Archives
2006 2007 2008 old AfDs old questionable articles

The mind boggles. Pinkville (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Diane Arbus Link

I was considering to place a link to a concise Diane Arbus biography and critical evaluation of her work in the Wikipedia article about her. I have written this bio a couple of years ago and recently included it on my website: http://gerbis.net/publications/arbus.html. Since there is an obvious conflict of interest, I am proposing that someone else should put the link there. My article may be a personal website but I am well qualified to write about Arbus, holding an M.A. and Ph.D. in art history. Furthermore, my much longer and rather more detailed biography of her was a commissioned work by Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon (AKL - World Biographical Dictionary of Artists; ref: http://www.degruyter.de/cont/fb/km/kmAklEn.cfm). It has been published in 2005 and is definitely a quotable source. But it is written in German and only available online to subscribers. The English version on my site contains the condensed essence of my research about Arbus and is very informative for anyone interested in the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerbis (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs

These are now listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/History of photography (transcluded below). You may wish to keep this on your watchlist.

(Old AfD mentions are here.)

[edit] Questionable articles

I seem to have a bad track record of antagonizing editors with my AfD submissions. Nevertheless, I keep finding articles that seem highly dubious to me. Many of these articles have not been submitted to the List of photographers article and may be flying under our collective radar. I considered placing the articles on the List to call greater attention to them, but that represents something of an endorsement by me. As such, I was wondering if other editors would see a value in looking at some of these articles as a group and then making improvements or submitting the article to the AfD process. I'd appreciate your comments on this proposal. To kick things off, I've started a proposed list below. TheMindsEye 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems a good proposal to me. I had a look at a few of your nominations and agreed with you on some, disagreeing on one. I'll return to this later. (Meanwhile, remember that anyone in an AfD debate can, and many people do, squawk "Lack of notability is no reason for deletion! WP:BIO is not policy!") -- Hoary 07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable article list

This is a list of articles that have some problems. It may be those whose notability is at least questionable, or have other potential problems. These articles may or may not merit an AfD discussion, but should be looked at by several editors with an eye towards either improving the article or submitting it to the AfD process. [writes TheMindsEye]

Don't overlook the option of "prodding" where appropriate. -- Hoary 07:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, many of the spam / self-promo articles have copyright violations, cut-and-paste text from an external site. That can be removed on sight, or if the entire article has been taken from an external website, then it can be flagged as copyvio Brian 09:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)btball

Articles (many of which have since been deleted) added to the list some time ago are here.

• Roy Pinney, herpetologist and photographer, OR by his grandson. Toshiki Ozawa, long CV of an obscure Japanese photographer. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Tokugawa Yoshitomo (see its talk page). -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Howard Schatz seems notable, but the article is wretched. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Annemarie Schwarzenbach: the article says nothing about her photography, but links to something that does. She sounds worth consideration. -- Hoary (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Maria Hartman, prodded. -- Hoary (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Terence John Marsh -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• William L. Palminteri, prodded. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Ken Marcus -- Hoary (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Brett R. Henry -- Hoary (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Luke Duval -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Now at AfD. Hoary (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Omer Cordell -- Hoary (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Adamo Macri -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Mark Power, a very worthwhile photographer, whose article has been besieged, first by vandalism and now by angry templates. -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thomas Campbell (visual artist) -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Heinz Peter Knes, prodded. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Prod later removed by somebody. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Kiino Villand -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Jorge Bechara Article seems a little thin. TheMindsEye (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Andrew Stark Appears to be a vanity page that has not been edited this year, no outside documentation, fame seems to rest on a self-published book. Article PRODed on Aug. 2. TheMindsEye (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Adolf Zika A quick Google search shows that Zika is probably notable and worthy of inclusion on Wiki. The article, however, fails the smell test, full of advertising-like autobiographical swill. I suggest a major revamp. TheMindsEye (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion/celeb stuff

Having discovered that an article on Iris Prosch appeared to have been "borrowed" from this, I deleted it and proceeded to look at its contributor's list of edits. They're mostly about photographers and seem distinctly adulatory, but I didn't notice any more plagiarism. (There's certainly a relationship to the people listed here, though.) Somebody with more time and energy may wish to take a look through them. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here they are:

• Guy Aroch
• Bruno Bisang
• Walter Chin
• Arthur Elgort
• Jesse Frohman
• Russell James
• Roxanne Lowit
• Nigel Parry
• Howard Schatz
• Ben Watts
• Timothy White
• Christian Witkin

Most, perhaps all, of these people seem to be "noteworthy". But while the adulatory tone of the articles grates on me, I can't summon the interest to fix any of them. I mean, other things interest me more. If somebody else here can take slebs and beautiful people without dozing off, go for it! -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheesecake photographers

"Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Photographers needing articles": T the Tiger created the following templates and the photographers have many redlinks. I am not sure if any of them are important photographers [...] "Important", well.... I looked at a few names and none seemed even slightly familiar. But they're important to US lovers of cheesecake, I suppose. (Ah, the inscrutable Americans.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Power

The Mark Power article seems to have become a playground for somebody who's either deluded or a troll. If matters get worse, I'll semi-protect it. If anyone has a little time and a book about Magnum photographers, do please check that's what written about him is correct. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article list?

