Talk:Photograph

Comments

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)

Panoramic pictures

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)

I adjusted the APS/Pano segment. I (and most any serious about film formats) do not consider APS to be true panoramic format and would not offer it as same. It is a cropping of the 35mm film, nothing more. If there were to be a miniature film format in the dimension of the cropped segment that APS utilizes for "panoramic" shots, a format designed specifiacally for panoramas in miniature, then yes, I could accept that.

Photograph

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

There were saved versions of the page. Restored the original content before the blatant vandalisms occurred.--LifeStar 17:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Photograph (Definition)

A photograph is an image created using a record of light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip.

Disambiguation

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)

History

Ths History section does not say a lot abotu when the first photograph was made, or anything about pre-photograph technology.

Skunk Ape fiction

The "skunk ape" is so totally fake!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know why anybody believes in this guy/girl who basically runs around in the woods grunting and monkeying around and to explain the disgusting stench that is probably some really bad cologn/perfume.Don't believe anything you hear about this monkey!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.3.114.161 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism

Someone has clearly vandalized this page, but has blocked anyone from editing it. This article should be flagged and restricted.

Same here... this always happens every now and again... Factual80man

Vandalism

Someone needs to unblock and fix this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.9.176.30 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

What is the vandalism? It looks like people can edit it fine to me. Recury 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This always happens by all these unregistered idiots who blank our useful articles and write trash. But why won't they get blocked permanently? That's the only way to defend Wikipedia. Factual80man

Sources

(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)

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)

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)

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)

I also am saying the whole thing is questionable, to varying degrees. Шизомби 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then I'm back to my original point; you have to be specific. Tag the specific claims you think are not properly refed. Maury 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

What the Hell?

Very odd. This article just suddenly appeared on my watchlist, out of nowhere, even though it wasn't there earlier. Spooky--Jac16888 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

iphe