Talk:Street photography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Okay, I have created the talk page so it should now be easy to make comments.
Use 'edit this page' or '+' on the tabs at the top to add comments.
Contents |
[edit] Streetphoto Mailing list discussion
John Matturri has offered to do a definition which would be a lot better than mine, I think. Tom says he thinks the definition is not friendly to people who know nothing about SP and I think he's right. UnSane 14:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Re-arranged first couple of paragraphs
Took the content of the "definition" section and moved it to front of the article, then deleted the definition section. Seems alot clearer to me that way. Nut feel free to back out the changes if you disagree.
BTW, seems like we could really do with a typical SP photograph (or two) at the top of the page, maybe one B+W and one colour?
-- tom
Tom, that's much better. Thanks. The outline is really just a suggestion. Not all the things need to be split into different headings, they can just be paragraphs within a single heading.
I agree about the photos but it has to be something that can be published under the GNU license. Any ideas?
I think we should add a link section for street photographers working today.
UnSane 00:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] It's been a while
OK, nobody had touched this article in a while, so I started filling in gaps in the heads and subheads that had thus far been left blank. I hardly did anything with pre-existing text.
[edit] Links
Wikipedia is not a repository of links or an advertising billboard. Moreover, linking to photographer's personal websites from is vanity and SPAM. If these photographers are notable enough then they should be given their own articles from which it would be appropriate to have links to their sites. If these links are repeatedly added I will report this at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. siafu 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
I have added the site of a street photographer that I admire. I am somewhat at a loss as to why a page on street photography would not permit links to photographer's websites. It seems relevant to me, and to have a page that focuses on an art but does not feature any artists seems counter intuitive. I would suggest that an artist who wants people to view his work is not vanity or spam, but the whole point of creating art. I'm also wondering why this link keeps getting deleted and the Full frame images site (which appears to be an artist's personal site) does not.
Thanks - Bill
@Siafu - from the "Wikipedia is not" page you cite: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Adding links to contemporary street photographers is not link spam. You are removing links at will and leaving in links that fall under your very own definition. Consider creating a link area for working street photographers as brought up by another user before.....
The links I added were "content-relevant links", not simply personal photographer links.... If we followed your definion of what that is, you would have to remove in-public and full frame images as well.
-Babaschwabba
- Since full frame seems to be such a terrible concern, I removed that as well, though I didn't add it and it's inclusion has nothing to do with whether or not the others removed should be added.
- The fact that we're dealing with "artists" wanting people to view their "work" and not "merchants" wanting people to view their "wares" does not mean that posting the links is any less a matter of advertising. You'll notice that the book article does not contain links to local bookstores, amazon.com, author's websites, or local libraries; similarly the street photography article is not a bulletin board for individuals to post their own websites or those of photographers they happen to admire.
- I too am a street photographer and I have a website, as is the case for thousands, even millions, of people throughout the world. This does not merit any or all of them for inclusion in the wikipedia article on street photography. In short, it is not encyclopedic to make endorsements, and against wikipedia policy to include these links here. As I said above, if any of these artists are "notable", they should have their own articles, from which a link to their website would be perfectly appropriate. siafu 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
I disagree. Content-relevant links are what we are talking about. People who come to read about street photography should be directed to sites that are current on the topic. You are removing content and making this page less informative. Why not try adding content. You are too quick to remove based on your own judgement, thus not being objective; plus you are taking the rules too literally. Your site should be here also, but alas, you have no text or anything relating to street photography on that site so it would not fit too well. All the links that were here before should stay. Content-relevant links are allowed in the Wikipedia regardless of their origin (did you read my last post?). The constant removal of personal sites is a major error by editors all over this site. I am going to suggest a mediator to take care of this.
Also, what made you remove all of these links in the first place? And if you are so keen on what is personal and what is not, why did you leave in the Full Frame images site earlier? And what of In-public then? It is a site that commercially promotes Street Photographers. It is not a resource or learning tool but an agent for them , like the way amazon.com is an agent for authors. And the mailing list? That site is all about spam and has no purpose here. I also added a photographic forum earlier today and it was removed. It seems you removed everything I added regardless of what it was. You are creating an edit war by doing that. Please explain yourself and your edits from today better...... --babaschwabba
- (re-added after edit conflict)As for why I didn't remove the other sites, the simple answer is that I'm not a machine. I didn't add those links, and it's not my explicit responsibility to have done all the work there is to do. That argument is a red herring anyway; it's still to you to demonstrate why these sites you're adding belong at all. If there are others that don't belong, you are welcome to remove them yourself and state why, my not removing them is not an endorsement of their content. I did, however, look into each one that I removed before getting rid of it, so I am not removing your edits regardless of what they are.
- Let me spell out my position as clearly as I can:
- 1. There is no criteria we can use to decide if a personal website is "good" (worthy of inclusion) or "bad"
- 2. Absent any reason to choose one over the other, all must be included or excluded together
- 3. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, as stated earlier
- Given the above, I don't see how we can justify including Joe Photographer's personal exhibition, or my own. The origin of these content related links is not the issue, it's the nature of said links. This is not a place to advertise for "good" photographers and their work. I say again, if they are so wonderful, important, or relevant, start an article for them and link from there. Content relevant links from here would be ones that are ABOUT street photography, not ones that endorse particular photographers and their work.
- I am not trying to create an edit war or pick a fight, but unless there's some particular reason that these links DO NOT count as spam, which is what they are by default being personal exhibitions, then they do not belong and repeatedly placing them in the article is vandalism. If you believe I am interpretting the guidelines "too literally", I invite you to explain to me why in this case they should be waived instead, as absent extenuating factors (i.e. "all else being equal") the guidelines are meant to be followed (that's why they're guidelines). siafu 8 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
--you are getting better with your explanations I must say... "There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links" is what sticks out in my head right now... So I wonder why you removed the link to the Street Photography group from Flickr? It is a site ABOUT STREET PHOTOGRAPHY in that it DISPLAYS street photography..... May we agree that sites like that are allowed?
Lastly, I feel you should review each and every photographic related page and remove all websites that are not general discussions about Photography... this would include the link to "IN-PUBLIC".
--baba
[edit] Added New Image
I have added an image to the Techniques section. While it is one of my own I feel it contributes to the article as it deals with the subject matter being discussed in the aforementioned section. Brings a bit of colour to the article, too. :) --^pirate 17:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good picture! SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! :) --^pirate 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD on No Flash Corner
I have no knowledge of street photography, but since No Flash Corner says it is a "term in street photography" .. I thought the people who read this Talk page should know that there's an AfD on the No Flash Corner article. --EarthFurst 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition?
"Street photography is a type of documentary photography — without explicit social agenda — that usually features people in candid situations in public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, political conventions, and other settings"
Without explicit social agenda? Is this accurate? In terms of the works of Hine, Frank, Winogrand, Arbus - to name a few - I think much of street photography has a social agenda.
Jgaff 06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] V-J Day kiss
I'm not sure that Alfred Eisenstaedt's photo of the V-J Day kiss is an appropriate main photo given that it was a posed situation using models. Because it was a posed situation with models, I feel it doesn't it qualify as street photography. You could certainly talk about the history of the photo though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.91.119.254 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