I'm sorry that articles normally only get a mention here when they're problematic. I for one would like to hear of good new articles too.

Most of the new or almost new articles I work on are about photography in Japan and thus get listed at Template:Newest Japan-related articles. I'd like Template:Newest photographic history articles or similar, because I'd like to see what's new.

Of course List of photographers works similarly, but it is an article, and although I find it convenient I'd be hard pressed to cite any policy to defend it if it were ever taken to AfD.

Also, I think that listing promising articles might help to make this somnolent Project look a bit more inviting, which would be no bad thing.

How does such a new template (of course for transclusion anywhere people wish) sound to y'all? -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, hello? -- Hoary (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean you expected a response? ;~) This is a good idea - I might even be able to help out in the near future. For the template, we need a photo of a shiny new camera, or sommit... Pinkville (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good articles

I suppose that these must be good articles. But I find at least one of them most depressing. Is there something missing in it, or in me? -- Hoary (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why, do you have a problem with tautologies: there has been backlash surrounding the photo because it spawned criticism...? (With a mixed metaphor for good measure.) Wow, that's really a grim article. So many lapses of writing and thought. Here's a good one, in quotation marks: the parody relied "for its comic effect on the contrast between the original". - end of paragraph. Quite the contrast (following the citation link, the contrast becomes a little more clear...). Well, a few more, genuinely good articles are in order. And one of these GAs is looking like it might become something more. Pinkville (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Better spawning criticism than spawning tadpoles, perhaps.

As for that lastmentioned GA, I think there's a hell of a lot more work to be done on it in order that it can get what I think is fully satisfactory sourcing for, oh, perhaps five more little assertions that most people won't even notice are in the article. Plus there's an ever-increasing number of red links that ought to be blued.

If/when those are ever done, it might satisfy me. Or again it might have thrown up a number of additional points that I'll think need researching in the (very pleasant) library of "Syabi". Or perhaps I'll die of old age first.

If the article ever satisfies me, I might offer it to the FA people. Or again I might not. It would probably be judged too short. Should I be inspired by Mircea Eliade? -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classy!

There are now C-class as well as FA-, A-, GA-, B-, Start- and Stub-class articles. C of course comes between B and Start. WikiProjects aren't obliged to bother with C-class, but surely large numbers of WikiProject HOP editors will love to go through all the B- and Start-class articles, deciding whether or not they should become C-class.

Um, hello?

Ah well, perhaps not. In the meantime, I've made bad and good discoveries. Bad: there's no way of automating generation of the numbers in the table of ratings. Good: it's pretty easy all the same. So there it is at the top. We just have to remember to update it now and again.

And now the exciting bit: How about articles on photographs yet to be taken? -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Now here's what I call categorization. -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for the future I guess? Gary King (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Falling Soldier

Hi, the article about Federico Borrell García mainly discuss Capa's photograph, anyway he is known for appearing in this famous picture. Thus, maybe the article should be renamed to The Falling Soldier, move his biography to a specific section into this article, and the history of the photograph to another new section. IMHO this historic photograph deserves a specific article, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Furthermore, I think that there is not enough info about the photograph and Federico Borrell to justify two different articles, but in the future a new article about the soldier could be created if needed. Opinions? —surueña 10:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I know a lot has been written about the photograph (some quite interesting); about Borrell, I don't know much at all. Pinkville (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've made just a few edits, comments are welcome. Cheers —surueña 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Documentary photographers?

