.127 (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed it. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

text: The claim in the Layers (digital image editing) article that was removed said that the first program to have layers was IWS's Image Wizard. This is worth us researching for validity. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inventor's note" in the article on layers 

message: Does this photo have enough contrast?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion on contrast 

message: Selfie defines itself as "a self-portrait photograph". Self-portrait defines itself as "a representation of an artist that is drawn, painted, photographed, or sculpted by that artist." I previously added a cite check to Selfie with a direct to the talk page where I suggested, among other things, that it is unlikely the consensus is that all selfies are by artists (though artist may have its own difficulties finding consensus). There has been no response, and the cite check remains. Clearly I could be wrong, in which case the cite check should be removed. If I am wrong and Self-portrait is also accurate, should selfies and selfie artists feature in that article? It could be that articles define themselves independently of one another, but I thought this would be a good place to ask.  ~ Fiachaire (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be overthinking this. It's a bit like erotica vs. pornography (NB softcore pornography) vs. nude (art)/nude photography (art). Most people would probably say they know it when they see it, but no rigorous, universally agreed distinction exists. So we cover all these topics individually despite the overlap. Samsara 21:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you, I have a personal opinion. However, Pornography does not define itself as art. I know it when I see it defines itself as "a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters." It also reads "Still, however, this left the ultimate decision of what constituted obscenity up to the whim of the courts, and did not provide an easily applicable standard for review by the lower courts. This changed in 1973". I suppose if your comparison is to call for a selfie equivalent of the Miller test, I'm interested to hear it, but I suspect there are less complicated options available. Perhaps ones that don't involve "unusually inconsistent" court rulings. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

text: While I appreciate your guardianship of me, I do post on other pages hoping to hear and learn from other experienced editors. No offense intended. Given your level of interest and expertise, perhaps you would write on my talk page as well.  ~ Fiachaire (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selfie & Self-portrait 

message: Is there any interest in expanding the discussion of P3P in light of recent developments? In particular, I would be interested in including some of the material found at http://www.mqrieck.com/P3P/P3P_Solutions.html, all of which is supported by peer-reviewed articles, mostly published in JMIV. 
MQR (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Discussion of Perspective Three-Point Pose Problem 

message: Greetings  Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the  that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
* Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration.  Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards,  — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

message: My list of missing topics about photoraphy is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing topics list 

message: The article Baby mugging has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
:Extremely limited content, little to no chance of expansion. Fails to pass 4 and 8 - The article, the link from from Internet Phenomena, and all of the references (except for the daily mail which appeared to be of extremely limited content) mentioned the creator by name and associated website. The article sounds like a free plug for the bloggers website, or a misguided bio of a living person.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sawta (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   Proposed deletion of [[Baby mugging]] 

message: :Note: The WP:PROD request has been declined.  I am going to resubmit for AfD, as I still believe the content of the article falls within the confines of deletion. I am going to submit the AfD shortly; I have not submitted either a PROD or AfD request before, there will be a lag time between this post and the AfD request. Sawta (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Link to the AfD discussion page. Twinkle really simplified things! Sawta (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD Baby Mugging 

message: Hey all I want to get involved with this group is there a way that members communicate about the project?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostwickenator (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helping out  

message: In Draft:Dominique Stroobant I am creating the article about Belgian photographer Dominique Stroobant. He is both a sculptor and a photograph.
If anyone has any useful source to use, that would be nice. I can only use online website... and I live in China where there is no google. I have enough information to prove his notability, especially the fact that he is cited on newspapers and blogs of other artists in many European countries, but clearly without better professional sources it will look a little unbalanced.
I am doing it because I know someone in his family and if I can finish it (even as a simple stub) before his birthday (as a surprise), we have more chances he will be pleased and get some nice pictures for commons. --Alexmar983 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft:Dominique Stroobant 

message: We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,  will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of .
 
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
* The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
* The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
* The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to  for his original , and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of , and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages report 

message: The article :Canon EOS 5D Mark IV has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
article reads more like an advertisement for a product someone is trying to sell rather than an actual article
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Canon EOS 5D Mark IV]] 

message: Hi all. Wiki Loves Monuments UK is looking for volunteers to help with reviewing this year’s entries and identifying a long list of images for submission to the three judges who will pick the final winners. You don't need to be a top photographer to volunteer for this, but you should have a good understanding of what makes an exceptional photograph and be able to distinguish good from mediocre images. You'd need to be able to commit to something like four or five hours work, mostly during October but perhaps during September as well.  
If you are able to help, please leave a note on my talk page, or alternatively contact me using the "email this user" feature. More details can be found here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Loves Monuments UK is looking for volunteers 

message: Just to be sure, I'm also leaving my request here. Details see Portal talk:Photography#Minolta Dynax.2FMaxxum template. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minolta template 

message: I just finished creating Low-key photography. I think it's important to have an article about this photography genre. I've used some of the photos I shot. I double checked, however, I might of skipped a typo or something. I don't know how to proceed to the Low key stub. Low-key may refer to a lot of stuff, not particularly photography but low-key photography is a well known genre. Also, something should be done in the Low key (disambiguation) section. If you think it's worth it, it should be added to the photography template to the genres section. Robert G. (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-key photography 

