Jump to content

Talk:Aerial photography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of photographs

[edit]

The number of photographs on this page seems disproportionate to the amount of data in it. TheStripèdOne 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed two images (road intersection and Moreton Island) which I don't think are of particular quality and don't add to the article. The article could be improved with an historic aerial photograph, a photo used for map making and a satellite image. Beechhouse (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Quite a few commercial sites are listed in the external links section. Steel359, what makes the one I added unacceptable? http://www.satimagingcorp.com/gallery-orthorectified.html

All those sites advertising aerial photos and services (including yours) are not acceptable in an encyclopedia so I have removed them. WP is not a Trade Directory! Sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The external links again contain some commercial links which I have not removed, but they could be replaced with other, non-commercial sites if anyone has suggestions? Beechhouse (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to the WIKI, and would like to understand how some links are allowed and some disallowed.
For example, Jason Hawkes, while having a very nice commercial site is allowed to have his link, but others, including mine, are disallowed? Davewarwick (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All external linked sites that are commercial should not be linked. While some slip through for a while they usually get removed at some stage. Davewarwick have a look at this page specifically #5 in the "Links normally to be avoided" section, that I already posted on your talk page nearly two weeks ago, for a better understanding of what is allowed and what is not. Also when you say "mine" in referring to the link you wanted to add, are you associated with this site, or do you mean that it was just a link of yours that you wanted to add? In the former case, besides the commercial aspect, there would a conflict of interest but I am not exactly sure which you mean. Hope that helps. While Beechhouse did not remove the other commercial sites I will go through it and remove any that are commercial and possibly add a {{dmoz}} link though there are many commercial links there too, so it may not be a suitable alternative. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out the dmoz link for now as it wasn't going to a valid page. The dmoz site seems to list mostly commercial sites so I didn't find a specific category to link to. Beechhouse (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good choice in this case. We just need to keep an eye on any new links that are added in future. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Aerial Photographers Galleries

[edit]
Galleries of various professional aerial photographers would be interesting to site visitors:

Here is one I am familiar with (none of my work is included in this gallery) http://www.aerialarts.com/Gallery_/gallery_.html Davewarwick (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makeover needed

[edit]

Wow, does this need a makeover. How about:

history

  • development of balloon photography
  • early use of airplanes
  • use in WWI (expand existing)
  • growth after WWI (many links in links section will help)
  • commericalization
  • use in WW2
  • expansion/transition to satellite photography

technique

  • photo rectification and orthophotos
  • stereo photography
  • false-color photography

industry today

  • industry leaders
  • consolidation
  • competition from satellite sources
  • integrate info on model airplane photography

other (not where to put it)

  • relation to field of remote sensing
  • archives
  • international expansion (I only really know US; I assume history and current status elsewhere is varied)

--Natcase 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown

[edit]

Dedicated aerial platforms such as the U2, SR-71, TR-1, RF-4C, and the OV-1D use the following: vertical, oblique, forward, and panoramic. Espionage is associated with Human Intelligence. Aerial platforms either reconnoiter an area for the first time or surveil previously covered areas. Since the advent of the SAM, reconnaisance became a thing of the past, most collection was then geared toward stand-off monitoring of border areas. Photo mosaics are part of the imagery analyst's skills for briefing or mission planning purposes. Photogrammetry is only one of many skills used by the imagery analyst. Terrain analysis is obtained by low-resolution stereographic coverage. Military terrain analysts deal with trafficability(incline grades). Imagery analysts use terrain features to detect numerous types of sites. 256 shades are part of the gray scale, black & white is preferred by IA's because of the detail. Low resolution coverage is also useful in surveying large areas and with a topographic criteria being met, multispectral imagery can be cued economically to further examination of potential archeological sites. Uav's are also used. Army Imagery Analyst(MOS 96D)retiredRadical man 7 15:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, and probably should be added. But surely satellites had more impact in reducing the value of reconnaissance flights than SAM missiles? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent Aerial Photographers

[edit]

the criteria for including the artists is unclear. I have been trying to add the name of Olivier Lasserre, but have been reverted several times. Please take a look for yourself. [1]. Having a book published in three languages and several internationally distributed calendars should be notability enough. However, more importantly, if you have any interest in aerial photography, you will see that this is a first rate artist, better than most of those listed in the article (and whose notability doesn't seem to be in question). I assure you that I don't know that artist (Olivier Lasserre) personally, nor do I work for him, his editor, or have any personal interest in including him in the list whatsoever. But I do recognize world-class work when I see one. Please take a look at his work yourself. You must be interested in the subject, or you wouldn't be reading this article, right? Tacoje7 (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, WP:Notability requires having something published about one, not by one. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lists like this just keep growing and make pages unattractive. If it is worth listing them it would be better to make it a separate page.--Charles (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is little point to this listing, which as Charles says will only grow, especially because there are several redlinks. It would be far better to have a link, in the "See also" section to an aerial photographers category, like Category:Aerial photographers but right now none exists but we could start on and tag the individual biographies. ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good idea, ww2censor! Totally agree. Tacoje7 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Satori Son 18:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, well done. Now all we need to do is totally revise the article which is basically a hodge podge of a mess. I just don't have the time right now as I am dealing with other matters. ww2censor (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

For Charles drakew I don't know why you have black listed my page about History aerial photography. It's not only for have a link... But it' a real work about this subject !! The link is : http://www.wokipi.com/decouverte/aerialpicture.html Thanks to see the link before to delete it !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitegibsongirl (talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the link and decided it is more relevant to the Kite aerial photography page. There is no right to add external links to pages even if they are works of art.--Charles (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of Aeril/Satellite Photos

[edit]

I am not sure this is the place for this, but nor can I think of any better. Whenever I look at these pictures, they seem...false? Something like that. Like the colors off, the smoothness...It just kinda looks fake. Would anyone know of information about this effect, or alternately, would this be the place for that information if I were too find reliable information about it?

