Talk:Photography

• Talk:Photography/Archive1 - ('05)-('06), 65kb

Would ARPS and APSNY related to Bachelor of Arts in Photography?

Hi Sir /Madam, I have awarded two tiltes for ARPS (London) and APSNY (New York),didn't they related to B.A.in Photography?I have found B.A. that has written in Introduction for Distinction under Royal Photography Society.Kindly explain this matter to me soon. Best Regards, Tan Chuen Ling ARPS APSNY. B.A. in Photography (London) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.74.39.227 (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Photography types

I don't understand why the Photography types section is divided into "color film" and "digital". Shouldn't it be divided into "Film" and "digital", with "Film" being further divided into "color" and "B&W"?Tstrobaugh 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What, and no division of digital into color vs. B&W? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

No, there is no difference in digital photographic sensors to distinguish between color and B&W, the information is simple stripped out in processing. Again, NO, because there is no difference. I suppose you might just be being a smart-alec though since you didn't sign your post.Tstrobaugh 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong, there was a monochrome sensor made by Kodak but the latest model the 760M was discontinued sometime ago, I'm not a digital person so if someone knows more about this please comment.Tstrobaugh 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

All digital sensors are monochrome. The colors are made up by firmware/software. The Kodak 760M was just a honest camera :)Atelierelealbe (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Still, why is there no mention of black and white? Its how photography started and is still quite popular.(sorry there's no signature, I'm writing this in my photo class, b&w btw)--63.207.252.65 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Composite photography

Any body want to help start the composite photography article using data from Averageness; or does this article already exist somewhere? --Sadi Carnot 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mangled lead

In August 2004, this diff summarized as "refactor lead" led to the current incorrect and mangled etymology. Can someone who knows a bit of Greek please repair it? I'll just take out some of the lossiest part for now. Dicklyon 05:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Black and white photography

Is it to much to ask for a real Black and White picture with some argentic grain, instead of of digital picture showing classic B & W look ? Ericd 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

The current introductory sentence essentially repeats the process of creating a photograph as opposed to actually stating what photography is. Given that this is somewhat long-winded and not straight to the point, I was thinking of altering it to something like this:

Photography [fә'tɑgrәfi:],[foʊ'tɑgrәfi:] is the art, hobby, or profession of taking photographs, and developing and printing the film or processing the digitised array image.

What do you think? Chris Buttigieg^talk 17:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the current one better; photography is the process, not the art, hobby, or profession. If you'd like to change it, at least please do find a source for you interpretation of what it is. There may be room for a compromised, as it appears that many books define as photography as "the process or art..." Dicklyon 18:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I had a look in the Encyclopædia Britannica and the definition is essentially the same as the current one. Anyhow, thanks -Chris Buttigieg^talk 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Snapshots

I would like to propose the addition of Snapshot photography (se also Snapshot aesthetic) to the list of photography forms. Xyzt1234 20:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Photography 101 link spam

A quick review of the site seems to be an add farm, with limited content. I would recommend not using it. --Rocksanddirt 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I had just removed the link for the reasons you indicate, before seeing your recommendation. --RenniePet 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, now I see what it's all about. Except I'd call it an "ad farm", not an "add farm" :-) --RenniePet 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Reportage photography

i read in a few places that "reportage photography" (As opposed to documentary photgraphy) embodies several styles: news reportage, photojournalistic reportage, naturalistic reportage, street reportage, etc.

something to think about

68.161.125.208 (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

photographic technique

Hi, I'm looking for a technique where you take multiple photos with different focus and then somehow digitally lay them on top of each other for a strange hyper-realistic effect. What's that called? Thanks! 77.183.125.143 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See Depth of field#Focus stacking. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

the persecution of photographers

There isn't an area for the increasing scrutiny, arrests and harrassment of photographers. Something I'm sure that happened somewhat before the digital age but that wasn't always documented. But now we know it's happening a lot, because it's documented, because of the terrorist fear and because so many people have a phone. Look at what they did in England. And in the US, more and more authority figures are telling people to put their camera away.

