Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/Archive 2

message: So is Wikiproject Photography solely about getting better pictures on Wikipedia?  Or is it also about improving photography-related articles -- say Shutter speed or Aperture or Pentax K1000?  Do others think that it would be useful to have such a Wikiproject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowyourider (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 June 2007 UTC
:Wow, I look a total newb in that post.  Didn't read the entire section of the talk page that contains discussion on this very topic, and I forgot to sign my post.  User:Morven/WikiProject_Cameras and User:Pinkville/WikiProject_History_of_Photography are a start at addressing these issues... I still think there should be a Wikiproject for coverage of photography as a general subject, though -- what about coverage of photographic techniques and photographic equipment other than cameras?  Or do HoP and Cameras cover areas like that?--Iknowyourider (t c) 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:FOTO just about photos, or about articles about photography as well? 

message: Another editor -- not me -- has proposed that Konica and Minolta should be merged within Konica Minolta. I can't find any explanation of this proposal. (My own comment is on Talk:Konica.) -- Hoary 01:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Konica and Minolta

message: The talk page was a complete mess, so I've archived according to relevance and age (in that order) leaving stuff I think is probably useful and pertinent to the (most) recent project revival effort. Feel free to move anything back. mikaultalk 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Reading the exchanges above, it seems there's a fair bit of confusion (well, I was confused, at least) over several areas of activity, although a couple of things are clear enough. I've been taking notes, wondering if there's a future for the project or not... the problem is that there's so there's loads to do. I fugured a summary would help. I'm not going to be too active over the coming weeks, so feel free to edit this list:
*The project is solely concerned with encouraging quality photo content on the encyclopedia; other stuff belongs in other projects.
:*This is the place for photo contributors, rather than article writers
:*All project activity related to articles on photography belongs at Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography 
*The project should centralise currently diverse activities to galvanise collaborative activity
:*One of the hardest tasks here is to tie in with Wikigraphists and properly channel and allocate tasks involving retouching and other photo editing needed on the encyclopedia. Links to Commons need to be explored, although the proposed WikiProject_Featured_Pictures should handle an improved migration of WP:FPs to Commons, for example.
:*Work on a range of template and other tags and list them here with explanations (stuff like ) 
:*A very wide scope isn't a good thing; Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, FPC project and any other photo-related projects should redirect from here and deal with their respective areas more or less independently. 
*Create sub-pages to deal with topics and issues too in-depth for the main project page.
:*The Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service is a good example of a service the project should coordinate and improve, by making them sub-pages of the project.
:*A place to list bad or non-free replaceable photos that we can source when we have nothing better to do...
:*Tutorials on taking better enc photos, including lighting and other techniques would probably be quite popular.
*Keep track of the wiki's regular photographers and keep them informed of developments, improvement drives, etc.
:*Does this mean newsletters, etc? Probably..
:*This is another toughie and the admin involved could be time-consuming. I would suggest, not a rota exactly, but some way of sharing the load. Judging by the number of talkpage comments at FPC, the project should be able to pull together a decent team, rather than end up being one man's burden.
:*Contact those listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers to generate potential latent interest.
That seem s to be about it. As I say, add/subtract as necessary. If there's enough interest now, we can really get the project moving. If not... mikaultalk 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great list, mick. I agree with all of the above. In addition, I think that we should try to bring a bit more order to the pictures of topics where photographs are important, plants would be a good example. I also would like to put together some "field guides" if you will, where there is a page like with info-box like things with a large picture of the subject with brief information in the box below. Then organize the "thing" into order by color of size, etc. I'd like to here some other people's ideas. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where the infoboxes come in, could you elaborate a little? --mikaultalk 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving the revival: summary observations 

message: Please take a look at :Helicopter Shark and join the discussion as to the decision to delete this well known Internet photo hoax. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shark 

message: Could we somehow incorporate Wikipedia:Requested pictures into this project? NauticaShades 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requested pictures]] 

