Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Notability criteria for photographers

I've arrogantly stolen and substantially altered Pinkville's list. I hope that he doesn't (you don't) mind.

One major change is removal of the "Che Guevara" criterion. Eudora Welty and Claude Simon are hugely better known as writers than as photographers. But there are books of their photos, so they're in. It's widely believed that the British Queen Liz II takes photos; as long as these are not seen by the rest of the world, she's no more notable a photographer than I am. (I'm not knocking her: I'm willing to believe that she's better than me.) -- Hoary 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, and the changes are for the better. Pinkville 14:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I saw that you added your project to the directory, so decided to stick my nose in for a little look-see. I also created a draft userbox for your project which is referenced on the project page and a draft project banner at Template:WikiProject HOP. Please feel free to make any changes to either that you see fit. I do have a few small suggestions. You might consider reading the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide if you want to review some ideas about project creation from people who are more experienced than I am about that sort of thing. Most of the ideas are good ones, I've found out. Another one is that you might at your project to the new project section of the Wikipedia:Community Portal, and get a bit of publicity that way.
Here I make my pitch for getting you to engage in assessment, as per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Doing so is both useful for your project and wikipedia as a whole, in that it helps you and others help determine which are the best articles, and which ones are closest to Wikipedia:Featured article and Wikipedia:Good article status. Doing so will also give you an automated list of the current status and recent changes of any articles within the scope of your project. If you choose to engage in this sort of assessment but have some questions about what exactly to do, please feel free to contact me. Good luck with the project. Badbilltucker 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the groovy template and yes, we'll certainly look into assessment. Unfortunately I have to drop out of WP for 40 hours or so, and I might not be able to rush to do this even when I come back, but if nobody else does this then I shall. Pardon the terse and perhaps incoherent reply but (for reasons entirely unrelated to this) I'm so sleepy I'm sliding off my chair. -- Hoary 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O. Winston Link

I feel that O. Winston Link should be one of the photographers that we seek to elevate to GA/FA status. He was an important photographer, best known for his railroad photographs in the 1950s. Can we add him to the list? --rogerd 17:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that he'd be in the first or perhaps even second rank of photographers by most standards, but he's certainly a remarkable photographer and one who created valuable and enjoyable work. (I own a book of his photos myself.) He's also refreshingly different from the other [we hope] to-be-featured people. So yes! -- Hoary 22:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
PS I've pushed him to the very top of the list, with Cartier-Bresson. -- Hoary 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sister project for actual equipment?

I've been thinking for a while of doing a project with a complimentary theme to this one, that being an emphasis on photographic equipment. Thoughts? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want something that's detailed, I believe that it already exists, and that it's called Camerapedia. Well, it's very patchy, and you'll note it tends not to bother with cameras that are already written up well elsewhere -- Why write yet more about the Nikon F? -- but thanks in great part to the indefatigible Rebollo fr, it has a number of superb articles, often on unexpected hardware.
WP and Camerapedia are both GFDL so they can feed off each other. In fact they've already started to do so:
Hoary 12:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Aha, I notice your WikiProject Cameras draft. -- Hoary 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the heck can't we just have one on (articles on) photography in general and make the other WikiProject change their name to something like WikiProject WikiPhotography? Recury 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any inherent reason against this suggestion. Further, I've nothing against articles, even detailed ones, about cameras: over at Camerapedia, I've helped in writing them myself, and though I've hardly been active there for a couple of weeks I intend to resume my activities. That said, I've seen how efforts at WP seem to be taken over by fans of consumer durables. Normally I wouldn't care if there were twenty articles on cameras for every one about a notable photographer, but I fear that fans of the former would influence the latter, and efforts to improve articles on Marville, Inha, Schmöz, Halsman would be drowned out by talk about photography for skateboard and heavy metal magazines. (Not that I deny that the latter deserve articles, if they're really notable.) Back to cameras. I suppose the most "famous"/notable one that I use is a Canon F-1 (the slightly revised version of the mechanical original). I've never owned a near-equivalent Nikon (e.g. the F2) but I have tried them. I greatly prefer the Canon; others greatly prefer the Nikon. My photographs are so mediocre that of course it doesn't matter if I use an F-1 or a F2, but more importantly I don't believe that it matters whether a good photographer uses the one or the other (or any other manual SLR). The Canon/Nikon (/Asahi/Minolta/Konishiroku etc.) distinctions and rivalries mean little to the history of photography.