message: Hello. Sorry if I bother you but wikidata has no Wikiproject Photography, so might I ask you what do you think about this ID for items. It is a database from National Geographic. 
I have noticed we have few gaps between the photographers' worlds and the science world, the IDs are often unbalanced on one way or the other.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have linked this discussion from other projects and wikidata items talk.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I am also informing single user who created ID for photographers or scientific illustrators, except one who said I am not supposed to edit his page. Too bad.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That has potential. I'd be happy to draft a proposal for such a property, but we'd need examples of people listed there who have Wikidata items or, better still, Wikipedia biographies. Do you know of any? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy Mabbett I have no hurry at the moment, so I can do it later myself but as soon as I have time I can cite also an example. Today it is a "hot day" on the calendar. The one in the link has a SCOPUS ID also, and was a winner of the Royal Society of Photography competition, interviewed on some British newspaper, but for sure there are stronger name.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new ID for wikidata 

message: I am aware of the function described in this article, but I am unable to verify that this is actually its proper name; searching invariably finds references to the psychological phenomenon. Could someone more knowledgeable than I take a look and move or cite the article please? Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if that's the most popular term, but I think it is one term used for the technology. I think we should look instead at the lack of coverage of the broader topic of metadata and photography. We have articles like Exif, Geotagged photograph, or List of cameras which provide geotagging. The article System camera mentions that such a thing as a databack or data back exists, and numerous camera articles mention that they have a data back/databack option. History of the camera makes no mention of databacks, and I can't find any sources that say when the databack was invented. They were a common accessory by 1970, and probably earlier. Metadata#Photographs only covers digital images, without any hint of the practice of exposing metadata onto film with light. Photographic paper fails to mention that printed codes and watermarks existed on photo paper that identified the date, type, and other information Negative film typically had information encoded in it as well, either dates or serial numbers that make deducing a date possible. The NYT Lively Morgue tumblr provides years of examples of how a newspaper archives photos, tags and stamps the back with various information. This type of archive raises questions of how the metadata can be scanned and read into digital formats today. Wikimedia GLAM projects upload troves of photos that require vast volunteer efforts to copy handwritten metadata into file descriptions.<P>So rather than worry about whether 'negative imprinting' is the best term, we should create a new article that broadly covers all of the topics I mentioned above, covering both film and digital imaging, and outlining the chronology of how this technology was used, beginning with the archiving practices of writing by hand or typing out photo metadata in the earliest years of photography, and progressing to the present. Perhaps photographic metadata would be a good name for this umbrella article that covers all of this. Once we have an overview that summarizes the major topics here, it will be easier to delve into the specific subtopics, like film camera databack hardware or negative imprinting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Negative imprinting]] 

message: Hi, some of the photography topic templates aren't listed in the search results. For example most ones from the Category:Lens templates. Can they be included in the project? --Angerdan (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisted photography templates 

message: Just to be sure, I'm also leaving my request here. Details see Portal talk:Photography#Minolta Dynax.2FMaxxum template. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Template:Minolta Dynax/Maxxum SLR film cameras --Angerdan (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minolta template 

message: I have substantially updated the article on press cameras, provided extensive refs for every section and expanded the list of press cameras. I think the images could be improved but I've completed as much of the content as I could find. If there are no objections, I think the "ref improve" and "expand list" tags can be removed. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Press camera]] article update

message: Will someone please review this draft and comment on whether it is ready for acceptance as an article?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Rhodiotype]] 

message: Please see discussion at WPMilHist: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Do_we_need_a_Category%3AMilitary_photographers%3F. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need a [[:Category:Military photographers]]? (and/or [[:Category:Military photography]]) 

message: A reader with interest in early press cameras has written a book about the subject and an associated website: www.regholloway.com 
:ticket:2018032210011131
The author has expressed willingness to provide free licenses for this material. While they directly approach Wikipedia. I'm thinking that wikisource may be a better repository. I'm reaching out to this wiki project because I'm a decidedly amateur photographer and my hope is someone with more interest in the subject will be better positioned to enter into a discussion with the author and determine next steps. If you let me know, I will put you in contact with the author. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer of relevant material 

message: Thomas Thorp (scientific instrument manufacturer) mentions a 19th century photographer called Izarn; but that links to a DAB page with no relevant entry. All I can find about him is that he was presumably French; this record cites a paper he published in Comptes rendus in 1893. Can any expert find his given name or at least an initial? (If he appears in a source as 'M. Izarn', that is more likely to be 'Monsieur' than an initial.) I'd be reluctant to redlink him as Izarn (photographer) or to unlink him unless there is no alternative. Narky Blert (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: A link to a DAB page