message: I don't think I'm alone in having difficulty stitching photos together.  I read a few comments on one of recent DIliff's FPCs where some users touched on stitching techniques so I figured I'd give it a go here with my issues.  I gave up on trying stitches for a long while, but after hearing about/trying/purchasing PTGui I've taken a lot more.  Some common problems that I still can't seem to overcome are:
#I can't seem to manage the color of the sky.  For instance this picture, and this one both have problems.  The color of the subject/ground is ok, but the sky and clouds all suffer. 
#Many times I'm trying to take interior photos (like this, or this) and I run into one of the following two problems.  Either I try to shoot wider than 30mm and PTGui just can't over come lens distortion, or I shoot at 50mm and can't get 15+ consistent exposures. 
Any thoughts or ideas?  Thanks, Cacophony 07:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look fine to me, yes there is some banding but you seem to manage it well. Obviously, keep the same exposure settings, and I take all my pano shots (as of early september) in RAW so that I cam apply the same White Balance and tint and sharpening. I also stop down the lens (mainly my 55-200) to at least f/8 if not f/11 to take care of vignetting that gets in the way of consistant skys. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 19:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with fcb981.. There is some banding but its relatively minor.. one thing - are you using smartblend to blend or are you using enblend or the default PTGui blender? Smartblend in my opinion does a far better job. I also agree about using RAW whenever possible. You have far more control over the white balance (and therefore the sky colour), and you can compensate for vignetting easily. The easiest way to maximise the quality of panoramas is simply making sure the exact same settings (exposure, white balance, etc) are used with each frame. If you do that, you're at an advantage. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tips, I have been pretty much forgetting about the white balance aspect.  Aye aye aye, so many variables.  I have been shooting in RAW, so I should be able to fix some of the problems that I've been having. Cacophony 04:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stitching 

message: Should improving articles on photography be part of this project's scope? I felt that this was more in the scopes of Wikiproject History of photography. The general trend seems that this project is now solely for improving and contribution photographs to Wikipedia, but there are some remnants of its former self, such as the template. The template used to classify all articles with it transcluded into a category for articles on the history of photography, and this obviously does not apply to to the pages it is now transcluded on, such as Wikipedia:Requested pictures. So, what is our stand? Is our scope now solely for contributing photographs, or should it include writing about photography? NauticaShades 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope Issue

message: I've revived discussion here about possibly renaming the two projects in order to minimize confusion. Any comments either here or there about this would be very welcome. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one is going to comment, then I'm going to presume that silence implies consent and make the appropriate page moves. So if you have a problem with this, please discuss. Girolamo Savonarola 18:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up; I replied there.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project name change? 

message: Would it be possible to have the documentation expanded on this tag, especially in regards to the optional parameters?  When adding the  tag to Pennsylvania class cruiser, it took me forever to (a) figure out which optional parameters I needed, and (b) what the available categories were.  In this case, after an embarrassingly large amount of searching, I eventually figured out that "|military history" and "|in=the United States" were the best options for this article, however it could have just as easily been something like "|naval ships" (there are literally thousands of ship articles in need of photos), "|in=World War I" or something similar.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the description. Is this any better?
I intend to reorder some of the categories under :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs as I also find it difficult to navigate.Traveler100 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The updated description looks great, and the examples are especially helpful.  Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded documentation needed for {{tl|reqphoto}}? 

message: This needs to be renamed, perhaps in science or in the sciences or something like that? Is it possible to rename categories like this in an automated fashion? Looking at the other cats, most of them have unnatural names and unconventional capitalization. By the way, I want to add a biology subcat here, but what can I call it? Perhaps ditto with 'in biology' or 'in the biological sciences', or 'Requested biological photographs'. Richard001 09:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it does not sound good; I was simply using the tool provided. Not sure if the reqphoto tool can be easily changes, so how does Wikipedia requested photographs of Science Subjects sound? Although that makes the typing of the request longer. Traveler100 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: thinking about it you could do {reqphot|in=The Sciences} to get Wikipedia requested photographs in the sciences; but maybe this could be confusing as the in parameter has only be used for location.Traveler100 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just keep it simple? Wikipedia requested science photographs. The parameter, also kept simple, should be "=science". Girolamo Savonarola 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the only problem is getting a template with that code to put the request in the category suggested. As it stands the template places the request according to the rule 'Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of/in [category]', so it would need to be reworked somehow, and I'm not even sure if that's possible, let alone practical. Richard001 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certain the template variable area (and output results) could be easily modified. The problem is more finding someone willing to implement it. Girolamo Savonarola 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone possessing good skills with the template parser could probably do it pretty easily.  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Started looking at the science categories and agree we need a biology sub-category. As not sure how to edit templates may I suggest we create a Wikipedia requested photographs in Biology using the in= parameter. I see this has already been used for non location sub-categories. Traveler100 07:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Technically we should probably do away with the capitalization of words like Biology and Science. Richard001 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Science]]

