Talk:Night photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've just finished reworking the published photographers list, and included some representative works for each photographer. I've also removed the link to each photographer's personal site - Wikipedia is not a link farm, nor is it an advertisement site. One photographer I removed who is definitely notable, but I couldn't find any night-specific work by him, was Bill Brandt. If there is such a work, please add it back in and list that work. A couple of the photographers who were in the published list, but only appear to sell prints from their personal sites, I've moved to the other night photographers list, in the external links section. I'm not too sure I like the links on them either, but I'll leave them for now. — Wwagner 15:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Merge with new article? 2 Removal of "Additional night photographers" list 3 More images 4 Blurry new photos 5 The "Subjects" section 6 Low-light photography 7 I agree

[edit] Merge with new article?

A new non-encyclopaedic article Night photography tips has been created. I believe that it would make more sense to merge relevant parts into this article. Velela 08:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that, although interesting, the new article isn't encyclopedic. Since it's basically a how-to, it's probably more appropriate to transwiki it over to wikibooks. — Wwagner 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggested on Picturetokyo's talk page (the author of the tips article) that the information could be rephrased as issues or difficulties and included in this article. It's not really a book or a large piece of information. --Imroy 16:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to merge.SteveHopson 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've added two new sections - "Technique and equipment" with some of the info from the "tips" article, and "Subjects" with a short list of things typically photographed at night. What do people think? I had a little trouble with my overuse of uncertain adjectives e.g "often", "usually", "may", etc. I have difficulty wording stuff that has to be encyclopedic and therefore authoritative, but also being general and allowing options. This could be used, but might not, or this other thing could be used as well.... --Imroy 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

SuggestionI think it's better to redirect "tips" readers to existing "tips" articles and websites published by established night photographers (e.g., [Nocturnes] or [[1]]). These people have been practicing and teaching night photography for 10-20 years each. Also, it will prevent NPy newbies from adding trivial comments to the Wikipedia page. --Andy Frazer 23 May 2007.

[edit] Removal of "Additional night photographers" list

It doesn't belong here. First, as I said in the edit summary when I removed the list, it's just a big pile of promotional links (see links normally to be avoided, number 4), also known as external link spamming. Almost all of those links are to sites where the photographers in question sell their work. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox (number 2), nor is it a link repository (number 1), nor a directory. — Wwagner 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Photographers listed here should meet the tests of notability for photographers (WP:Bio), and have a Wiki article. Otherwise this list becomes a link farm and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. SteveHopson 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree * 2. Thanks/wangi 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So if instead the photographer links to his or her own wiki page that would be acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.36.116.37 (talk • contribs)

Of course. The "Significant published night photographers" section already has a few wikilinks. But before you run off and create a whole bunch of articles for people you want to link to, I should warn you that Wikipedia has rules about notability. Unless the subject is notable, the article is just going to be deleted. --Imroy 20:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was not signed in for the above. I dont mean to cause wiki any trouble and find it very useful and hope to add to it but often find it hard. I made the comment above yours. Notability is hard to define and to whom is the better question. Im sure a father is notible to his children but other families in the world could care less. Maybe someone is notible in a genre and if you wernt interested in it you wouldnt think so at all. I made the page Leonard Carlson as mine was one of those listed to be removed.--Picturetokyo 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More images

If anyone feels we'd benefit from a few more images on the article then I'm willing to upload some from my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/wangi/night - let me know. Thanks/wangi 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think your photos are really good and should be included in article, either as an addition or a replacement for either current photo. SteveHopson 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm off on holiday tomorrow for a few weeks - if you suggest a few from the gallery and post the links here I'll upload them on my return. Thanks/wangi 23:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blurry new photos

User:W.M.DeJardine recently added two photos to the article, but they're quite blurry. I'm afraid he should have followed two of the 'tips' given in the 'technique and equipment' section. He certainly should have used manual focus, and possibly also a tripod. Do other people think they're suitable for this article, or should they be removed? --Imroy 08:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, the thumbnails of the new ones should be the same size as the rest of the images; I'll make that edit in just a minute. We could use one of the new blurry photos as an example of camera shake due to long exposure, or poor focus due to low light, though I think the photographer might remove any such description that we might add. Hooray for edit wars? OK, bad idea.

