Talk:Photograph

message: Calling analogue photograph an obsolete technology is false, considering no substitute has yet been found for large format photograph, in aerial recognition,for example. The amount of information gathered by a large photographic plate in one single shot can't yet be rivaled by digital media.
There are many applications where analog photograph (and related technology) still has a long way to go before being declared obsolete. One of those applications is (surprise!) in chip fabrication plants. -- Rnbc
:I agree, and replaced that paragraph with one that I think works a little better. I also removed the reference to "analog" which isn't really appropriate; it is a chemical process. (Analog photography would use an electronic sensor like those used in analog video cameras, something I've never heard of for still photographs.) --Rick Sidwell 04:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: APS doesn't produce true panoramic pictures, does it? Don't they just cut the top and bottom of off the pictures so that they have a higher ratio of length to width, suggesting panoramic view?
:I guess it depends on what you mean by "true panoramic pictures". Many people define panoramic to be a photo that has one dimension at least twice as long as the other, and APS panoramic photos have a 1:3 ratio, so I think they can be called panoramic pictures. But you are correct; this is achieved by cropping the top and bottom, using only 9.5mm of the 16.7mm high film. The quality won't be as good as with a true panoramic camera, but the advantage of APS is convenience: you can mix and match different formats on the same roll of film. The Advanced Photo System page mentions this, so I don't think this page needs to be modified (although I did make a minor correction). --Rick Sidwell 23:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Panoramic pictures

message: Someone messed up the page so I started it again. 216.220.231.226 16:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: I felt this article needed a link to a full disambiguation page, rather than calling out one or two other possibilities in the header.  So, I created Photograph (disambiguation) and put everything in there I could think of.  Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: (1) Unless there's some rule I'm not aware of, the sources for an article should be in the article itself.  Claiming in an edit summary that the sources are all in linked articles, besides being hard to easily verify, isn't sufficient.
(2) I don't believe everything is sourced, even by the above method. Шизомби 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to point out specific examples of comments in the article that you believe are questionable. Not unreferenced, questionable. "The sky is blue" is an unreferenced statement, but not questionable. Maury 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm familiar with what WP calls the "apple pie exception."  I'm not thinking of that.  Incidentally, "the sky is blue" is a bad example since it certainly is questionable.  But anyway, this article has plenty of unsourced material, starting from the bottom up with, e.g. "Another myth is associated with Vallalar, a saint who lived in the British era in South India, that his image could not be captured by a camera. Moreover his image when seen as a reflection in a mirror was reputed to be that of Lord Muruga, the Hindu God of war." Шизомби 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then go ahead and tag that. The problem is that when you tag the article instead of statements inside it, it makes the whole thing look questionable. Maury 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also am saying the whole thing is questionable, to varying degrees. Шизомби 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree completely, and believe you're enforcing the guidelines improperly.  There are too many claims to be tagged individually, hence the tag for the article as a whole is most appropriate. Шизомби 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I've tagged this article with the Howto template for WP:NOTHOWTO. The section on preservation reads like an instruction manual, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'd have a go at fixing it, but don't have time right now. -dmmaus (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Howto tagged

message: It might be good to add a section on the Blue Marble photo from the Apollo missions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble
It may be one of the most socially important photographs ever produced.
--Ilnyckyj (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable photo

message: The portrait :File:Loujain_Alhathloul.jpg has been added to the "Types of photographs" section seven times since December 7 by user:49.178.80.27. It has been removed by user:Mad Jim Bey, user:MrOllie, and user:Laterthanyouthink. There is an edit warring report open, but no-one has brought it to the talk page, so here we are. 
Clearly this is a disputed addition, and should remain out unless consensus is reached to include it. The IP is claiming that this is an appropriate addition as an example of  a mugshot, but the section in question is about various formats and technologies, not the different uses of photos. I agree with the removals (and will remove the latest addition when I'm done with this thread). Furthermore, a "mugshot" is a booking photo of a criminal, not a passport phots. Meters (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Image removed while I typed the above. Meters (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . I was going to bring the matter to the talk page myself, but the frustrations of editing on phone and tablet and dealing with that IP (who has also edit-warred on other pages) caused postponement until now. I don't think it is suitable as an example for an article about photographs, firstly because there is no mention of passports in the article, and secondly because it is a photograph of a particular notable identity, and with no actual proof that it is a passport photo (or "mugshot") - and the fact that she is smiling in the photograph is a clear sign that it is not either. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not a smile. She is not smiling. That is a smirk.49.178.80.27 (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

text: [[u|Meters}} Hi there! Thanks for looping me back in - I hadn't caught that there was an edit war report in play. My original reversion was to ask for context, not understanding what the photo contributed to the article. I don't have much else to add beyond the points that  has made above. Mad Jim Bey talk 04:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP has now added the image 9 times. The last time the image was added in a different section, but at this point I think it should simply stay out until we finish discussing this. Meters (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mad Jim and Meters. Yes, I changed the section. Is it good? 49.178.80.27 (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. the material is contested, and it does not belong in the lead either. Do not add it anywhere unless there is consensus to add that image. Meters (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, the photo won't be added. But the other photos are photos of scenery and objects. It's good to have an actual person.49.178.80.27 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested addition of passport photo 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jwerry98 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: COMP II