I've been following the issue at www.photographyisnotcrime.org and thought about just adding it to the resource links at the bottom. But as up to date as wikipedia usually is, I was surprised this topic isn't covered.˜˜˜˜enhager —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enhager (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 'Bold textItalic text

Feel free to write a section on this, but remember to keep a neutral point of view. Arpitt (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And based on reliable sources, please. The Photography and the law article or section might be a good place to mention something. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll mention it in the intro Owen214 (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam links

I agree with the effort to keep links to a bare minimum on this page, and appreciate Dicklyon's effort to clean off links. The recent edit to remove the [Center for Fine Art Photography|Center for Fine Art Photography], but I find that this link is appropriate and suggest it be replaced. I'm open to opinions, but will revert this edit after a reasonable period of time without objection. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you find it a good link, it's OK by me. I removed it because it's the only contribution of a new anon IP editor; that makes him a spammer in my book. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've readded it - anyone who disagrees is welcome to discuss here. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of the Nikon D200

The image of the Nikon D200 is not a digital single-lens reflex. Please revise this fact. Ty sk8r boy (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Extend caption to fairground picture

The fairground picture with the caption that currently says "Manual shutter control and exposure settings can achieve unusual results." I think it would add value if more were said about how that effect were achieved, so a sentence beginning "Here..." and then whatever is correct. I know nothing on this subject but something along the lines of "Here the shutter is left open longer than usual allowing the lights in motion to etc etc". --bodnotbod (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nanotechnology

Please post here your comment about contributions from nanotech to photography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.110.102 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

Currently this article only covers still photography, but many articles about film photography lead here. Research Method (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Astrological Photography

Shouldn't this be included in the types of photography? Acceptable (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you just make that up, or is there something behind it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Photography of celestial bodies is a type of photography, but it is not included in the list of different types of photography. Should it be added? Acceptable (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude! For future reference: Astrology != Astronomy ;-). And Astrophotography has its own article. --Dschwen 17:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Panning Photography

Dick Lyon, what are you doing man? i was not adding redlink, it was a blue link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESCapade (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You must have added the link to Panning photography just before moving Panning (camera) to there; unfortunately, I didn't notice the move before moving the article to the somewhat more sensible Panning (photography), so now it's hard to move back; I've requested a move. I find no reliable sources for calling it "panning photography". Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a split minute minor misunderstanding, i opened 2 tabs at the same time. Never mind.

Dick Lyon, what is the requirement to call it a kind of photography? Do you have reliable sources for calling it "macro photography" or "monochrome photography" or "night photography" or any photography stated in this page? i'm willing to be proven wrong and shown a better definition. Listening.. ESCapade (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, you need reliaable sources for what you call it. Compare the breadth of sources for those four examples: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait them write on panning photography. It feels like gold miner already. Anyone equipped with gear can simply defy the fact of its existence. ESCapade (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First known photograph incorrect

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/wfp/ check out that page, and you can see the first photograph ever taken. Also it has a very nice description of the history of the picture, along with some technical details. Would be good to actually be able to cite something under the first photograph... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venomx3 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC disagrees with you and the University of Texas; they say this 1825 image is an earlier photograph than the c. 1826 image. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And the expert quoted in the BBC article says that the image of the engraving might not be considered a "photograph." I think it is eminently disputable that this is the "first photograph," and that the Austin image makes an equally strong claim.HedgeFundBob (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: unless every page of text (or diagram, or drawing) printed by offset lithography (or any other process which creates the printing plate by photographic means) is "a photograph", then this very pricey sheet of paper, however historically important it may be, does not qualify. AVarchaeologist (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Do we need pictures of old cameras in the introduction? They obscure text and there are many pics of cameras in the text below. Peterlewis (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As an ancient photographer I would welcome pictures of cameras of all types - perhaps as a searchable adjunct to the subject. I have, for examples, Graflexes (4x5, 5x7) Hasselblads, etc. etc. I'm a devotee of SLR's. But early Leicas, Deardorfs, panorama cameras are all significant (I used a 35mm rotating 360 degree panorama camera on a science project for NCAR once. Boy, would I like to have THAT one!). In many ways they defined the nature and art of their user's images (Cartier-Bresson, Dorothy Lange, et al.)76.120.77.237 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC) --76.120.77.237 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Following the Wikimedia Commons link in the "sister projects" box near the bottom of the article will get you only a click away from commons:Category:Cameras which looks reasonably extensive. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Photography

I object to the mention of electronic sensors in the opening definition. Digital imaging is not photography. They are two completely divergent processes that have only the use of a lens to project an image and a final graphic output in common. They are as different as silk screen (serography) and oil painting, both of which produce a graphic through application of pigments to a board, but are not related processes in any other way. Digital imaging is no more closely related to photography than Xerography, and we make that very valid distinction. The same distinction should be made between digital imaging and photography, on the same grounds: the processes are too dissimilar to be synonymous; the fact that they both involve image capture is insufficient to make them equal.