message: To me it seems a bad idea to start by splitting things into diagrams, photos, illustrations etc. Often I just want an image, I don't care whether it is a photo or diagram etc. I would rather see all images treated together, perhaps with a colour code or something to show which are photo requests, diagram reqs etc if that is specified. Something like . Multidimensional classifications are difficult, but I think this would be better in the long run. A description, as shown above, would also be a good addition to the code of templates. Richard001 09:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images, diagrams etc

message: I don't know how active this project is but I am looking for a photographer in or near Henderson, Nevada, anyone here who can help or knows someone who could help would be greatly appreciated. IvoShandor 10:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be wanting the Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service, specifically this part. Hope you find some help there. --mikaultalk 15:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nevada

message: Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
*List of basic photography topics
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of List articles

message: Members of this project may be interested in using the Template:Infobox Digicam where appropriate. John Carter 15:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: true enough, thanks. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Your expertise may be helpful in evaluating Template:Slideshow here.  -- SEWilco (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slideshow? 

message: I have been slowly cleaning this category up but it is along repetitive task. I notice there is a bot User:PhotoCatBot that would reduce this task somewhat. The owner appears to be taking a break. Those who know about such tools; is there a way to get this or a copy of it running? (I tried to read up on the topic of bots but it is not an easy subject to jump into).
Traveler100 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs]] 

message: I hope I'm posting in the right place. I was looking for some info on "Stage photography" but all what I found was movie stills photographer. Are the same? Is there any other definition for Stage photography that I'm not aware of? Thanks. --Dia^ (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you want to know? There's no actual genre, AFAIK, for stage photography, but there are articles like stage lighting, for example, which touch on photographic themes and approaches. You might find something appropriate to your search at the photography portal, or failing all that, someone here will most likely be able to help with a specific question or two. --mikaultalk 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks mikaul for your answer.  Stage photography is actually a genre in Germany and in Italy (and I suspect in all old Europe). My original question (maybe not so clearly written) was if the right expression would be "Stage photographer" or "movie still photographer" for someone for someone working as a "stage photographer" for the cinema.--Dia^ (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have the answer right there: these are quite specialised fields & that's reflected in the terms people use to describe them. I know Cinematographers call them movie stills photographers to differentiate them from cinematographic photographers, but it's safe to say they do basically the same job as stage photographers, just in a rather less specific arena. Looking around, I can see the two descriptions are sometimes used interchangably, ie, stage photography being referred to as stills photography, but never the other way around.. "movie stills" is easily the more common term for the cinematographic job, at least in the UK/USA, and probably serves as such to cover stage photography in the encyclopedia. --mikaultalk 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie Still or Stage?

message: Hi there, I've been doing more image work lately and some people suggested I connect with this project formally.  I've had an account on Commons for over a year and became active there two months ago during the California wildfires.  For the past several weeks I've been wading through the PD slush piles for potentially feature-worthy images that had been overlooked.  My workshop for this project is User:Durova/Landmark images.  Saying hello to the other participants here. DurovaCharge! 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Durova, welcome and good to have you aboard. Certainly any feature-worthy material is always appreciated both here and at commons. In case you arn't so familiar with en.wiki, nominate at WP:FPC or WP:PPR (the peer review). cheers, -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing myself 

message: As A200 and A300/350 is out/about to be released, i have move A100 and A700 to separate article. And should we create A article called Alpha mount and list out lens produced by Minolta, re-branded Minolta, Sony-Zeiss and third parties lenses? Matthew_hk tc 12:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me!  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite of Sony alpha discussion

message: For some reason this page is listed for speedy deletion, but I can't find any tag on here which explains why? SGGH speak! 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it's gone now, never mind! SGGH speak! 11:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[CAT:SPEEDY]]