There's been such a suggestion. Comment at Category talk:Photographers, please. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have a look at

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographic_process
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edeldruckverfahren

and

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Edeldruckverfahren

--129.143.4.65 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1259 articles are assigned to this project, of which 206, or 16.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

16.4% are flagged for cleanup of some sort? I'd have guessed perhaps 86.4%. I'm not sure I'd want to see a todo list; it'd be too depressing. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Kleon

The notability of the photographic career, etc., of Joe Kleon is being discussed here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Women of the Photo-Secession

I'm embarking on a mini-project to add/update entries for women photographers who were members of the Photo-Secession. If anyone has any interest in working on this with me, please let me know. The photographers are:

• Charlotte C. Albright - Buffalo, N. Y.
• Alice Boughton - New York+
• Anne Brigman- Oakland+
• Elizabeth Buehrmann - Chicago +
• Mrs. F. F. Coburn - New York
• Mary Devens - Boston
• Frances Benjamin Johnston – Washington+
• Gertrude Käsebier - New York +
• Sarah Ladd - Portland, Ore.
• Adelaide Hanscom Leeson - Douglas, Alaska
• Helen. Lohman - New York
• Jeanette B. Peabody - Cambridge, Mass.
• Olive M. Potts - Philadelphia
• Sarah C. Sears -Boston
• Mary R. Stanbery - Zanesville, Ohio
• Katherine Stanbery - Zanesville, Ohio
• Elizabeth R. Tyson - Boston
• Mary Vaux - Philadelphia
• Eva Watson-Schütze - Chicago
• Lily E. White - Portland, Ore.
• Myra Albert Wiggins - Salem, Ore.

+ Found the The Getty Union List of Artist Names

It's possible some of these name may not merit full entries once more is known about them, but for now it's interesting to look atthis list in its historical context and see what can be found out. Lexaxis7 (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A simple measure of notability for secessionists is how many photos they had published in Camera Work. My index lists Boughton (6), Brigman (11), Kasebier (12) and Watson-Schütze (4). Bruguière was a man (Francis Joseph Bruguière). All the others had 0 or 1 images published. Some surnames suggest they may be wives of published photographers. Samatarou (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for History of photography

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] El Lissitzky at WP:FAR

El Lissitzky 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..--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What project can I use to assess camera article?

Are these orphaned? Do I have to use some excessively broad project like 'WikiProject Technology' or something? How I wish this project could be a bit broader in scope... Richard001 (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of photojournalists

List of photojournalists is an embarrassment. Please see my annoyed comments on its talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators' working group

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 05:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can understand this, it's talk about talk, and about "A-class". Nobody has ever expressed any interest in A class articles. -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Human complements robot

Yes, a human has, seemingly in all earnestness, translated at least one of the squillion crappy substubs. Now perhaps he'll program some bot to translate the rest. What a gift to fr:WP! -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:14, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of photojournalists

Regarding list of photojournalists, seems like a lot of highly regarded individuals were removed. I'm new to wiki so please tell, does the person need their own page with full references prior to being put on a list of notables? I do archival research in photojournalism and I know that many notables of the 1950s are no longer around to post their references, with the exception of Tony Vaccaro and a couple others. Thanks. By the way, i'll be making mistakes as I try to enter documentation for photojournalists, just because I'm new to the forum, but I have heaps of historical materials. Photoarchiver —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

You're right to say that a lot of photojournalists of the past just seem to drift into undeserved near-oblivion. They're no longer around to push themselves, and their works (intended to inform rather than to sell) aren't sufficiently attractive for galleries and the like to want to display them much. And so we need people willing to look in, if not archives, then anyway libraries.

Archives are very dicey. Anyone can claim to have seen something in an archive, but very few people are in a position to confirm that it's there. Please stick to published material if at all possible. When citing archives, expect bucketloads of sceptical questions or worse.

List of photojournalists has been rather a battleground. At a minimum, people listed in it should have articles in English-language Wikipedia that clearly show notability in photography for, and used by, news sources.

In this edit, you added a link to "Philip Harrington (photographer)". There was no article on him (or on "Philip Harrington"). You're free to create one, if it keeps to the rules. -- Hoary (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Errol Sawyer

There are problems concerning the notability of African-American Errol Sawyer. Although his work is present in important collections, he had article of 8 pages in a very respectful photography magazine in Holland, and although he broke ground as the only African-American photographer working in Paris in the Seventies and as an very highly respected photographer in Holland etc., there are two editors who refuse to accept him in Wiki. Your advise/help is appreciated.1027E (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pigeons in aerial photography

Pigeons in aerial photography is a new article combining history of photography, military history and history of aviation. Members of this project might be interested in improving the first aspect. They might even have access to sources that I don't know about or cannot reach. (E.g. all sources currently list under "Further reading". The last 2 are from photography journals.) Please help if you can, or just make sure you don't miss an interesting topic. Hans Adler 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of Hiroh Kikai

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hiroh Kikai/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It was OK'd. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Demi's Birthday Suit