But keep an eye on Morven's embryonic camera project. I'd guess that he'd appreciate your help. And of course your help would be greatly appreciated here too..... -- Hoary 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template-splattering

[comment moved from the project page:] All the articles listed above have now had the template added. But there are more to come! Pinkville 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The template needs to be splattered on a lot of article talk pages. When you've checked that all of a list or category of articles has been splattered, please list it below. If you add an article to the project page, please make sure that you've added a template to the talk page of the article itself.

[edit] Already splattered with templates

[edit] Quality of article, importance of topic

[edit] Quality of article

In the section above titled "Hello", Badbilltucker discreetly recommends adoption of the 1.0 assessment system: Doing so is both useful for your project and wikipedia as a whole, in that it helps you and others help determine which are the best articles, and which ones are closest to Wikipedia:Featured article and Wikipedia:Good article status. Having quickly reread what's written about the assessment system, I strongly agree. Does anyone disagree? -- Hoary 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Following a perfunctory discussion below, it's already set up and running. -- Hoary 05:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of topic

This assessment system is often coupled with another, Importance of topic. This assessment can and often is made, e.g. when the editor of a work such as the Oxford Companion to the Photograph (which I see as an inspiration for this new little project) decides how much space to devote to what. But this seems to me to be fraught with problems. Take Mapplethorpe, for example:

  • Top: Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia. What sort of encyclopedia are we talking about here? The man and his work are well known, and for this reason alone I'd expect an article to appear in Britannica and the Oxford Companion. However, I'd expect hundreds of other photographers to appear in the latter. If this is a smaller, general purpose encyclopedia, then I'd need to know what kind it was.
  • High: Subject contributes [to?] a depth of knowledge. Yes of course, as would an article on anything of any significance.
  • Mid: Subject fills in more minor details. More minor than the contribution [to?] a depth of knowledge? To me, this means "mere trivia", which should anyway be skipped.
  • Low: Subject is mainly of specialist interest. Is this really a category for what's below trivia? Anyway, I don't think RM is of specialist interest (unless the specialist is one of those harmless drudges grinding out yet another PhD thesis in "queer studies" or whatever). Rather, he's of little interest to specialists, and instead of journalistic interest.

Anyway, this hasn't helped me place RM vis-à-vis Avedon, let alone Mark or Lange or Inha. And if I ignored the descriptions provided for Top/High/Mid/Low and rated Mapplethorpe, Avedon, Mark, Lange and Inha to my own satisfaction, I've got no reason to think that this relative evaluation would be the same as anyone else's and I certainly don't relish the prospect of spending time arguing over it, or for that matter deciding whether any of them is as significant as autochrome.

So I suggest not attempting to rate the importance of the topice. Anyone disagree? -- Hoary 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Assessing the quality of an article - or at least its comprehensiveness - is certainly worthwhile, but I have no interest whatever in assessing the "importance" of a topic. One of the reasons I went ahead with the Rossier article was precisely because he is virtually unknown yet had a significant influence on the early history of photography in China and Japan... But how would one rate his importance as a topic in more general terms? I wouldn't care to take the time to wonder. I'd rather simply write the article, make it as good as I'm able, and leave it to others to use or ignore. Pinkville 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done! Though not all the way there yet. See for example Talk:Shisei Kuwabara and note how, via some hocus pocus that I don't want to investigate while (as today) connected via modem, this is in the categories "WikiProject History of photography" (OK) but "Start-class Japan related articles" (much more helpful). -- Hoary 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC) .... PS and that's done too. (My next phone bill will be horrendous.) -- Hoary 05:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotlists

(In the sense of "lists of subjects that probably deserve articles")

It would be useful to have lists of photographers (etc) covered by such works as the Oxford Companion to the Photograph. I'm not sure about the legality of copying in lists that have been composed for copyright books; I suspect that these are copyright. While I'm confused, I'll just say that the editor 20th Century (Zenhan) Art, who unfortunately hasn't been active here for some months, has created a list of the 328 photographers in 日本写真家事典 (an excellent dictionary of Japanese photographers). Its legality aside, it should be used with some care as although the names are in the Wikipedia-approved but dreadful Hepburn romanization it skips macrons. Also, the list doesn't put the names of people born after the Meiji "restoration" back to front, to accord with sclerotic prejudices and a daft WP rule. Thus for example NAITO Tadayuki ("209. NAITO Tadayuki, b. 1941 (内藤忠行, ないとう ただゆき)") should be "Tadayuki Naitō". And User:20th Century (Zenhan) Art presents other, shorter hotlists on his user page. -- Hoary 00:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article improvement drive