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: There's a lot of re-writes and expansion of articles relating to the famous photo "Saigon execution". In the past, some very dubious sourcing has been used as well as strong POV language added to some of them. I would appreciate if people were to review these pages and add them to your watchlist. 
* Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém
* Eddie Adams (photographer)
* Nguyễn Ngọc Loan
* Battle of Saigon (1968)
Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saigon Execution 

message: Template:WikiProject History of photography has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Photography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Qono (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for merging of [[Template:WikiProject History of photography]] 

message: If we were asked to rate the relevant importances of fifty randomly chosen but at least moderately prominent photographers, I think half a dozen or so among us could have a discussion on how to go about doing this, and could work out ways of allowing for those who saw themselves strictly as photojournalists, those better known as writers but also exhibited and/or published as photographers, those long dismissed as mere (if idiosyncratic) pornographers but now recognized as somehow adventurous, creators of photograms, etc etc. I can't see this happening for two hundred or more photographers. And there are thousands to be dealt with. I happen to think that The Oxford Companion to the Photograph is good (I have a copy), but I don't claim that it's better than Juliet Hacking, ed, Photography: The Complete Story. What if/when somebody claims that the evaluations give far too much weight to the idiosyncrasies of the Companion, and that we'd better use The Complete Story? One might expect that US photographers, at least, would be well represented in the latter, but I've read that the name Gordon Parks doesn't appear in the index. (I can't check this: I have a copy of this book too, but it's inaccessible right now.) 
This is hopeless. And the rating system is pointless too. I happen to agree that Edward Steichen is very important, but labelling his article "Top Importance" won't make me any more inclined to spend my time editing it. Will it influence anybody? (By contrast, what might influence me to work on it is if somebody else puts a lot of time into it and asks for help.) 
So I say: keep the "importance" ratings for processes, schools, etc if you wish; but scrap them for photographers. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrap them

message: Hello! Wiki Education is developing a guide to help students improve articles related to art history. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that they consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. We’d love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Cassidy_(Wiki_Ed)/Art_history. We're looking to gather feedback by August 16th. Feel free to respond here or on the draft's talk page. Thanks so much! Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles about art history 

message: There is an RfC ongoing at Talk:Ron Stallworth regarding the use of a high school yearbook photo on a biography, with issues of quality, relevance, consent, copyright, etc. Please visit and comment on the appropriateness of using this image on the page; or comment on a generalization of that question if you prefer. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on the use of a photo from a high-school yearbook 

message: Please participate in RFC on nude photos in Going commando. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on nude photos in Going commando 

message: Edits like this by  are a big improvement. I've never liked blacked our or whited out backgrounds. The photoshopping is not subtle, and the result is just surreal. I'd go even further and encourage photos of lenses and camera bodies that include not just visible surfaces and the odd shadow, but actual things, even human hands. How big these things are in human hands matters and it's important information: . When you lead with an image of the camera just hovering in abstract apace, as in Nikon DX format, you lose vital context. I know everyone does that; it's practically the industry standard. But the second image here is far more useful than the first. Weight and scale are not trivial, they're essential. I think one reason these white background cutout photos are the norm is that they're so much easier. Backgrounds can easily turn into distraction and clutter, and everyone's afraid of covering up a small part of the subject with a thumb or finger. But putting the subject in its natural habitat rather than floating in abstract space should be our goal, when possible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That Fujifilm lens' black background was a particularly bad choice. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. A good illustration for an advert is not the same as a good illustration for an encyclopedia. One aims to entice shoppers; the other aims to inform the uninformed. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less surreal and abstract equipment photos are better 

message: You may be interested in Talk:35 mm film#RfC: 35mm articles, an RfC to overhaul the various articles related to the 35mm film format. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on 35mm articles 

message: You are invited to join the discussion regarding edits to List of Photographers. The discussion is addressing the following questions:
* Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
* Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
** Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
* Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
** If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?
Your contributions are welcome. Thank you! Qono (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments on List of Photographers 