If theres a better place for this, I'll gladly hop over. (I didnt mean to imply that i simply ask for my own curiosity, if it appears that way. im just terrible writer when i start worrying about semantics.) 74.128.56.194 (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Orthophotomap

[edit]

Lonely stub which I'm pretty sure refers to pretty much the same thing as an orthophoto, only I'd presume an orthophotomap has additional information overlaid whereas an orthophoto does not, though I'm pretty sure that'd not a big enough distinction to warrant a separate page. Da5nsy (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just found orthophoto and photomapping as well, surely there's too many different pages here... Da5nsy (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support merging all those pages together, but NOT with aerial photography. Mapping is only one use of aerial photography (albeit a widely used one). Buffs (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair, I'm still new here so I wouldn't be confident doing it alone, happy to assist where I can. Da5nsy (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm proposing the merging of photomapping, orthophoto, Aerial_photography#Orthophotos and orthophotomap (with possible additions required to the Orthographic_projection_(cartography) page, anyone want to take on the job?Da5nsy (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, merging photomapping, orthophoto, and orthophotomap would be both feasible and apropos, but merging them into this article would be a bad idea as would taking the information out of this article. We should strive to have a separate article (I don't care which one is the primary) and consolidate the aforementioned three into one. We can then reference it within the Aerial photography's section pertaining to it per WP:SUMMARY. An example of this would be something similar to the history section of Texas A&M's article. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have added an external link for use in an educational context with kids. The link is self explanatory with some simple aerial platforms under development using a cheap HD keyring video camera weighing only 18g. The techniques considered are kite, pole, water rocket and balloon with others to follow. This work is part of the educational programme of the West Lothian Archaeological Trust, a Scottish Charity No SC043118. Under our supervision, young children also use our full systems too eg http://www.armadale.org.uk/cairnpapple.htm Our CC-BY images are here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Dr_John_Wells

RAF or RFC?

[edit]

The article claims that aerial photography in Britain was developed in the 1st Squadron of the RAF from 1912, but the RAF was not founded until April 1918. I'd suggest keeping the link to the 1st Squadron RAF page, but re-wording the section to read something like '...in the 1st Squadron of the RFC (later the 1st Squadron RAF)'. Markaeologist (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

This article has a US-centered view on legislation. I neutralised it a bit by adding a heading Regulation and United States as a subheading. Needs more cleaning. --Hannolans (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aerial photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and Planning

[edit]

Need more explanation and notes? Come let's discuss it here Orumen (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aerial photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A separate Drone photography and videography article

[edit]

So I'd like to create a separate article for Drone photography and videography.

It would contain info on its use in drone journalism, relevant technologies such as image stabilization, relevant notable people & organizations, relevant regulations (the only thing I'm not sure about whether or not / how to include), methods, competitions, communities like Dronestagram also contain all relevant info from the quadcopter & unmanned aerial vehicle articles.

I'm just not sure how to best go about it: this article seems to contain much relevant content. I would still like to split it because drone photography and videography is becoming a thing on its own, a thing pretty separate from this very broad topic. Nobody (normal) gets to fly a plane and make photos from it - it's more a topic of select few such as professional documentary makers, rich people, extreme athletes and war journalists - but many people are getting drones with cameras now. So I'm wondering I should trim the article from all drone-related info and add a well visible link to the new article to the lead/top, or potentially restructure this article or leave it as it is?

Also could somebody here please help me out with that new article?

--Fixuture (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on certain external links?

[edit]

Hi! I'd like to discuss a revision of mine that has been undone by an editor (as was recommended via message from MrOllie). As of July 25, the 36th link in References leads to a 404-message on the FAA website. In fact, the link was broken since April when I made the revision in the first place. I've originally provided a working URL to the publication from a website that may - I think - be considered an archive or a library of files like these.

I’ve just checked and the FAA have re-uploaded the file. It can be accessed through an entirely different URL though. And that 36th link is still broken.

I guess my question is: Why delete a perfectly okay link to the file without providing a replacement? I mean, there used to be something there and now there’s nothing at all. (oh yeah, you can reach out here: Hlppocrates talk)

Duplication

[edit]

Aerial photography#History and Aerial reconnaissance#History overlap widely; the duplication could be merged in either article or in a new one, History of aerial photography and reconnaissance. fgnievinski (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Related sections: Imagery intelligence#History and Remote sensing#History. fgnievinski (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aerial_photography&oldid=1253762399"