Anyway, I'm quite satisfied with the Rainbow Bridge and Garden of Five Senses photos, but the others I could just as soon do without. The streaking headlights photo is a classic night subject, but surely we can find a more interesting image than the one we have? I'll check my archives and see if I've done anything that would go well. Also, I toyed around with the idea adding an "Examples" heading and putting all the images in a gallery there, but I wasn't too excited about how it looked. — Wwagner 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this for a streaking headlights photo? Perhaps it can be cropped a bit from the top to remove the power lines near the top-right corner. There's also a streaking aircraft lights photo. --Kprateek88(Talk | Contribs) 17:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I really dig that streaking headlights image! I'd love to swap that one in place of the current shot. Unless anybody's got grave objections, I'll do that in a day or so. — Wwagner 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I do agree with you that they are a bit blurry, mind you that it's most likely contrast and shutter speed. I've only tried to widen the aspect of night photography by showing the radiant tone of colours rather than the fast motion of car lights. I'm only trying to contribute my photographs to give a better detail of night scenes, rather than just darkness and light and the stillness of the camera. I will review the 'tips' in the 'technique and equipment' section; but i do feel confident enough that my work presents a tone of 'glowing' colours. If need be, i'll either increase or decrease the ISO rating and use a tripod if you would prefer; but may I say, these are representations. I don't think I noticed any 'camera shake' in the first photograph? Maybe one of you fellas can carry my 45-pound tripod downtown and see how you feel. - User:W.M.DeJardine 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I shoot a 4x5 view camera; my full kit weighs 58 lbs., of which the tripod is 9 lbs. That tripod will more than handle my 11-pound-plus (depending on what optics I'm using) camera. — Wwagner 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Both photos clearly have motion blur and are possibly also out of focus. In Image:Where was I at 3 33a m by amazingPhotoboy.jpg look at the purplish reflections down in the bottom-left corner, you'll see little crescent-shaped highlights. Similarly, in Image:IGP3102.JPG you'll see crescent shapes in what I assume are the internal reflections of car headlights in the lens - on the pole just below the black band. Both of these are indications that the camera moved during the exposure. I suggest you either get a lighter tripod, a monopod, and/or try to brace yourself against stationary objects. Motion blur is not usually desirable in photography. --Imroy 05:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took out the blurry photos, and changed the streaking-lights image to one of Kprateek88's photos. Looks pretty good, some nice examples of the genre. We can certainly use a few more photos; I still think a gallery could work here, somehow. — Wwagner 19:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to show the colours at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.M.DeJardine (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 December 2006 UTC

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I would strongly suggest removing all of the example photographs. There's nothing wrong with them, pre se, but they seem too personal to me, and do not seem to be representative of the entire genre of night photography as an artform. Although they are technically clean, they do not they seem to be pushing the boundaries of either technique or message.thelordofthemanor - Andy Frazer

[edit] The "Subjects" section

It seems like this section is proving itself unnecessary. It keeps expanding, as different people add the night work that they do - every photographer is different, so the list of potential subjects is effectively infinite. It seems like that whole section could be summed up as "anything, when shot at nighttime." Moving it to a short one- or two-sentence paragraph up in the lead section would be much more concise, while still containing the information, and it would also get away an infinitely-expanding list. — Wwagner 19:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree strongly I agree, let's delete it. When I originally created the Night Photography entry in Wikipedia, my intent was to discuss night photography as an artform, as opposed to the snapshot approach taken by many new digital camera owners (i.e., "Hey, this thing seems to work at night, too"). In the "Subjects" section, I listed subjects that were well represented by night photographers who were generally accepted as creating art, such as Micheal Kenna, Rolf Horne, Brassai and Bill Brandt, among others. Then, the snapshot subjects began to creep in, including the two most pedestrian night photography subjects: car headlights and fireworks. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but as a devoted practitioner and student of night photography for almost ten years, I hated to watch this article degenerate from "Night photography" to "Anything you can do with a camera after the sun goes down".

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest -- (Andy Frazer, User: thelordofthemanor).

I don't see what's wrong with it. Admittedly, I was the one that added it. But it has not kept expanding. Taking a brief look at the list, I can only identify two entries that have been added since I started the section, so where's the problem? --Imroy 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Low-light photography

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (April 2007)

I have redirected low-light photography here, but it seems there are some low-light situations which are not outdoors at night. I don't know if people wanted to expand or rename this article, or turn the redirect into a separate article, or if there's a better redirect target. -- Beland 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a (currently red) link in this article to available light which might be a good place for discussion of low-light work. Of course, that article doesn't exist yet, so that could be something of a problem. :) Until that gets created, here is as good a target as any for the redirect. — Wwagner 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree

100% to merge Long exposure multiple flash photographic technique with night photography, I could provide night photos from my personal portfolio.

radiant guy 08:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)