[edit] Now

[edit] Henri Cartier-Bresson

I've just now gone through much of Henri Cartier-Bresson, and I hope to continue. It has the makings of a "Good Article", but there's a lot to be done. Some I can easily change, e.g. the chummy way in which it describes the photographer as "Henri". Others I can't, notably sourcing of all the quotations. Those of you with books about HCB, please pitch in. -- Hoary 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O. Winston Link

[edit] Photojournalism

[edit] Later

[edit] Photographers

Please add any name after considering the critical reputation, or at least fame, of the photographer, or the quality (or ease of improvement) of the existing article, and please explain it on the discussion page. Let's not forget the earliest, the most recent, those whose work is published primarily or exclusively with texts in languages other than English. And let's keep the number of FA/GA-wannabes well under fifty, so that this list is inspiring rather than dispiriting.

[edit] Notable Photographs

[edit] Processes

[edit] Techniques

[edit] Equipment

[please don't add individual products or brands]

[edit] History

[History of photography in various countries]

[edit] Theory

[Representation (arts) and photography]
[Realism and photography]
[Feminism and photography]
Photojournalism

[edit] Theorists, historians, curators and collectors of photography

[edit] Photographs

[edit] Kiss

I've started to look through Category:Photographs. Seeing Kiss (photograph) listed among them, I immediately thought of two or three likely choices. It turned out to be none of these, and instead something that strikes me as entirely forgettable. No claim is made for its quality, rather, it's said to be very popular. Is there anything to this? -- Hoary 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember the image, it enjoyed some 'popularity' on Google for a while. I have the vague recollection that it was part of an advertising campaign for something or other. Does any of that make it notable or worthwhile? I doubt it. Unless we wnat to have WP articles on any photograph that's making the rounds at any given time. On the other hand Robert Doisneau's Kiss would make sense! Pinkville 13:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Photographic processes

In splattering templates on the articles listed in this category, three main issues came to mind: 1) at least half the articles were apparently written under a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term photographic process (to wit: "procedures by which light-sensitive materials are made to produce an image" ~ The Getty), 2) at least half the articles have been substantially or entirely lifted from other sources, and 3) many of those articles that aren't mere copy/paste jobbies (actually, also many that are) are very poorly written. Another issue that may be worth considering is that of how to deal with proprietary photographic processes when different brand names essentially duplicate the properties of each other but have been given separate articles... Pinkville 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In a related but separate note, I don't believe it's necessary to add templates to the articles on photographic chemicals since they really are more concerned with issues in chemistry than photography. Pinkville 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the miscategorization problems have to do with the fact that the inclusion criteria aren't very clear. With that category, if you don't know that definition of photographic process, the name must seem pretty vague. Category:Photographic techniques has the exact same problem. I've used your definition to write at the top some criteria for the category. I think if we go through that category really good and take out the stuff that doesn't belong, we won't have this problem in the future. Recury 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, the Getty definition I linked above includes a useful definition of photographic techniques that could be placed in the latter Category page. I'll do that myself. Pinkville 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of WP Projects: Photography & History of Photography

This discussion began on my talk page, so I've moved it here since it might be of interest to everyone involved in the project. I've left out the parts of the discussion that relate to other matters. Pinkville 01:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

...I think that WP Photography is probably wrongly named, because that project is really a Wikipedia maintenance project (expanding articles with photos), whereas a WikiProject bearing that name should be about editing the articles covering the subject of photography - which I presume is why HoP was created. Ideally, I think you HoP guys should be allowed to take that name, while the Photography project should be renamed something like WP Article Photography or WP Wiki Photography - or perhaps even consider merging with WP Illustration, which functions to maintain all images within the wiki and is still a very active project. Not certain what your thoughts are on the matter, but I hope that we are somewhat of the same mind, since it's irksome that you guys at HoP were forced to chose a name that's slightly too specific. Anyway, best of luck and hope to talk soon! Girolamo Savonarola 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