message: I just want to point out that if the recent "" campaign by User:Mikeblas on the Sony Cyber-shot articles is effective that Nikon, Pentax, Minolta etc... may be next. I Think community involvement is very important on this issue. I posted the following message upon his talk page expressing my personal stance.
*I have no objection of the loss of a single article either way as an editor of one of the many articles you've randomly placed the tag upon. However I do have an opinion, and from the looks of your user talk page your no stranger to that. The opinion is as follows. A Merge and redirect campaign may have been more useful as a whole and would create less cleanup in the long run. Many of the articles you have tagged are interlinked to other articles, and what happens when an editor randomly clicks a previously deleted article red link, he gets that "your attempting to edit a deleted article" guilt trip message. This is discouraging to editors IMHO. This also re-creates articles which may not be as good as the original once was. I would also like to point out that unlike cell phones which have a user life of say 6 months to a year, cameras will always remind someone of a link to their past. Cameras are often passed along, collected or resold. In today's ever "green" market of recycle & reuse, articles such as the sony series you recently have decided are advertisements or un-notable are often the younger artists only resource to make better usage or buying decisions, Yes that would be advertising if the company still sold the item. Users often forget why they bought a specific model, or why they still have it, Wikipedia as a resource was once there to remind them, much like the way Cameras (unlike cell phones) Capture memories and the past.?Slysplace | talk 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent placement of prod tag on multiple camera realted articles. 

message: I don't see a deletion discussion listing in this WikiProject, and the  tag doesn't work for this project, so I'm posting this here. 
Several Panasonic Lumix DMC series digital cameras have been nominated for deletion in Articles for Deletion discussions: 
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7
— Becksguy (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panasonic Lumix  digital camera  AfDs  

message: Doesn't it make sense to enter a request for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting to set up a deletion category for this WikiProject, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography. Currently, any deletion discussions have to be posted manually, both here (for want of a better place), and in the AfD discussion itself, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 for an example (rather than using the  tag). See the above section on Panasonic Lumix camera AfDs also. — Becksguy (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion listings for Photography 

message: I don't see any photograph articles listed at WP:FA.  I hope to move More Demi Moore up the quality scale possibly toward FA and want to know what the best article is about a photograph.  I am looking for something to model this article after.  I imagine other photograph articles may be more technically-intense.  However, I am not sure which direction to go.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[More Demi Moore]] 

message: I created the following templates and the photographers have many redlinks.  I am not sure if any of them are important photographers, but my perception is that inclusion on these templates should make them notable enough for WP:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I suspect more of these templates will be forthcoming.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  01:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Photographers needing articles 

message: Hi, can anyone take photos of this statue in Santo Domingo, for the article about Antonio de Montesinos (Dominican friar)? The flickr photo is copyrighted... Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of statue in santo Domingo...? 

message: There has still been no clarification or even discussion regarding the scope of the project. It seems to me as if it is about Wikipedia photographs, as the project name and most material/discussion here seems to imply. But it also says 'images' at the top of the project page. So which is it? I think this important distinction needs to be made. If this is just for photos, a broader project for all images (or even for all media in general) might be a good idea. Richard001 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely a good question.  I could go either way on this, personally, but I'm fairly new to this project I can't really speak to the original intent. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall some talk about this somewhere, largely pointing out that WP:WikiProject Illustration might be a better place to co-ordinate work on images in general, while WP:FOTO concentrate on specifically photo-related stuff. Given that the illustration project is even less active than this one, there's clearly an overwhelming lack of enthusiasm for any co-ordinated image work. That said, the WP:Graphics Lab seems to have taken up the baton of fixing up all kinds of images & is very busy indeed, while projects like WP:FPC are as popular as ever, again, for all kinds of images. Maybe this talk page is a good place to discuss anything of general interest to photographers, but in practice stuff just gets discussed elsewhere, leaving this page to be stumbled upon, largely by accident, every couple of months or so. As the History of photography project handles all work on photographer related articles, it very much seems like WP:FOTO is a project without a brief. --mikaultalk 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the project - all images or just the photographs? 

