Talk:Image development (visual arts)

message: Please read  archived discussion first. Oicumayberight 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OPEN DISCUSSION ARCHIVED!!!

message: At the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts page User:Oicumayberight asked that project participants comment on this article. So, I comment...
*The process of image development is very real in graphics and visual arts. It's part of the "concept to completion" thing.
*Use the word "process" in the lead
::Image development is the process of developing graphics (mainly but not exclusively computer graphics) for use in media.
*About references, a few should suffice. (Seems to me I've seen the term most in help-wanted ads, and not just to describe the brand/image development aspect.)
--sparkitTALK 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To keep as is with little change

message: Following the above debate, and sandbox work, can someone please change the opening paragraph to the following:
Image development is the process of developing images for any use. It is often both a synonym for a specific process and a label for a unique combination of processes.
and add the following tag to the top:

:I'm going to unprotect the page, so you will be able to edit the article yourself. By the way, please remember to sign your posts. CMummert · talk 01:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Edit 

message: OK, first off, I don't edit/talk much in Wikipedia, so I'm not much used to posting.  If I screw something up, my bad.  Second off, I'm a 15-year-old kid that likes to somewhat pepper her speech with slang; sorry, but I'd appreciate it if my words weren't just brushed off because of that.  Third off, remember that anonymous voter to 'keep' a while ago that was accused of possibly being a puppet, and therefore apparently being thoroguhly invalid?  That was me too, thanks for the accusation.  I also greatly appreciate being called some sort of misinformed victim to this article's information, that was just great.
Moving on.  
OK, I can see the points that Davemon is making, and I can see why people may agree with him.  But I also see the flip side much better, and no matter how I look at it, I find that this argument is a bit... ridiculous.  Yes, the points made might be valid, POV this or sources that, Original research blah responsibility so therefore every article that doesn't have thoroughly reliable secondary and primary sources and yadda yadda yadda should immediately be deleted until the editors have the means to write something whose quality is publish-worthy, blah blah.  
But let's take a moment and look at this both realistically and practically, especially compared to the bigger picture.  First off, screw the details that keep being kicked at here and how unreliable and crappy and misleading this article apparently is, how bad is the article really, in practical terms, for the casual viewer?  For the people who look at this article, how much is this article going to 'poison their minds' with this ridiculously badly sourced blasphemy?  Please, please note the heavy sarcasm inlaid within my words.  No, even though such-and-such big-hot company doesn't use the term, or such-and-such art universities or blah prestigious blah blah places don't have the term in their site, etc., the term is still used.  It's used, it's recognizable, and really, is there anyway to disprove it's usage?  Not really.  
One other thing, how reliable is Wikipedia as a whole in the first place?  There are a very small amount of articles that are good enough to follow every single one of Wikipedia's policies, and all of those few articles took effort, time, and usually more than one person.  EVERYONE knows that information you find on Wikipedia is highly questionable and should be double-checked if it's something important.  No sensible person would, say, write their English essay based on information from Wikipedia, or look to Wikipedia for anything of high importance.  Most people, if they want to check for how reliable an article is, check the talk page and gauge it's reliability like that or in other ways (and anybody who looks at this talk page will surely find the article a question mark).  While it's good to have standards, and Wikipedia's policies should try to be followed as best as possible, putting articles under such hard, merciless scrutiny is thoroughly counter-productive, hair-wrenching, and a waste of time on all parties.  I spend lots of time looking at lots of slang words or words that are only used by small circles or communities on the internet, and most of those articles are highly undersourced, badly written, unprofessional, POV, etc..  But I don't attempt to delete them, nor do I think they should be deleted, because I don't expect that much more from Wikipedia; what I expect is improvement with time, and a true attempt to better the article, as well as at least the stuff that I come looking for.  And the stuff I'm looking for is usually some sort of basic definition/explanation of what the term means, and hopefully some related external or internal links.
See, this is how making a good article usually works, from what I can see.  Because this is how things usually work with lots of projects and the like.  First you start the article out, write down what you know, what you think you might know, random things that you think helps with that, etc..  The article is going to be crappy, badly sourced, random, disorganized, POV, etc..  You put a tab on it, like a stub tab or a clean-up tab or whatever you feel it needs (or other people put up these tabs for you as they see the article themselves).  Maybe more people come, and they add what they know, or they might take away what they know shouldn't be there, or they ask questions that aren't answered.  Gradually, there might be a couple people that take actual active interest in this (now) semi-crappy article and set out to actively improve it rather than just add what they know and then leave.  People think it's POV, they try and scrap the POV, people want more links, they add links, people question if the article is merged, they discuss it, someone comes up and says the article is crappy and should be scrapped and give reasons, they try to fix the reasons or add those reasons to a list of things to improve as they can, etc..  But if we worked the way you guys are trying to do with this article, those articles would be scrapped before anything good could be done to them, because their POV makes them unworthy of Wikipedia or they don't have sources, and that obviously shows that the term doesn't exist or whatever it might be.
Things shouldn't all just be deleted until they're 'good enough' for Wikipedia. I mean, frankly, right now Wikipedia can't 
exactly be choosy.  Their biggest contributors are a bunch of stangers from all over the world that are trying to make informative, comprehensive articles on everything and anything, without professional help, pay, or regular hours.  And Wikipedia is still rather young.  
Davemon, while you seem to care very much about how this article should be deleted as soon as possible due to all of its apparently very many miscellaneous flaws, that effort and time could be much better spent on an article that actually truly matters.  An umbrella term like this isn't that important and umbrella terms are usually more on the slangyish sort of side than the officially used term side.   Not to mention that even if this article 'misinforms' people about the nature of the term, there really isn't exactly much damage or misinformation going on, especially since the article doesn't specifically state that image development is a term exclusive to computer graphics.
One more point, there's a lot of talk about 'Original Research' and 'POV' and all that, but... well... it's an article about an art-related umbrella term.  How much controversy could there be about something so totally neutral and small?  Original Research?  Maybe if it were something that someone would be actively interested in posting their original research on, such as, say, some science-related article.  But really, what sort of ulterior motive could be found in trying to write a relatively informative and accurate article on the definition of 'image development'?  Why would someone actively try and make up their own new term with 'Original Research'?  Etc.?
I imagine that this post will be torn to pieces next time I come to this page?  This sort of thing usually comes to a stalemate from my experience, one side pushing the technical correctness and the like and the other side trying to point out the more practical and common-sensical (yes, sensical, my vocabulary is shot today), and both sides unable to come to any sort of agreement.  But that's just my own personal experience.  I signed my post this time, but I'm not logged in right now so I think it might just show my IP address or something (I don't think I remember my username on Wikipedia anymore). 71.176.140.104 16:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Editors Essay

message: This picture is illustrative of an unfounded "mostly computers" bias. A more appropriate illustration should include a wider variety of "image development" tools, perhaps there is one from the same se we could use? --Davémon 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration relevance 

message: *All of which is individually referred to as image development, or is summed up by image development.
*The term is also used to distinguish the process of preparing elements for use in media (e.g. photographs, illustrations, charts, collages) from the process of composing elements (e.g. page layout, image slicing in web development, film editing, desktop publishing) to a single presentation piece (e.g. brochure, web page, movie, billboard, poster). 
*Because the word "image" can have more than one shade of meaning, the term "image development" may be confused with the development process for the corporate image called branding or positioning.
*The term "image development" may have emerged due to the lack of an alternative umbrella term with as broad of a scope.
*Some may find the scope of the term debatable, depending on its usage in context.
Please do not reinsert any of this information without a citation.--BirgitteSB 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested info moved to talk