message: Wikivoyage (the travel guide) has a short article on voy:Wildlife photography.  If anyone's interested in the subject and wants to provide travel-related advice, then please feel free to Wikivoyage:Plunge forward and expand the article.  (No need to directly cite sources in their articles – the focus is on good advice, written fairly.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice pages 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: *
I suspect this subject may be notable, but I can't support preserving the article as written, given its unsourced claim that the subject is "renowned" (apparently the result of reading too much into a colorful translation of the title of a book that has a short article on him); however, if anyone has quick access to that book and could fix the article.  Wikipedia has a systemic language problem on this one, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have quick access to that book. A copy sits on my lap as I type this. Its short piece about Hobo is on page 278. I also have quick access to another all-Japanese-language book that for some reason also has a title in English: Biographic Dictionary of Japanese Photography. My copy of this too is on my lap. Its short piece on Hobo is on page 363. It lists four other books that (perhaps fleetingly) deal with Hobo. I don't have any of these on my lap but I could get hold of them easily. So yes, I could fix this article. But I'm not going to; first because I've no solid reason to think that Hobo meets notability standards, and secondly because, with ever-diminishing enthusiasm, I've done quite enough of this sort of drudgery over the years: concretely, Akiyama Tadasuke, Arita Taiji, Chiba Teisuke, Domon Ken, Ei-Q, Fuku Mitsutarō, Fukuda Katsuji, Fukuhara Rosō, Fukuhara Shinzō, Gōzu Masao, Iwamiya Takeji, Kijima Takashi, Kodama Fusako, Komoto Akira, Kondō Tomio, Kubota Hiroji, Kumagai Motoichi, Matsushima Susumu, Miyazaki Yūhi, Morikawa Aizō, Moriwaki Eiichi, Nagano Shigeichi, Nakamura Masaya, Natori Yōnosuke, Nishiyama Kiyoshi, Ōishi Yoshino, Ono Chizu, Orihara Kei, Satō Akira, Satō Kōji, Shimizu Bukō, Shiomi Mieko, Suzuki Shin'ichi I, Takagi Kaietsu, Tanaka Kōtarō, Tokiwa Toyoko, Tomiyama Haruo, Ueda Shōji, Usui Kaoru, Yamane Toshio. (Some of these people interest me, some I did out of an odd sense of duty, one I did for my own amusement because the person in question seemed to have the most tenuous claim to notability out of any of the "328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers".) ¶ There are quite a lot of genuinely outstanding Japanese photographers who, for one reason or another, didn't make it into that book. As for those who did, (now long-retired) User:20th Century (Zenhan) Art created a list of its contents: potential copyright issues aside, OK. But then (now effectively retired) User:Quadell got (now moribund) Polbot to create dozens of near-identical substubs from these, and people have wasted a great amount of time over them ever since. This junk has already existed for well over a decade, and as long as it remains, it appearance in :Category:Japanese photographers does a disservice to readers. So let the non-article Gorō Hobo and anything much like it die, without prejudicing any later attempt to create a worthwhile article on the particular subject. Doing so won't harm current or future Wikipedia and indeed may well improve it, by wasting much less time (via one tedious AfD after another) of the people who might spend that time actually writing articles. ¶ Indeed, here's an offer. I'll honour the first request I receive on my user talk page to create an actual, worthwhile (though perhaps very short) article about one of the people who currently gets a dreary substub. Just (i) succeed in getting these tiresome things deleted; (ii) name your one biographee. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gorō Hobo]]

message: In Sunny 16 rule there is this sentence: "More in general, the adjustment is done such that for each step in aperture increase (i.e., decreasing the f-number), the exposure time has to be halved (or equivalently, the shutter speed halved), and vice versa."  Should "step" be "f-stop"?  "Step" seems ambiguous.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "One stop" works well I think. "One f-stop" also works. I agree "step" is ambiguous because a step on a digital camera's could be half or third of an f-stop. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step versus stop 

message: Glen M. Dye [cut] <http://www.minnesotainventors.org/inductees/glen-m-dye.html> posted by  at 19:01, 23 August 2019‎
:, that was a lengthy quote from this web page, which also says "©2019 Minnesota Inventors Hall of Fame - All rights reserved." That means "not copyleft". You can't copy and paste such stuff to Wikipedia, even if you say where it's from. Because it violated copyright, I deleted it.
:Copyright issue aside, I don't know why you posted it here. (Were you hoping that somebody would make an article out of it?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glen M. Dye - Developed the first photo processing machines 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Photography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Photography until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Photography]] for deletion 

message: I have just finished "Albertype" article, that was a stub in this WikiProject Photography. I´m spanish art historian woman , and I often create my editions in Spanish wikipedia.  I ask some of you if you want to check it, because I am quite new in the english Wikipedia. 
Thanks...--Pirandello3 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: you'll have to take down the under construction template if you want others to work on it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok Í´ve already done it, thanks--Pirandello3 (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albertype 

message: Hi, I was looking over the page on The Photographic Journal, and while doing some research noticed that it does not mention George Shadbolt as an editor, yet while looking through an old issue of the Journal, it lists him as Editor  I was going to add this, and perhaps something about the RPS/Photographic Journal not being connected to ThePhotographicJournal.com.  Thank you. (ShkinZwiKi (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: you are likely better off placing your note on The talk page for The Photographic Journal, as the question relates to article content. And if you think the edit is correct and have a source,  go for it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Photographic Journal 

message: I suggest track articles without an image or picture. And, using big data with Wikidate, see the most interesting for the Wikimediasphere (Commons, Wikipedia... as a whole). And make campaigns to upload these images. . BoldLuis (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with no images or drawings 

message: Could somebody look at Draft:Photography in Washington D.C. and figure out what we can do with it?  It's really much to much of an essay to accept in its current form.  But, it's a nice piece of writing and it would be a shame to lose it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft:Photography in Washington D.C. 

message: Hi everybody. I translated this article related to a historical photo studio in Rome. I have some doubts: is mandatory to I put a translated from template on the discussion page of the article (as we do in Italian Wikipedia). The title, could stay as it it, or must be translated into a "Vasari Photographic Studio" or similar? Can you please see if is everything ok with the translation too? Thank you, :-). --Camelia (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is usually done, to indicate the source for copyright purposes and show the original. I placed the template on the talk page of the article you are working on. If you ping me once it's published I'll be happy to look at the English. I gave the text a brief edit as well, per your request. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ThatMontrealIP Thank you, is now published. --Camelia (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio fotografico Vasari 