message: Is it possible to reference an Image in say the German Wikipedia in an article in the Englsih Wikipedia (without copying to Commons or the English wiki)? If so what is the syntax?
Traveler100 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean use the image, or just link to it? You can use de:(Image name) easily enough, but I presume you want the image itself, which is impossible. If the image is fair use, upload it here. If it's free, upload at Commons and admonish the uploader there for not doing so originally. Richard001 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax referencing images from other wikipedia 

message: There are two different circumstances in which one might request photos for an article: 1) Requesting photos be uploaded for use in that article , or 2) Requesting photos be added to the article from existing stock (of course, there may not be anything suitable, in which case this would default to 1). The template  is unclear on this, though it links to the uploading page with the word 'included', so presumably is exclusively for the former. So what about situations where someone just wants photos to be added to brighten up an article, when they are already available but perhaps the person just doesn't have time or doesn't know the syntax for adding images? The template also seems to imply the article is photo-less, yet some photo requests might be for articles which already have several good images, but another, unique one is requested. Richard001 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo requests

message: I see there is Wikipedia:Picture peer review but that seems to be for potential FPCs. Is there a forum when one can ask for help on posing, taking and polishing photos for a specific article (my specific need is ketogenic diet). If anyone can point me in the appropriate direction that would be great. Alternatively, if someone wants to leave me a message, I'll explain what ideas I've got for the article and am interested in your ideas. Thanks, Colin°Talk 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can leave the specifics here, and hopefully people will respond. WP:PPR is another option, just say that you want photo suggestions and are not necessarily hoping to get an FP. I will certainly respond here if you are more specific about what you are thinking about for photos of that article. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the article talk page, I've put a bit more about what sort of ketogenic diet meal photo I'm considering. I've also mentioned a couple of possible variants for the test sticks and powdered feed. If you or anyone else has ideas of pictures for the article, how to stage and frame them, etc., I'd be interested. I see that a lot of photos of objects have a pure white background (e.g., :Image:Salad platter.jpg). I'm aware I can tweak the levels and white balance in GIMP but since the items I'm shooting also contain a lot of white, I don't want to bleach them out. Any ideas on how to take such a photo so that it is easy to adjust. Outdoors or indoors? I only have a compact camera but I do have a bright halogen worklamp that could be used to light a subject. I've used paper as a background/base but is something else better? Thanks. Colin°Talk 12:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's maybe worth pointing out that you can request a photo of anything you're not confident about shooting yourself. I'd be happy to shoot the food for you, for example, as it doesn't seem to call for anything difficult to source like the test strips etc would be. If you're ready and willing yourself, the best way to shoot white things is on a non-white background. Not just for the bleaching-out (which certainly is a problem, as you can see in that salad shot) but to stop your camera being tricked into underexposing (as you see on the shots already on the page). Your background just needs to be reasonably neutral and devoid of clutter / distracting elements. For convenience I'd recommend shooting everything outdoors, in the shade on a bright day, rather than struggle with lights. If it has to be indoors, point the light to an adjacent white or neutral wall or ceiling and bounce it onto your set. Use a tripod if you can. --mikaultalk 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the good advice and offer. It will be at least a week before I can take pictures as I'm now without my camera. I have a tripod. Yes, if you want to shoot the food then that would be great as my skill and means are rather limited. I've added some more thoughts to the article talk page. Colin°Talk 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for non-feature-worthy photos? 

message: If a knowledgeable editor from the project could adopt the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-31 Nikon DSLR cameras, it would be most sincerely appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance requested 

message: I don't see a whole lot of activity of this page, so I was wondering how active everyone still is with the project.  Personally, I've been busy categorizing :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Illinois into smaller categories by county.  It's almost completed, but it took quite awhile.  I got the inspiration from California and other states that are currently being worked on (or have already been completed).  I've also begun taking more photographs for some of these locations.  What else has everyone else been working on?  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been editing a lot of images already up, particularly correcting perspective and other distortions on every decent building image I see and switching them in. Mfield (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been uploading a few images of New Zealand birds from Flickr; I've had luck getting photos for articles that had none by nicely asking the uploader. In terms of images (not just photos; see my request for clarification of the project's scope) I'm working on scans from PD literature, currently looking at uploading the pictures from Mr. Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Richard001 (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to a very heavy RL workload I've been so inactive I almost missed this thread entirely. I've spent some time recently helping propose a new kind of COM:QI(VI) for the encyclopedia and fielding other proposals to allow some image contributors to have inline credits. Once I get some time I'd really like to inject some energy into the WP:VP project before it goes off the boil completely. The upshot of all my RL work is happily going to provide a bunch of new uploads. Just as soon as I get round to it. --mikaultalk 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing tasks. 