Michael Cleveland —Preceding [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by 63.3.13.130 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point. The very first sentence states "Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor." An electronic sensor is no less valid a way of recording images than film. The article mentions that "the resulting information [is stored] chemically or electronically", which to me sounds correct. You seem to be arguing that photography is strictly defined as the creation of a physical visible imprint - is it? In any case, practically anyone looking to find out more about the concept of photography (i.e. the people reading this article) would be tragically misled if the article did not also represent digital photography.

Furthermore, you correctly state that digital imaging is not photography - digital imaging is the science of capturing light or any other radiation, and converting it to a digital signal. Similarly, I would argue that the science behind the chemical reactions that take place inside photographic film is also not photography. The article, correctly, does not equate photography and digital imaging, as it does not equate photography and film development.

Finally, you seem to imply that xerography is another technique for creating photographic images, in the way that film photography and digital photography can create such images. That is simply not true, as xerography is contact-based and cannot capture light focused by an objective, which is what photography does.Tomatoman (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Traditional xerography can, indeed, capture light focused by an objective, and normally does. Typically, the optics scan the source material, rather than imaging it all at once, because the light-sensitive surface is cylindrical. See the xerography article. AVarchaeologist (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

mono

I am putting my first day in to a new project with the National Trust in England on Monday. My role as a volunteer will be to photograph the gardens and buildings, which I am sure have been photographed many nany times previous. I want to try to capture the fauna and flora in mono (in addition to colour) in a way that adds something to the subject.

Any direction to achieve this will be much appreciated.

thank you (Tony) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationaltrust1 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed a double link from forms list

Wedding Photography was listed twice, so I removed one of the links. CygnetFlying (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

photography as a science and profession

Even though it was pointed out earlier on the discussion page here that photography is also a profession, someone reverted the introduction of its mention. This wasn't even mentioned in the lacklustre justification for reverting the change, which also saw the removal of its mention as being a science. Studio photographers use light meters, all sorts of attitude measurements with precise mountings and they know about all the various kinds of light. Modern cameras are now making use of many breakthroughs in computer vision, such as the automatic creation of panoramas, face detection and even the use of smiles as a trigger to take a photo. It's therefore too technical to be described as a mere "art". The previous opening sentence classifying it as an "activity" was unnecessary since it was already listed as a "process" Owen214 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The extensive use of technology does not make something a science (or anyone who drives a car would be a scientist). There are a large number of articles dealing with the general subject of photography, this one is more of an overview of the process of photography. The fact that an activity can be done as a means of earning money does not belong in the lede of this article, since it is both obvious and applies to virtually all activities to a lesser and greater extent. See photographer if that is your area of interest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about my interests, I have no association with photography. Your opinions on whether or not photography is a science still leaves no justification for your persistent sabotage to the term "photoreceptors" instead of the bizarre and unscientific "electronic sensors" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen214 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I am not the "saboteur", the cited "sabotage" seems entirely justified to me. "Photoreceptor" is a word normally used to describe the light-sensitive organic structures in the eye. See the Photoreceptor_cell article here. A Google search on the word will demonstrate that its real-world use is overwhelmingly in the field of biology. "Electronic sensors" seems an extremely useful umbrella term which encompasses all the past and present analog and digital image pick-up devices that come readily to mind. As long as the devices or device elements are electronic and are sensors, a rationale for condemning the descriptive term "electronic sensors" as unscientific or bizarre is not apparent. AVarchaeologist (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tay Bridge conflict of interest by Peter Lewis?

I was just looking into why we have so much unsourced detail on the Tay Bridge and its role in photographic history, when I saw that it was all added by User:Peterlewis, including the listing of his book as further reading (here in 2007) though it's no longer listed. This sounds like WP:COI and self-promotion. Should we take out that info and look for something actually published on the history of forensic photography instead? Dicklyon (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I was looking into it as contrary to WP:SUMMARY and too detailed for this broad article. Yes, for any of the above reasons, this material should be further shortened to a sentence or two in this article, and the pictures omitted. WP:COI remains an open question relevant to the forensic article and the bridge accident article, and other sources should be sought for those, but anything raising a reasonable suspicion can simply be trimmed away from this one. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

...and some manufacturers produce digital cameras that exclusively shoot monochrome

Technically speaking all digital cameras shoot monochrome. Maybe is a ref to Kodak 760m? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelierelealbe (talk • contribs) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Science?

I don't think this category fits. Is there a resource? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.23.98 (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Panoramic Composites Using Several Overlapping Pictures

Can anyone recommend a free panoramic stitching program online?