... I agree completely, it's a shame such a [WP] specific project came to use the most general term imaginable. But since that's the case, I think it would be more trouble than it's worth to refine the two projects' names, diverting our respective energies from proceeding with the projects themselves. Thanks for the thoughtful note. Until next time! Pinkville 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No worries, then! Having had to populate a project with talk page templates myself, I completely understand. As far as the project names go...would you mind if I kicked up a fuss, then? I do understand the desire to keep the energies well-focused, but I think that this is worth it for several reasons - possible merging of Photography with Illustration (also regrettably misnamed), avoiding HoP having a dispute about scope with someone on the basis that its name implies a limited scope to history, and ease of use for editors, amongst many others. Girolamo Savonarola 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
... I agree with your reasoning, but I'm still leary about the effort that may be required (if name changes were accepted) to change all the implicated links in these two projects. But then, maybe there are programming and mark-up short cuts that I (not surprisingly) know nothing about that would expedite such a process... Why don't we... see what others think, and then approach the WP Project: Photography folks if necessary. Thanks again for your helpful thoughts and suggestions. Pinkville 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree the more general title should apply to the HoP project as it is broader in scope. I would want to make this change with as little controversy as possible. I don't think we should usurp the title of the other project without their consent and agreement. Also, I want to make sure our limited time is spent improving the articles and adding knowlege to Wiki, not making purely formatting changes. SteveHopson 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Steve, but I'd go further. ¶ Every day for the last week I've carried a little digicam around with me (in addition to the one in my phone, I mean), and I bought a sparkling new lens just yesterday. Thus I'm just another pathetic male toy-collector/nerd, really. I rather like my digicam. It's an example of a kind of camera that has historical significance. But I doubt that the particular model has any historical significance whatever. <span class="pipedream">Given 60 hours in the day and the post of general editorship of the world's biggest ever encyclopedia of photography,</span> I'd allocate no space to the particular model of digicam that I use. While I wouldn't rush to send a WP article about it to AfD, I'd be prejudiced against such an article and I certainly have no intention of creating one myself. But this is just the kind of article that I can easily imagine swamping WP-HOP-renamed-as-WP-Photography: see List of Canon products, for example. There's nothing wrong with writing articles about (some) cameras (and indeed I've done so myself at Camerapedia); but partly inspired by an essay by Ken Rockwell, I happen to think that it's handy to separate (a) photographs and photography from (b) the particular tools used for it. If this separation persists (and I understand that it may be controversial), then "Photography" would be a misnomer for the former half of it, and "History of Photography" seems as good a term as any. Moreover, I suspect that it may be a good term for the way its very title implies a test of significance: No, we don't care if this or that photograph or photographer or whatever was mentioned in such-and-such an episode of The Simpsons. ¶ But perhaps I'm wrong, and there should be a Grand Unified WikiProject about photography. I wouldn't mind that much if it were a fait accompli by other, more energetic people; however, I am unexcited by the idea of changing lots of templates, etc., by hand. I've never used a bot, am not keen to read about how to use one, and get the impression that most bots use Windows, which I no longer bother to use. ¶ So all in all I have no enthusiasm for a change. -- Hoary 08:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • More agreement. I don't have a problem with the name History of Photography anyway, but think it's unfortunate that - in my view - the Project Photography is misnamed, and would probably have been better off as Wikipedia photographs or Wikipedia images, but c'est la vie. The project names are less important than careful descriptions of their missions, etc. The important issue is the public content, not the backstage form. Pinkville 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ezra Stoller

Hello, I just noticed that we don't have an article on Ezra Stoller, does anyone here know much about this photographer? Would anyone like to help write this article? Regards, DVD+ R/W 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind my retitling this section.) I for one had never heard of Stoller till I read your message. A quick google told me that he's certainly worth an article, but at this point I regret that I can't offer to make any substantial contribution to it. -- Hoary 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary - retitling is fine, I will add this article to my to do list, which is overwhelming right now. Anyone else want to help? /me hears an echo from deeep in wikispace DVD+ R/W 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I can get the Stoller ball rolling with a reasonable stub, but I don't have the access I formerly had to a specialised library to expand such an article. Maybe later on that score. Pinkville 12:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The article-stub has been started. Pinkville 13:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_History_of_photography_3937.html"