message: The  template is intended for location-oriented photos; asking for a generic photo of an ironing board does not require a location.  :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New York uses  to emit instructions on adding a page to that category, and displays a GeoGroupTemplate box for display of the locations.  There is a delay because it works from a copy of the database.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hopeful for a moment but in fact I believe the above comment provides no new information about the problem.  The "Howtoreqphotoin" template just includes some text and the same way we were already discussing to display photos in a category.  This way, as has been covered further above, is broken and/or not supported.  So the New York example is an old page that did work, and does show a map of old photo requests, but the copy of the database it is based off of is not being updated and new requests for photos in New York will not be displayed.  Thanks anyhow! doncram (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howtoreqphotoin in Category 

message: ===The project goes live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC===
This Commons Valued images project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute images of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain in featured picture or quality image technical quality.  The project will run alongside the existing Commons Featured pictures and Quality images projects.
Please visit Valued images candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations.  Anyone with an account on Commons is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.  --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimedia Commons announces launch of new [[Commons:Commons:Valued images|Valued images]] project

message: This Commons Valued images project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute images of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain in featured picture or quality image technical quality.  The project will run alongside the existing Commons Featured pictures and Quality images projects.
Please visit Valued images candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations.  Anyone with an account on Commons is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.  --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The project goes live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC

message: This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics 

message: :Image talk:Replace this image.svg has text I don't like - "Do you own one" is too ownership centric - people don't have to be the owners of an image to upload one. I think we should change it to "Can you provide one?" (hopefully that won't encourage a frenzy of newbs uploading random images they found on the internet). Richard001 (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Been discussed before. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace this image text 

message: In preparing to work on the article for Emmeline Pankhurst, I came upon the Freedom of Panorama template (which I had never seen before) on the image of this statue. So far as I can tell, FOP applies differently in various countries, and applies to any photo of buildings and/or sculptures in public places.
My question: How does this affect the use of such photos on the English Wikipedia? (I suspect this discussion has already been had – if so, perhaps someone can point me to it.) Since most English-speaking countries allow for FOP, do we assume that the photos are available for a free license (assuming the original work – in this case, the sculpture – is likewise eligible) and use them in our articles? Or are photos of buildings and sculptures generally less desirable now that FOP has been incorporated into our thinking about license? – Scartol • Tok 13:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not absolutely certain, but I believe that we respect both Florida law where our servers are, and the law of the place the photo was taken. Like I said I could be wrong about that. HIBC 15:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of statues and buildings - FOP issue 

message: Canon T90 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR of Canon T90 

message: ===The project goes live for nominations on 10 November, 2008 at 0:00 UTC===
This Wikipedia Valued pictures project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high encyclopedic value, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such educational images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute enyclopedic images of difficult subjects which are very hard or nigh on impossible to obtain. The project will run alongside the existing Wikipedia Featured pictures and Picture peer review projects.
Please visit Valued picture candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations.  Anyone with an account on Wikipedia is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.
Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor  17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia announces launch of new [[Wikipedia:Valued pictures|Valued pictures]] project

message: This Wikipedia Valued pictures project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high encyclopedic value, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such educational images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute enyclopedic images of difficult subjects which are very hard or nigh on impossible to obtain. The project will run alongside the existing Wikipedia Featured pictures and Picture peer review projects.
Please visit Valued picture candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations.  Anyone with an account on Wikipedia is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.
Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor  17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The project goes live for nominations on 10 November, 2008 at 0:00 UTC

message: :Category:Night-Sky Photography has been nominated for merger into :Category:Astrophotography 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Night-Sky Photography]] +-> [[:Category:Astrophotography]]