Despite being a Good Article (and having had this status recently confirmed), Demi's Birthday Suit strikes me as a mess. It's much less about photography than about slebrity, but so long as it has the "HoP" template stuck on it, it's an embarrassment. I've just now put an hour into making it less awful and saying what's wrong with it but "RL" prevents a continuation any time soon. If nobody can fix this quickly, I'd urge that it should be downgraded from GA. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My thoughts exactly. Lexaxis7 (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Cleanup" of Daguerreotype

File:John_Q._Adams.jpg

File:John_Q._Adams-edit.jpg

I recently reverted[8] the placement of the right hand image above in the article John Quincy Adams. While I appreciate the effort I have major problems with the intentions and results of the editors who did this. The original daguerreotype image was so significantly altered as to destroy any historical context it possesses. The left hand original image was originally from the Library of Congress as can be seen on the Commons description page. These edits were made in the past two days. I am concerned enough about the potential for abuse to alert the member at this project, and I would like to know what your opinions about it are and if anyone has had experience dealing with such "cleanup" efforts in the past. Sswonk (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Does everyone agree that such cleanup work has the potential for abuse? Maybe, but I am at least open to the possibility that there are two sides to this issue. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is always potential for loss of important and informative detail from the POV of a photo historian. OTOH there are two scenarios in which you might forgive a partial or full restoration. First, if the unretouched original scan is retained and prominently linked on the restored image file page. Pictorial value in the encyclopedia could (arguably) be improved with both versions available. Second, if the original scan came with a poor restoration attempt (as this one did with some weird, poor-quality smudge/blur thing employed to obscure large longitudinal scratches) that clearly would have been better left alone. This particular edit, had it been more accomplished, might have made a better encyclopedia image but it's only borderline passable but probably an improvement. It's worth mentioning the wider ethical point that anything done to retouch historical images risks adding non-authentic detail etc, ie we cannot possibly know what the missing emulsion on this image looked like. Cloning-in adjacent detail is the image equivalent of WP:OR and strictly speaking, you're creating a new image and attributing "original document" status to it. --mikaul^talk 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am a hard liner on this whole process, I think anything that is done in this manner constitutes original research and can only be viewed as an interpretation of the work. My feelings notwithstanding, there are now more examples of this work cropping up. Here is the original request at the Commons "Graphic Lab School" (!) [9]—scrolling down on that page will reveal two newer requests. I think as long as these "restorations" continue to go unchallenged, many more will be done and the historical record will be diluted. I fear the consequences of an acceleration of this work once more people notice the photos that have been "fixed" so far. I don't know who to turn to or what to do to stop it, so please let me know if there is any recourse available. Sswonk (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You could raise it at the Village Pump (policy) but I can imagine the response: that the image pool is "enriched" by the provision of retouched alternatives, while the historical record remains intact. I've argued this same point here in the past among sympathetic editors and found a lot of indifference and even opposition towards retaining damaged photographs in their original state within articles. Personally I think the originals have an indisputable place in articles on photographic process or the photographer but you'd have to fight for those, even, in the case of the examples you point out here. Articles about the subject would invariably favour retouched versions. What can you do? It might b a hard-fought battle, but you might get support for captioning the use of these restorations as "interpretations" or "artist impressions" or somesuch. I wouldn't hold out much hope though. --mikaul^talk 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be fully supportive of the use of these images in articles about their subject, and would also be happy to see a caption indicating that it is retouched. On the other hand, for articles where it is the photograph or photographic method itself that is the subject, I would agree that the retouched version should not be used.

However I object strongly to this wording used by Sswonk: "I have major problems with the intentions of the editors who did this." I believe this to be an unfair slight against the character of myself and the other editors who have contributed retouched images of old photographs (albeit, in my case, not daguerreotypes), and would politely request that Sswonk retract that remark.