message: I couldn't find much coverage on WP of the DRAFT:Polaroid Collection, so I threw this together. Does it seem like an appropriate addition to article space? Photography is not my main field, so I thought I would seek input from some of the professionals here...  18:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . This is a worthwhile addition. One thing though, it says that the Artists Support Program "provided access to its 24×24 inch Polaroid camera studio". I presume this is Polaroid 20×24 camera? And if so, then it may have given access to its "camera" rather than to its "camera studio". -Lopifalko (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There was at least one studio with a 20/24 and Polarioud technical assistant that was rented or granted by the day for photographers' use. I think there may have been another camera that traveled, but I do not remember any details. One place to check might be the websites or other sources about the photographers whose 20/24 photos were noted by collectors or museums. See  and oddly,    SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the tips! I have corrected the camera link to the 20x24 inch studio, and added sources to show that you could indeed borrow it. I only added a sentence as it is a bit peripheral to the collection, and we have a whole article on the studio. As far as I can tell they had six cameras and two camera studios: one studio in Boston and one studio in Amsterdam. You could go there to shoot as part of the Artists Support Program. Going to the studio made sense as the camera was large and delicate and there were only six ever made. That said, some artists (William Wegman is listed in one of the sources) got to borrow the actual beast and take it to their studio to work. I vaguely remember seeing some kind of video about someone doing an outdoor landscape shoot with the camera as well, but this may have been post-bankruptcy. After the bankruptcy the cameras split up and took on different lives at different studios, which are separate from their role in making work for the Polaroid Collection. Feel very free to edit the page, of course. I am pretty much done there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Polaroid Collection

message: For somebody more than averagely interested in photography, I'm pretty ignorant of fashion photography. But even I have heard of, and on occasion have admired, the work of George Hoyningen-Huene. The article is virtually unsourced, and I have just this evening reverted the addition of a patchily sourced but overly promotional text (see Talk:George Hoyningen-Huene). Time permitting, I suppose I could source some of what's there and improve it a bit; but I can't feign enthusiasm for the task. Somebody who's interested in fashion photography please step in! -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: George Hoyningen-Huene

message: Recently deceased photographer. He did some nice work, including these moving photos of mourners along RFK's funeral train route. I took the opportunity to clean up the article and add sources, but it would of course be much better with the attention of some of the finer editors who frequent this page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ThatMontrealIP, I'd taken a look at the cumulative changes you'd made, good work. I've taken my eye off the ball regarding his death, happy to not take on that responsibility just now, assuming others were diving in, happy to see that you had. I will take a look when I can. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I am good at finding the facts, but not great at the writing side beyond basic exposition. Regarding Fusco, I was quite struck by those train photos.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Paul Fusco (photographer)]]

message: I'm puzzled by :Category:Photographers from Yorkshire (created by  a couple of days ago), and the other subcategories of :Category:English photographers. I don't see "Merseyside", "Tyne and Wear", or any other name that might have surprised my long-dead grandparents: Are these where photographers are from, or where they would have been from if born in the first half of the 20th century? (If Neil Bedford was born in Bradford in 1981, I think there was no "Yorkshire" -- other of course than historically/informally -- and that he'd instead be from West Yorkshire. Or in reverse: G. P. Abraham wouldn't have been born in "Cumbria" but in "Cumberland" ... er, no, in Wiltshire, according to his article.) That aside, are counties or administrative areas (or their successors, or predecessors) of much significance either to photographers or to the people viewing their work? (I haven't been to Britain for years, so don't know; but my impression is: For some geographical extremes -- Cornwall, Norfolk, Northumberland, etc -- maybe; but for Hertfordshire and the like, no.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *But but they are "Category:People by county in England" (meaning, we're told, people by the counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies, from 1998 onwards I swear I am not making this up) and "Category:People by former county in England". -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *It may say that, but it is not how the categories have been used. So, for example :Category:People from Berkshire (before 1974) doesnt have any articles about people in it.  It's the villages that were formerly in Berkshire.  The people in the village categories may have been there before or after 1974, or even before Berkshire existed.  Rathfelder (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I haven't followed what is going on enough above, but am dismayed to see that British photographer Lisa Barnard has now become "Category:Welsh photographers"; and that Mahtab Hussain, born in Glasgow and later living in Birmingham, has had "Category:People from Glasgow" swapped for "Category:Photographers from Birmingham", West Midlands, and been removed from Category:21st-century Scottish photographers. This seems unlikely to be correct. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting aside the questions of where these photographers are from (and the question of which administrative/lieutenancy(!)-related areas a given place was in then or is in now), can we at least agree that a photographer can be "from" more than one place? I mean, if a photographer lived in Leeds till she was ten and in Newcastle thereafter, I'd say that she's from both. -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Photographers from Yorkshire", etc

message: Does he qualify to be an English photographer? Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brooklyn Beckham]] 

message: Can someone with a Commons account or who knows how to do it please link :en:Reversal film to :es:Diapositiva ?
:Thanks ~ 2601:1C0:5301:9F40:EC6F:3F30:5632:3758 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Interwiki Link 

message: This November, wp:Women in Red is focusing on women working behind the scenes in theatre and broadcasting. As photography is an important component here, we hope members of WP Photography will be inspired to participate. You can find further details at Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast. The Women in Red invitation for November is copied below. Please feel free to send it to any potentially interested participants or projects.
		Women in Red  |  November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181
Online events:
* New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast  
* Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination
* Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia 
* Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe
Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage
Stay in touch:
Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications
Social media:
 Facebook | 
 Instagram | 
 Pinterest |
 Twitter
		