message: After seeing some of the complications with the contributions from User:Jerry Avenaim, I realized that wikipedia currently is not a very user-friendly place for professional photographers to contribute any images they want to upload.  If anything, a professional photographer seems to be generally discouraged from contributing their work.  I believe that Wikipedia is missing out on a great opportunity to reach out to professional photographers that want to contribute and should try to make it as user-friendly as possible.  Thus, I am suggesting that this project help create a page that would lay out the following: the advantages and disadvantages for professional photographers to upload their images to wikipedia; how to upload image to wikipedia; the advantages and disadvantages to claiming various licenses; how to authenticate your identity if you need to demonstrate that you own the rights to the picture; and wikipedia editors that may help you out if you have any questions and how to contact them.  What do others think of this suggestion? Remember (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I set up the following userspace page User:Remember/Sandbox as a place where we can create this page prior to posting it as an official page of the WikiProject Photography page. Please help make it better (cause I don't have that much time to do it). Remember (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this page (User:Remember/Sandbox) now looks good enough to make it a WikiProject Photography subpage.  Unless there are any objections I will do that. Remember (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have added the guide to Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Guide for Professionals.  If you think this page belongs in another spot, feel free to move. Remember (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of interest regarding this: "Question:Why should I freely license my pictures (or music) so they can be used on Wikipedia? Answer: Because putting them on Wikipedia is great exposure". Should that really be the primary motivation? Wikipedia doesn't really encourage using it as a launchpad for external commercial sites... I guess the sales pitch probably doesn't have the same strength if the answer is "Because you want to donate your time and skills to a worthy cause". Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did bring that up fairly strongly on the article talk whilst it was sandboxed, at that point it actually said "advertising" but in light of our discussion it was reworded to say "exposure" as it is a less provocative term in light of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. I still think the article was better focussed before it was reworded so as to (possibly over)simplify and push the emphasis that way instead of extolling the increasing importance of shared media and collaboration. I also think it may raise false expectations now. Mfield (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will defer to others on this, so feel free to revise.Remember (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion - Create guide webpage for professional photographers who want to contribute images 

message: The US army has just released 147 images from the Korean war into the public domain. The images are available here.
They have also released 40 videos (see this link).
←Spidern→ 16:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great news for war image collectors 

message: This is a bit of an unusual post but the lead image on Sunset is in need of an upgrade however there are a number of replacement candidates. Your input is requested at the discussion on the talkpage. Thanks --Fir0002 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested at [[Sunset]] 

message: I came across this article: Tony Kelly (photographer). He's done a bit of news & magazine work. But is that really notable? Doesn't seem to have won any awards. No reliable online references.--Lester 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this guy notable? 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: Folks:
At the time of this writing, more than 50,000 articles on Wikipedia bear the  template, yet many of these articles already have photos or images.  Some have had them for years, but no one has bothered to remove the photo request template.
This makes me sad.  It makes it harder to maintain the categories of photo requests, and harder to identify the articles that really need images.
Therefore, I hereby call upon you, the editors of Wikipedia, to help me rid the encyclopedia of these unneeded requests!
I have instructed PhotoCatBot to search every  article for images and add any that it finds to :Category:Articles which may no longer need images.  That puts the most likely candidates for review in one place for easier maintenance.
Unfortunately, a bot can't remove these image requests automatically.  Some of the "images" it finds may not satisfy the photo request; some of them are maps, some are icons, some are university crests.  A bot just can't tell which is which most of the time.
Here is what you can do, dear editor:
* Browse :Category:Articles which may no longer need images and check some of the articles to see if the photo request is still appropriate.  If it is, remove the category; if it isn't, remove both the category and the template.
* Read the talk page to see if there has been any discussion about what kind of photo the article needs.  If so, consider updating the  template with  to make it clear and explicit.
* Be conservative.  If there is any photo at all on the article page, and no one has asked for a specific photo on the talk page, then remove  and :Category:Articles which may no longer need images.
* Be sensible.  If your gut says that the images on the article don't satisfy the photo request, leave the request alone and just remove the category.
* Be reasonable.  If you remove a  and another editor reverts it, don't get into an edit war.  Part of the point here is to clean up requests on articles that no one is watching.  If someone cares enough about the article to keep the photo request, it's worth keeping.
* Always remove :Category:Articles which may no longer need images after reviewing an article.
As always, comments, suggestions, brainstorming welcome! Tim Pierce (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamp out unneeded reqphotos! 

message: There is a new wikiproject afoot, Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media, for addressing issues with all kinds of images and non-text media.  There has been some discussion there about whether it would be appropriate to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography into that project.  This project has been pretty dormant despite periodic attempts at revival, and I think it would not be a bad idea.
Please comment here or at the WP Images and Media talk page if you have thoughts on the matter.  Tim Pierce (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Images and Media 

message: Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process.  Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here.  We welcome your input!
  Maedin\talk 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to the Featured picture process 

message: A 9x expansion of the optics article has been undertaken by ScienceApologist.  Assistance welcomed to help raise it to featured article level.  Best wishes all, DurovaCharge! 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Optics]] FA drive 