Speaking for myself, I performed work on the image of John C. Breckinridge. This was made entirely in good faith, with an honest view to producing a useful image. I in no way wish to destroy or corrupt the historic record - on the contrary I am very much in favour of it being preserved: the image's description page links directly to the original source image at LoC, and also to a version of the original hosted on Commons. ∙ AJCham talk 21:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not retracting the remark as requested. The edit summary of Connormah (talk • contribs • logs) in his revert of my revert to the John Quincy Adams page stated: "I think the cleaned one represents the image more clearly, without distracting elements." I do not agree with those intentions. My statement said nothing about your character, or even whether I thought that the edits were not done in good faith. On the contrary, I am absolutely convinced they were done in good faith. I disagree with the use of modern techniques to alter the historical records in this way: I want to see the original photograph from the Library of Congress, not what your requestor Connormah views as better looking. In my view it is a case of good intentions but done without forethought as to the implications of what is being done. The image at John Quincy Adams was not properly cited when I originally posted this topic, and you have provided the Commons description of your work properly. Therefor, you should not take offense, and I will not retract. Sswonk (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If the intent here is to illustrate for the reader what John Quincy Adams looked like, rather than what a particular now-damaged print of a photographic negative looks like in its present condition, then surely some photoediting is in order. For consistency, preserving the record, and all the other reasons named it would be best to develop a template that allows the reader to see either the "original" (which, in most cases is not an original at all, but somebody's scan of a print or negative) or the retouched / restored version, along with some explanation of what was done to the image and by whom. Surely this is a broad, long-term issue in serious photography circles. The world is full of botched art restorations, so many of them are misguided. We will develop norms here. WP:OR does not apply, that relates to sourcing of text. Here it is a consensus / process for choosing which image to use. What is the standard for scholarly works, exhibits, museum archives, and the like? Why don't we follow their lead? Wikidemon (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress, the original source of the image which is shown unretouched on the left, set the standard by publishing the image as shown. We don't need to find anyone leading to follow, the leader is the highly professional provider of the work. The first part of your comment is what I am arguing against, that we can possibly know what John Quincy Adams looked like any better than the original photo shows. That is pure fantasy. He was the first president photographed. As for the part about WP:OR applying to text, I realized that and this is an area that I have yet to find a better guideline covering the issue, however stretching WP:SYN a bit this is an example of using source A, a photograph, combined with source B, software filters for digital editing, to come up with conclusion C, the opinion of an editor as to what the man looked like (really, what the editor thinks make him look his best). If there is a guideline covering photo manipulation, and I am looking for one, that obviously would be more specific than WP:SYN. OR is what I am using for now to stress my point that—like presenting text in an altered form as a quotation—retouching this and similar photos has the potential for all sorts of error and we are vastly better off and the reader better served by our using the image as is. To use an extreme example of how this is misleading to readers, imagine offering the reader a ride in a 1932 Ford like the hot rods pictured in the article, but telling them "this is how these cars ran off the assembly line!" No thanks, that is not what a good encyclopedia is about. Surely talented people can fix up photos just as experienced hot rod mechanics can juice up cars, no question. But that really isn't being responsible to the historical record in any explanation. We're an encyclopedia, not a manufacturer of collectors' items at souvenir shops. That is what the retouched photo reminds me of. Sswonk (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Second that, although you're relying on a fairly weak interpretation of WP:SYN. I prefer a slightly stronger reading of WP:OR, specifically WP:OI, backed up with criteria written for Featured Pictures. Wikidemon raises a couple of valid points about general article use but I do think repaired-damaged historical images should be very prominently labelled as such, especially if the subject itself has been altered in any way, and the original file equally prominently linked on the description page. Even if there was a "standard practice" in other archives we should definitely think twice about presenting 21st century interpretations as 19th century originals. Sure, negatives are the true originals but raw scans are utterly faithful copies; even prints or other reproductions are open to manipulation of some form. Without getting too purist about it, we have a duty to present historical items as faithfully as possible within the bounds of quality illustration. This means if a photograph is severely damaged and would have exceptional encyclopedic value as a repaired image, we should offer a retouched version. If an image is slightly water damaged, missing emulsion from the edges, or perhaps unevenly developed as a negative, I would argue strongly for the original, unrepaired version to preside wherever it appears, as encyclopedic value would be lost, not gained, by correcting those flaws. --mikaul^talk 09:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[Bounce left] I disagree with the use of modern techniques to alter the historical records in this way: I want to see the original photograph from the Library of Congress, not what your requestor Connormah views as better looking. ¶ You may be in the lucky position of being able to see the original, but the closest [or not] most of us will get is either the LoC's digital reproduction thereof, or a reproduction in a book. Yes I agree that one should at the least (i) think very hard before "restoring" an image, and (ii) acknowledge that this "restoration" has been done. [Let's skip the quotes around "restoration" and variants thereof: these become tiresome.] However, it's conceivable that a restored digital copy presents the original print more faithfully than does the pre-restoration digital copy. I'd agree that this is unlikely, but it's worth at least a moment's thought. I'd be particularly interested in a comparison between these two files and a reproduction in a meticulously edited and printed scholarly book. ¶ Let's agree, though, that the unrestored version is more likely to represent the photograph. Now, is it desirable to process a photograph such as this in an effort to make the result more realistic or a better representation of what the camera was pointing at? (For the sake of brevity, let's make the dangerous assumption that the photographer aimed at realism, and put aside the question of what realism consists of.) ¶ I'm no expert in photo restoration, old emulsions, or gimping, but off the top of my head I can think of three things that people might do. First, the "removal" (replacement) of dirt, cracks, and other "noise". Secondly, bending the whatever-it's-called curve to "bring out shadow detail" and "unblow" highlights and so forth. Thirdly, more local fiddling in an attempt to compensate for the pre-panchromatic sensitivity. Now, I'd guess that most people would rush to approve of at least the first two of these. After all, it is, or sounds like, the still equivalent of what they've come to expect (or been brainwashed to expect) in DVDs. Moreover, their own family collection of holiday snaps and so on from color negatives will provide abundant evidence of deterioration in photos over merely two decades. ¶ So advising people, even thoughtful people, that restoration is not a good idea -- this is going to be a very hard sell. Can you point to a persuasive (thoughtful, not overly long or technical, non-strident) web page on the virtue of non-restoration? -- Hoary (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict!) I'll admit to having a difficult time finding anything that supports exactly what I am saying. However, to find something that covers the concept of Wikipedia's policy against original research is going to be difficult. I was referred to WP:OI which is very clear about what is considered original research in this area. Quoting:

Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be deleted from the article and a note should be posted at the file page informing users that the file contains Original Research. It is also suggested that the file be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion.

Since that statement is contained in WP:NOR, policy, I think my attempt to tie the term "original research" to visual, rather than text, information is validated. The question then becomes, what constitutes something that "materially affects its encyclopedic value"? That is a loaded question and is where the argument stands in my view. I have also discussed this elsewhere on a couple of talk pages, and am currently attempting to gather a group, especially those commenting here, who will be interested in participating in a centralized discussion that will expand on that single sentence in the policy, probably by creating a guideline that emphasizes minimum retouching. Regarding what you wrote about what people might do, I couldn't support broadly allowing any of those. It should be made clear that photographic restoration must be extremely faithful to the original and any manipulation should be done with extreme care. I hope this discussion can be centralized somewhere and would like to read some opinions on where that might be. For now, my suggestion is at the WP:NOR talk page, where the statement quoted is found. However, there may be a much more logical and appropriate venue that I haven't thought of, so please weigh in on that. For amusement, readers can visit http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com, which I found when trying to support the virtue of non-restoration. Sswonk (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I realise this project might not be the professed home for this kind of thing but as it's here, I'd suggest pointing interested parties to this discussion, at least for the time being. --mikaul^talk 01:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This particular image is an especially ill-suited example to form the basis of any serious discussion about Wikipedia's parameters for image editing. Yes, John Quincy Adams posed for a daguerrotype. Several months ago I downloaded the highest resolution version of the Library of Congress original and determined that it was not suitable for restoration; I suspected it was not the original Upon review, the unrestored version above is definitely not the original. Wikidemon's and Hoary's mentions of "negatives" are a tipoff that something is seriously wrong: have a read of the daguerrotype article. Upon review, the bibliographic notes make it clear: this image was not digitized from the original. It was digitized from a glass colloidon negative copy made by either Matthew Brady or Levin Corbin Handy long after Adams's death. Adams died in 1848; this image was made between 1855 and 1865. The unedited image could not have been the original. Jklamo's edit brought out the wispy character of the glass plate negative. When something doesn't look like a daguerrotype, please check to see whether it actually isn't. The only possible way to reproduce the daguerrotype was rephotography, with a consequent loss of detail. I'll take a wild guess and venture that the negative may also have been physically retouched. Durova³⁰⁸ 02:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that in the notes from LOC as well. The term Daguerreotype as used in the title of this thread can be thrown out and replaced with "historically significant photograph". Thank you Durova. Where is jklamo in this? I see that name in the file description but beyond that I see Julielangford. Sswonk (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No idea; I don't know Jklamo. The main thrust of this point is how that particular image only looks like a daguerrotype at low resolution. The resemblance is artificial, and attempts at restoration enhance its artificiality. That isn't necessarily the fault of the digital editor. Durova³⁰⁸ 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point, I confess I didn't even look at the description page of the original upload. The glass neg copy would have provided the only way possible to reproduce the original image and may even be the only extant version of it. That notwithstanding, what we started off with is a daguerrotype that may or may not have been retouched (quite a common practice, despite their small size) that was then copied, presumably in order to make a number of reproductions, or possibly to apply more retouching on the subsequent print, this being an important image even then. Worth noting that collodion emulsions are extremely difficult to retouch – it was always done on the resulting print – so that crude repair on our upload is almost certainly digital.
However the collodion negative provided a very good reproduction, for its day; making a very large format copy of a very small format original is basically what we're doing when we make hi-res scans of these things. The LoC scan should, therefore, be considered a very close approximation to the original image and a more faithful reproduction than, say, a print made at the time. It may not provide the perfect example to illustrate a discussion on restoration ethics, but it does introduce two important and distinct "classes" of reproduction: faithful and enhanced.
Among the faithful, there should be a further subdivision of original "seen" and "unseen". Copy negs and even raw scans may appear to provide veracious reproduction but they invariably change tonal compression, colour hues (including monochrome tints) and subtleties like the true depth of blacks and clarity of highlights are often lost unless the archivist takes time to properly calibrate the process. Film copies are really tough to calibrate; when I did this sort of thing years ago I'd often run as many as a dozen 10x8 sheets of Ektachrome through, using a range of filtering and processing tweaks, just to get something that closely approximated the original; it was extremely expensive and frankly unjustifiable for all but the most important works. Even though the same care taken with a digital copy is much quicker (and cheaper!) I really don't know how often it is used. Certainly the sheer volume of work archived at the LoC I know to have been a major barrier even to digital calibration, let alone perceptual comparison and correction; many later scans are made alongside colour control strips and this can allow later editors achieve relatively accurate colour correction, but crucially it's not done in sight of the original and those subtleties are lost.
I'd argue that only a copy that is visually calibrated in this way (original sighted) can be considered a first-class veracious reproduction. In practice, certainly with LoC scans, we're stuck with "unseen" copies, a kind of second-class faithful reproduction. This should both temper our zeal slightly when we compare image editing to WP:OI guidelines, and provide a cautionary note to editors when making assumptions about restoring original tone and hue. It's from this perspective that we have to examine the necessary changes to repair damage, enhance and "clean up" subject visibility and generally improve illustrative value (or EV – encyclopedic value) per comments above. I also think we need to be very careful with words like "restoration" when what we more often mean is "repair". These distinctions made, we can look at best practice and other ethical issues. Without them we're likely to start at different ends of the elephant and get nowhere fast. --mikaul^talk 00:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to a subpage