--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: November focus on women in behind-the-scenes occupations

message: I've added additional information and sections to the Canon EOS R article, and included references for almost every new claim made.
Can you reevaluate its score with respect to the WikiProject Photography quality scale, and let me know if you can think of any sections or data which it still lacks? --Bob (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to Canon EOS R article 

message: Greetings everyone!
If you work with media files — either regularly or occasionally — we want to invite you to join a research session to help us understand this process and the challenges you face during it. To participate, we ask that you first complete this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.
You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls. 
Thank you!
(MRaish (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to participate in research to understand how you work with media 

message: ... is a redlink (spotted by ). Curious what people here think. It feels a little retroactive to frame it that way, but for years since digital photography developed, people have begun to talk about it in different terms to the point that it's now not the default but its own form. Sort of stating the obvious there, but it's just to say that whereas 25 years ago I'd understand seeing film as the default, covered in the main photography article (and photographic film), while writing about digital as a separate topic... but now? Maybe there's room for a stand-alone article, but I'm also not entirely sure what it would say beyond repeating some of photography, photographic film, and a comparison with digital... Pinging a few enwiki people who I know are interested in photography broadly and may be interested: . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, our resident Commons expert on film photography, might be . Not sure how active he is here, but he might give us some pointer/clues/whatever. The topic is interesting as this sort of photography has developed into an art-form of its own, it's become something of a fad with younger generations (including polaroid photography) and also people who are proud to declare that they "take photographs, not build them" as some sort of protest. Perhaps a better title for such an article would be "Conteporary film photography". So there is definitely a lot to include in such an article that goes beyond what has been written about photography in general, but it's getting late here so I'll say goodnight for now. cart-Talk 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Cart, I didn't get a notice that I had been pinged until now. Very interesting discussion! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I went to take one last look at how this topic is described online, but I used the other term for it: Analog photography, and the first thing that popped up was a WP article. I've fixed the redirect to it from Film photography. So, you/we can use our energy to expand/improve that one instead. cart-Talk 23:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Voila. Thanks for finding it. Strange it has it bolded but still didn't come up near the top of my search. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

text: While I am old enough to have used film, that was really just for holiday and family snaps, rather than anything serious. Today, although the cameras are cheap, film and processing are still expensive and a very slow way to learn your shot didn't work (or you spent a long weekend in Bath and the film hadn't wound on properly at all). I don't really see the attraction myself, unless you already had all the skills to make it work reliably. -- Colin°Talk 08:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The things that attracts most people to film photography these days, are the pure craftmanship of the process and the rather demanding limitations of it. Film/Analogue photography can be said to be the the photo-equivalent of Slow television vs normal shows. The revival is mostly an artistic movement. The technique of film, has also spawned some new concepts like contact sheet art aka contact sheet photography, and challenges that are limited to the 36 frames at your disposal in a normal roll of film. Artists are also fond of it for low light photos where the film grain is a feature, since this is a "natural" process and more aesthetic than the noise you get in digital photos. cart-Talk 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there are people who take "serious" pictures with film cameras still, but nearly all of the people I've known who liked film photography post-2000 like it for the imperfections, the unpredictability, and materiality of it (along the lines of what you're saying). For example, one of the film cameras that I've had friends rave about is the Holga, and I think that speaks to a lot of the appeal: without much effort, you get vignetting, distortion, odd exposures, etc. that fit well with indie, DIY, "retro" aesthetics. That they are sold not just in photography stores, but at Urban Outfitters and music stores (when those existed) speaks more to the primary market. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that most people who make serious art photography in the 202s, those who makes books of their personal work, do so using film (35 mm, medium format and large format). This is not the world of quirky results from toy cameras. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course most users of this tech are not serious photographers, but the thing is out there, embraced by a lot of people, texts are written about it, refs can be found and we have an article about it. As we have about so many other popular phenomena. I have fixed up the article a bit. cart-Talk 17:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film photography 

message: I came across this photographer by accident and have created a small article. He looks to be quite a big fish in the category of French architectural photographers, so I mention him here in case anyone has something to add to the article. Commons has many images, (example at right). The Met has 147 of his photos.--- Possibly (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Louis-Emile Durandelle]]

message: This is the article for photospheres, 360-photos, etc. Whatever you want to call it, the page needs help. Badly.  talk 18:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[VR photography]] 

message: I have nominated Pierre Rossier for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR for Pierre Rossier 

message: :Category:History of photography articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:History of photography articles needing expert attention]] has been nominated for discussion

message: This is a notification to 6 relevant wikiprojects.  Most of the talk page Talk:High dynamic range, though it seems like a long-running discussion, is only the last day or two since I discovered the renaming and other things going on there, much of which I reverted pending discussion.  Please see and comment if this area interests you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope, organization, and naming of pages related to [[Wide dynamic range]] 