message: Recently a set of photographs apparently showing the Russian Prime Minister drunk at the G8 summit was circulated in the media. By chance I happened upon this article in Pravda which discusses the manipulation which has been performed. Does this technique have a name (and a WP article)? __meco (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really manipulation in a photographic sense, more an unethical journalistic technique. As the distortion occurs in the selection process (not actual image editing) the relevant articles will be those related to journalistic scandal rather than photo manipulation.--mikaultalk 08:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's true, but since chimping has been identified by its own name, I figured this practice, which has only been facilitated by modern digital video equipment and computers, might also have been given a name, thus enabling us to collate material on it for an article. __meco (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean, but chimping is a behavioural byproduct of DSLR photography, rather than a technical term. The practice of continuous shooting that lies behind that journo incident is much older than digital photography and was just as common (possibly even more so) with film. Motor driven SLRs were around for decades prior to digital. As a result I'd expect any terminology describing the practice to be well-established and AFAIK there isn't any, other than say "burst mode" or "continuous shooting". Following this logic the (behavioural) use of a sequence of still frames is even less likely to have a common term. --mikaultalk 23:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this photographic technique have a name 

message: I have for some time been trying to find the name of the digiral video technique whereby a large number of video cameras (for instance 13) are placed in circumference surrounding the object to be captured. After digital re-processing the images of the object can then be manipulated as 3D objects allowing for random angles and sequences of motion along random vectors circumnavigating the object, with the cameras digitally removed from the resultant video. __meco (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called bullet time slow-motion. --mikaultalk 08:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated! __meco (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of 3D video imaging technique 

message: Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.  
The Transhumanist 23:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's missing from [[Outline of photography]]? 

message: The Sigma_lenses template has something odd going on...it appears at the bottom of pages, but the "view" and "discuss" links are red, and the "edit" page says there is no template by that name.  I just created an article about the infamous Sigma 200-500 f/2.8...can someone tell me how to find the template so I can add this article?  FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be fixed now, looks like there was a typo in the template name - I had to find it by doing a search for it in the Template namespace and fix the typo. Camw (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Woo, thanks!  It works now. FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigma Lenses template brokenness 

message: I'm in a bit of a quandary. I am associated with a theatrical company and was asked by a regular editor of the Shakespeare project to supply photos of Shakespearean characters, as they are sorely lacking. I did so, and was then accused by another editor on the Taming of the Shrew talk page of conflict of interest!?! So in trying to fulfill a request, I get jumped on. I can take the lack of good faith, but I did posit a number of questions here: []. I don't want to continue uploading photos if I am breaking some COI rule, so I was hoping for some clarification. I would appreciate some input on that talk page from some editors who are not personally involved on that page. 
The photo on the left is the one I added, to replace the image on the right, which I did not delete, but moved down in the article to the section on "Text".
 Thanks in advance for any input you might provide. Please provide comments here:[]. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for the Project members

message: It has been finally annouced after many a rumors. Well not sept 1 but on sept 2 --yousaf465' 06:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1]] announced 

message: the Canon EOS 500D is a camera and video camera right? like shoots video and stills? is it also a good quality video camera, I don't know enough technical babble to fully understand the article. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DSLR video is still a work in progress. While there are the benefits of a shallower depth of field and a higher quality than a traditional video camera, in some situations. However it does not capture motion or sound well. You may also find it hard to zoom and/or focus while filming with a DSLR because of its awkward grip. Video capable DSLRs won't be replacing camcorders any time soon. [SCΛRECROW]CrossCom 2.0 07:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon EOS 500D

message: I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at . --Ysangkok (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages 

message: Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#UFO identification, and give some photographic critique on the insect pictures I've uploaded. In particular, some photos need cropping whilst others need a choice to be made between several pics of the same thing. Thirdly, please comment if these pics are actually needed, given the quality and abundance of photos already in the existing articles. Thanks. Zunaid 04:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo critique needed 

message: on this ostrich picture at here. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: Someone here may be interested in taking a look at Vivian Maier which could certainly need some improvement (I have nominated it for DYK). 
I realize that it may have been premature to write this article before any major publication on her has appeared, but the story about the discovery of her photographs is interesting and has made the news in several countries. --Hegvald (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vivian Maier]] 

message: After a recent request, I added WikiProject Photography to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pageview stats