This discussion has been copied to this subpage in an attempt to formalise a consensus for developing guidelines for historical image use. --mikaul^talk 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Weegee

According to what Wikipedia says, Zolochiv (the city where the famous fotographer Arthur Fellig alias Weegee was born) belonged to Austria in 1899 (and not to Poland). The city passed to Poland in 1918 and today is part of Ukraine. Due to this fact, maybe the name of the place Weegee was born should not be written as Złoczów, as it is the way it is written in Polish. Thank you. --79.155.163.148 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of Jacob Riis

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the artcile which you can see at Talk:Jacob Riis/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help cleanup the requested articles list

I collated from the various Request pages all the names of individual photographers and organized them onto the Biography Request page. The Biography page is a reasonable place for them, I think, because it's well organized and has clear instructions and notability warnings; I also added a link to the notability guidelines in this project. I'm less qualified to judge, but probably a significant portion of them are self-promoters or non-notable. It would be really useful if a knowledgeable editor or two would undertake to brutally sift through the list and clean out the non-notables (move them to the Non-notability section). --Joseph Hewes (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start at the brutal sifting.

I haven't merely cleared out the non-notable, I've been more brutal. I've cleared out many (though not yet all) of those whose notability is not obvious. I haven't googled names and have no intention of doing so: if people lack the energy to provide some reason for their nominations, I lack the energy to look for a reason. If what I did breaks the rules, feel free to revert my edits to the list, and hope that somebody else will do the googling. -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So how about this? -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that at least some of those people merit an article. I'm the satisfied owner of one book by John Swope myself. However, I simply lack the time and effort to write up more than a small percentage of the photographers whose work interests me. And then there are a lot of photographers whose work doesn't interest me but that I suppose is worthwhile in its way. ¶ So we need more writers. I think the best way is to be more encouraging to the inexperienced people who now and again turn out honorable (if usually problematic) attempts at new articles. More often than not these articles show (have?) poor sourcing, or editorialize, or both. But even polite and easily justified criticism (let alone mention of suspicions of "COI") is most likely to turn away these people (and perhaps their real-world friends too). So I try to show patience. -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Color photography

Can anyone help with Color photography? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably, yes... it's quite an undertaking, most of it needs a total re-write, sources etc and the preservation section, while quite good, was written without inline citations back in 2007 by an editor who's since disappeared. If anyone has access to the reference works he listed that would be really useful, otherwise it might have to go... I have sources etc for the rest and will try to make a start on it next week. --mikaul^talk 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to improve the article, I made a mistake, researched it and corrected it. Next time someone makes a mistake it could stay for months. The article needs an expert who can spot mistakes. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possible new article - notable photographer?