message: Hi, this is Jo, nice to meet you all! Sorry if I'm disturbing you, I'm pretty new in Wikipedia. I wrote this draft about an Italian photographer: Alessandro Bergamini. I was been in many of his photo conference and i bought his books, I know him personally but only concerning his work. (we are not friend or colleague). I know him just thanks to my passion of travel and photography. I decided to try to insert him on wikipedia because he is a really great artist (photographer). I follow many of them, and I'm sure about it.
I'd like to ask you to read my draft, and help me (if you will be agree with me) in any kind of ways for a good result.
Thanks to all again
--Giorgia1103 (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here: Draft:Alessandro Bergamini. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Hi. I have tried to bash it into a shape that might be fit for publication. We now need to assess its source with regard to WP:GNG, in order to judge whether it demonstrates notability enough to move it from draft space into article space. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alessandro Bergamini 

message: I wonder if any of the photo-savvy people who read this page have access to sources for the above? I am coming up empty-handed beyond what is there. I found her by scraping the collections page of the Museum of Fine Arts Houston, which has a fantastic photography collection! Thanks in advance for any sources that are found for the above article.06:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Draft:Emi Anrakuji]]

message: Here is another one from the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. She mostly photographed creative people (artists, musicians, writers). After I created the stub, her executor (user Eightheads) showed up at the page. In the process of explaining how our COI guideline works, he revealed that Katz was professionally unknown as a photographer in her lifetime, but that he had managed to have her work accepted by 14 museums so far. Here's a few examples of her work:
:*Roy Lichenstein
:*Richard Serra
:*Phillip Johnson
:*Maya Lin
He's considering releasing some images to Wikimedia Commons as well, but does not want to give away the entirety of the rights. I am not so knowledgeable on photography, so I am leaving a note here if anyone can advise him on the best way to do that. I suggested he release low-res versions.  --- Possibly ☎ 16:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nancy Lee Katz]]

message: Also discovered in the Museum of Fine Arts Houston collection. Richard made the most popular stereoscopic camera of the 19th century, invented numerous other cameras and has 1,165 items in the Eastman Museum.  --- Possibly ☎ 01:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jules Richard (photographer)]]

message: This requested move at High-dynamic-range imaging could use some input from people who understand HDR more than I do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDR 

message: Hello, WikiProject,
I'm not sure how active this project is but I'm hoping an editor familiar with photography can help me out with Photolith film. A brand new editor has really been editing this page, including adding a broken redirect at the top of the body of the article. I have removed the broken redirect but I don't know anything about film to know whether he has done damage to this article. Could someone who knows about the subject look this article over and see if any of their edits need to be reverted? Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Detailed, albeit promotional and unsourced article on the various cameras.  Article has been this way a long time, so seeing if anyone with expertise can take a look and see if article can be improved.Slywriter (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fujifilm FinePix F series]] 

message: I had put links to my magazines in the article Wildlife photography, but now understand that Wikipedia doesn't like tips and how to guides. Any suggestions as to how to let people find the magazines? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't really the place to promote the magazine, better to promote it on social media sites like Twitter or Instagram. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Sharp Eye on Wildlife Photography 

message: FYI, the usage of  is under discussion; see talk:Rangefinding telemeter -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|Rangefinder}}"

message: I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
*John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-  Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources 

message: Hi all
I've recently realised that the camera model is often given in the EXIF data on Commons and photos taken on each camera are added categories e.g :c:Category:Photos_taken_with_Hasselblad. One way this could be used on Wikipedia is to provide sample images for each camera on the article for that camera or camera company. Does anyone know if there is more efficient way of doing this that just matching them manually? 
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for articles about cameras, give sample photos taken on that camera 

message: I have merged Cyanotype and “Cyanography” and expanded the article. Do other editors have suggestions/advice for further improvements? It remains rated ‘C’, as of 2018 (by User:Qono). Jamesmcardle(talk) 22:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For others' convenience: Cyanotype Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Look really good to me. I've upgraded this to a B article. Nice work. Qono (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyanotype 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Wikipedia:PH and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#Wikipedia:PH until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Sanglahi86 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:PH" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I have nominated André Kertész for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR notice 

message: The article Society of International Nature and Wildlife Photographers tells us that:
:The Society of International Nature and Wildlife Photographers (SINWP) is a professional photographic organization formed in October 2008.
:The association encourages development and discussion relating to photography and promotes the interests of photographers via seminars, workshops, roadshows and industry recognised qualifications. The group provides lists of recognised and qualified professional photographers throughout the world, all of them meeting strict standards of conduct as laid down in the group's rules. 
When I first read that, it had a certain ring to it. . . . 
Got it! There's a certain similarity to Draft:Societies of Photographers, which tells us that:
:The Societies of Photographers is long-established Professional Photographers Association based in the UK for full-time and aspiring photographers all around the world. 'The Societies' is one of the UK’s leading qualifying bodies for photographers.
:The association encourages development and discussion relating to photography and promotes the interests of photographers via seminars, workshops, roadshows., webinars and industry recognised qualifications. The group provides lists of recognised and qualified professional photographers throughout the world, all of them meeting strict standards of conduct as laid down in the group's rules. 
And yes, I too am surprised to see "Societies" taken as syntactically singular. Grammar and prose-cloning aside, the (unsourced) first version and the (sourced) second version seem to claim that the photography trade association does what I'd anyway assume a photography trade association would do. Any comments on notability? (And are "qualifying bodies" important for photographers in Britain? I'd have guessed that the combination of connections, experience of working as a dogsbody for a known photographer, and an impressive portfolio were what would matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: A society and a societies of photography