I don't know much about photography so I wanted the opinions of members of the WikiProject before going ahead with creation of this article.

Ann Sanfedele is a professional photographer. In this list on Amazon of her works, some are self-published, but Sign Language (ISBN 978-0806513560) was a book of her photos from a non-vanity commercial publisher, and Letterati: An Unauthorized Look at Scrabble and the People Who Play It (ISBN 978-1550228281) from ECW Press featured her photos. Her website at http://annsan.smugmug.com/ has more information about her work.

Based on the foregoing, she appears to me to satisfy the notability criteria for photographers. Am I right? JamesMLane t c 15:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, barely. But if anyone took the article to AfD, I doubt that it would survive. I didn't bother to look her up at Google, but her website doesn't suggest that reliable sources have written her up. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Requested article

Hi folks,

We've had a request from Greg Williams if an article could be written about him. It came in at OTRS:4338374 and is as follows:

 > > Its Greg Williams, photographer from the Maurice Lacroix shoot in > > Miami. How the devil are you? > > It was a real pleasure meeting you. As discussed I would love to touch > > base with you some time this year in NY and film you talking about > > Wikipedia. > > We also talked about getting some profile of me on Wikipedia. > > As well as a bit of promotion the main point I want to get out there > > is that I have produced the worlds first moving magazine cover (for > > web). and the first printed magazine cover taken on the Red One > > digital cinema camera (a video camera). > > Since I did both these several magazines have come out claiming they > > are the first and I want to straighten it out. my real reason is that > > in 10 years from now our print media will have completely changed and > > will predominately be online so to have done the first is pretty cool. > > The first moving cover was shot for Esquire US edition June 09 see > > http://www.esquire.com/video//?click=vid_sr#v20980595001 > > we then did the first magazine cover taken on a video camera with kate > > beckinsale for Esquire's sexiest woman alive cover Nov 09 > > 2 months later Time magazine ran the end of decade cover-story shot in > > the same way and wrongly claimed it as a world first, then changed > > their tune to "first news magazine" > > In July 08 I shot the worlds first moving movie poster for Quantum of > > Solace which ran on screens around London and New York. see > > http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/image.php?album_id=44&album_item_id=576 > > examples of all my moving covers and movie posters can be seen at > > http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/index.php?album_id=44 > > To get a feel for my work please see http://www.gregwilliams.com > > I saw the potential of the Red One camera http://www.red.com back in 06 when > > they first announced their plans and seeing a still frame decided the > > files were big enough to print in magazines. > > I shot my first red footage for an italian vogue editorial published > > august 08. I believe this was the first ever red still used over a > > spread. > > I am now starting to shoot commercials and just completed my first > > proper dramatic short film last week and shoot another end of this > > month. > > It is my belief that all photographers will be director/photographers > > within 3-5 years and would love my place in that historical transition > > in the art for. FIlms will no longer have to fit traditional > > structures and may be as short as a second or as long as you like. > > Nest will be the opportunity for everyone to sell their movies online > > and effectively to become their own movie studio capable of shooting, > > editing, marketing, selling and distributing. I am hoping to establish > > the first big paying short film in february but that for another day. > > Ill keep you posted. > > I'm waffling now sorry. Please let me know if something can be written > > and if you need more substantiation of any of these facts. > > here are a few links that may help. > > see more of my filming at http://www.vimeo.com/user2761369/videos > > > http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/04/megan-fox-gets-the-red-one-treatment-for-esquire-cover.html > > http://gizmodo.com/5229743/megan-fox-esquire-cover-shot-in-video-not-stills > > http://visualjournalist.org/?p=362 > > > http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/11/another-red-one-magazine-cover-times-crying-baby.html 

He can be contacted at gregwilliams2mac.com; can someone please look into this? Stifle (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Tošo Dabac

Hello. I'm working on an article about Tošo Dabac, a Yugoslav/Croatian photographer who was active between the 1930s and 1960s. Apparently he was notable internationally in late 1930s and some of the Croatian biographies I've found online say that his photographs won five monthly contests in the American photography magazine called Camera Craft some time in the period between 1937 and 1939. His work was also shown at several exhibitions in the United States and around Europe around the same time. I was wondering whether there are any online archives or sites with scanned copies of Camera Craft from that period, or perhaps exhibition programs which I could use as sources or for article illustration as English-language articles on him seem to be scarce. Also, any suggestions on how to improve the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of Demi's Birthday Suit

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit/GA2. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)