message: I wrote a page for The Photo Ark and keep it updated with new info, including a section "Progress," which captures the large milestones of the project. (I also note this on each of the milestone-animal's articles)
Along comes an editor who decides without discussion that the Progress info "is relative trivia and indiscrimnate info. Wikipedia is not a vessel to promote everything Nat Geo posts, no matter how neat the content." and takes it upon themselves to delete the entire section.
This was done a while ago, but I noticed it just recently. I restored the section, and even updated it. Please add this page to your watchlists and chime in if this becomes a battle, whichever way you think it should go. Rp2006 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I'm sorry you feel the other editor's actions are undue but I would have done the same myself. There is a principle here, WP:BEBOLD; and if you don't like what someone has done then you have the option to revert their change and/or discuss it. I haven't yet read all the prose of the article but I can tell it is WP:TOOMUCH. The Progress section is a case in point, with arbitrary points of progress and all sources from Nat Geo apart from one not being an indicator of notability. This article in general needs to be less detailed and less skewed toward Nat Geo sources. I suggest we remove this section. What do you think? -Lopifalko (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree that the Progress section is WP:TOOMUCH for the reasons stated above, and should be deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I seem to be in the minority on this. What about a very condensed version? See the article Talk page for my suggestion. Rp2006 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Photo Ark 

message: Hi all,
If someone would be so kind as to what reading/research I'd need to do to qualify for assisting with this project, it would help. Thank you. Cryptohydrate (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking Guidance 

message: Hello all. I have recently made some edits to the wiki article for Provoke (magazine). Seeing as that article falls under WikiProject Photography, I was wondering if people would like to provide some feedback on the article. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or comments in my user talk page, or in the Provoke article talk page. Thank you. - Andrew34jack (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Feedback for Article on Provoke (magazine) 

message: Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments 

message: I can't find an article that covers the digital colorization of black-and-white photographs, which is now done using dedicated algorithms or artificial intelligence. It has been alleged that this technique has been used to misrepresent history. The Film colorization article only covers movies, and directs readers to Hand-colouring of photographs for still images, but that article does not cover digital recoloring. Photograph manipulation addresses the ethical issues, but it does not cover colorization as such. Where and how should this topic be covered? Verbcatcher (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital colorization of still images 

message: Hi there, I just wanted to get my suggestion sped up a little by pointing it out here: Talk:Film speed#ASA: 1943 vs. 1960. --2003:DA:CF39:B861:60FA:97C4:BA2C:67AC (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving [[Film speed]] 

message: Requesting Feedback for Article on Draft:Ruben van Schalm
Hello all. I have recently made some edits to the wiki article for Draft:Ruben van Schalm. Seeing as that article falls under WikiProject Photography, I was wondering if people would like to provide some feedback on the article. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or comments in my user talk page, Thank you. Rockywriter88 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Feedback for Article Draft:Ruben van Schalm 

message: Both Exmor and ISOCELL and I'm sure many more pages contained giant tables of various models based entirely on primary source material. Has there been any consensus on the tables and their level of detail? I think model and cameras it is used in is the best we can legitimate source without being ridiculous (assuming there are even independent, reliable third-party sources that discuss this and there don't seem to be). At the very least, the tables should be organized in chronological order from historic old models to current ones which was how Exmor organized it as opposed to ISOCELL. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables of sensors 

message: Hello wiki photography afficionados! I have just created the Wikipedia article "Draft:Fujifilm GFX100 II" for the new camera body which was released on 12 September 2023.
* After 5 years mostly spent within Wiki commons and Wikidata I wrote this - my very first newly created - Wikipedia article. The main reason being that I noticed this new camera model is already being referenced by a few articles and tables within Wikipedia (e.g. as successor to above stated cameras); as to now, all dead links of course. In the meantime I have also created the corresponding Wikidata item Fujifilm GFX100 II (Q122731264) and an appropriate Wiki Commons category Category:Fujifilm GFX100 II.
* This article is based on the existing Wikipedia articles Fujifilm GFX100 and Fujifilm GFX100S, and is IMHO now comparable in scope and quality with both, especially having added detailed data to the Infobox.
* I have consulted, updated, and referenced a flurry of sources; of course mainly drawing from the Fujifilm company's own specifications.
* On submitting this draft article I have determined the closest project as being "WikiProject Photography", relying on the fact that cameras and lenses are, well, the very backbone of photography.
* Previously having improved articles within Wikipedia I know well that endless time and painstaking effort are required until an article has progressed to a satisfactory, at best higher-than-before quality standard. Taking this into account, I would appreciate if someone within the scope of this project would check out on this draft and/or provide some feedback, ultimately removing the current "draft" status.
* Please let me know on my user talk page whether you have any comments or questions.
* Sincere thanks in advance from Dortmund, Germany. --Franz van Duns (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Feedback for newly created article "Draft:Fujifilm GFX100 II" 

message: If you have any idea please suggest at Talk:Agriculture_in_Turkey#Any_suggestions_for_better_lead_picture? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for better lead pic for [[Agriculture in Turkey]]