Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic photography topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography: edit · history · watch · refresh
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Reviving and broadening the scope of this project

Would anyone be interested in reviving and broadening the scope of this project? Right now the project appears to be dead, but I feel that the project can be breathed new life on it, if it concentrates on Photography articles. Right now there are many photography articles that could use a lot of work. PPGMD 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, if you can get people interested in working on photography articles that would be great. You might want to try and contact some of the current members of the wikiproject before doing anything major. But working on photography articles would be great. If you get anything going, please alert me on my talk page. I can put something about it on the photography portal (which I run). Oh, by the way, photography is up for voting on a WP:AID, so voting on that might get more people interested in working on photography articles in general (though I might be biased because I put the article up for nomination). Regards, -Gphototalk 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I'm here because of this seemingly bizarre edit. WikiProject Photography is a project to better articles by contributing and improving photographs to the Wikipedia. It has six numbered goals, of which it's obvious that all but the fourth (to which I'll return) are purely practical. As such, it's an admirable project about which I've known for some time, and I wish it all the best, though I haven't bothered to contribute to it myself. The fourth goal is to "Provide a focus point for photographers, photo editors and digital artists." In a different context, this could conceivably be taken to include articles about photographers, photography, etc.; but it doesn't seem to apply here. But then we get to the template, which says that WikiProject Photography is "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on photography on Wikipedia." It is? Then why is nothing relevant mentioned anywhere above? To me it looks as if a project dedicated to improving the level of prose in Wikipedia (another commendable idea) announced as an afterthought and with no evidence whatever that it was trying to build a guide to articles on literature. I wrote all the above "offline" and then arrived at this talk page where I discover that yes, the notion of articles about photography is indeed an afterthought, or anyway a recent thought. Although it's a recent thought here, it has been thought about elsewhere. In particular, I'd like to draw your attention to List of photographers (a list that no doubt contains links to some dubious articles but that is defended against spamming and self-promotion much more vigorously than are similar lists on different subjects), to its talk page, and to the embryonic WikiProject History of Photography. The last of these hasn't advanced recently for several reasons, but I still think it's sound. -- Hoary 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Hoary, I'm glad you are working on photography stuff. I have added to the template banner to reflect everything that this wikiproject is trying to do. We are really just starting to think about bettering the articles on photography, so not much has happened yet. If you know of anyone that needs help from this wikiproject please direct them this way. If you need anything or would like assistance with photography items, please contact me anytime. Thanks for the links; I have added the history of photography WP to the photography portal list of things to do. Regards, -Gphototalk 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, though actually that embryonic project was mostly Pinkville's work (as you no doubt guessed). Since you anyway linked to it, I took it live: Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography. To put it crudely, it's now competing with part of what you propose to do. I don't have any feelings of ownership about it and I very much doubt that Pinkville or anyone else has; I don't care how good articles are made as long as they are made. So if there really is a competition, I'd be happy if WikiProject Photography results in good pages of the kind that interest me and if the "history" project dies in infancy. That said, I do think there's a good reason for a general (though not complete!) separation of photographs and photographers from cameras, the photography biz, etc.; and that reason is the enormous risk of puffery. Anybody can call himself a photographer, many do, and we've seen plenty of unsuitable contenders and have taken them off to AfD. Mix a photographer portal with all the buzz of Photokina (is it called?), Photoshop, etc., and I think the number of self-described photographers may skyrocket. Meanwhile, cameras themselves are done increasingly well over at Camerapedia. -- Hoary 12:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think that there is much of a chance that there will be any competition, at least in the near future. So far no one is signed up for WP:PHOTO to work on articles, and I really don't know if anything is happening on the old stuff. I really would like to see this project active and growing, and that is what I am working towards, but nothing is happening right now. I, too, think that there is a problem with people writing articles about themselves as photographers. This might be a problem that we can address with this wikiproject if you don't think it would overlap yours too much. Regards, Gphototalk 14:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the project page, the scope of this project is:

“ to contribute and better photographs on the Wikipedia. This project seeks to be a central focus point for photographers, photo editors, and digital artists so that requests to improve articles for photographs and to improve photographs can be dealt with in a timely manner. It is in the hope that this project helps to drive contributions of photographs much like the Collaboration of the Week, and act as a Noticeboard for photographers. ”

OK, that could do with some editing, but the focus is clearly on contributing better photographs, not writing articles on photography. I think the two should be kept separate, as they are quite unrelated. One problem, at present, it that there's no easy way for an editor who wants a photo for an article to request it eg by simply adding a tag to the page. There is a little-known page where requests can be made, of course, but it's poorly used and is stuffed with requests for pictures of famous people which most photographers won't be able to help with. It would also be good to enhance the photo-volunteers list to indicate what type of photos or subjects volunteers are able to contribute. --MichaelMaggs 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point Michael. I wonder if we should create an entirely new wikiproject that deals with photography articles while letting this one deal entirely with pictures. What do you think the exact scope of this wikiproject should be? Do you think the template should have something about getting pictures for a certain article? It seems like the template should be used by those who need a picture, instead of the wikiproject members tagging pages. Regards, Gphototalk 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Possibly Michael exaggerates slightly when he says that contributing better photographs [and] writing articles on photography . .  are quite unrelated. In practice, I'd guess that there's a significant correlation between (a) happily carrying around and using a camera to help illustrate articles and (b) being interested in the photography of others. But there's also a correlation between being interested in soccer and being interested in scantily/not-clad young ladies. Facetiousness aside, all in all I agree with Michael.
Gphoto: I wonder if we should create an entirely new wikiproject that deals with photography articles. Well [cough] there is something called Wikiproject:History of photography. This doesn't attempt to cover all of photography, carefully avoiding the matter of hardware, but I think that it may go some way toward meeting the requirements. (I'd be happy if somebody else created a third, complementary project for cameras, etc. -- though as I've said, I think Camerapedia already does this well, and I am also a bit wary of any formal or personal project to add an article for every commercial product: the result can easily end up sounding like a collection of poorly written press releases.)
As to It seems like the template should be used by those who need a picture, instead of the wikiproject members tagging pages, couldn't this project have two clearly different templates, one for each of these two very different purposes? Or perhaps instead a single template, with variables that both put the talk page into either of two categories ("done" versus "to-do") and make the template look very different.
Back to the start of this discussion. There's some despondence hereabouts because Wikiproject Photography seems to be dormant; what should be done about that? I don't have any particular suggestions right now, other than the dual template. -- Hoary 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
What I said about making a completely new wikiproject was mostly pointless, but what Wikiproject:History of photography covers does not include the basic parts of photography like cameras, hardware, various techniques, types of photography, and some photographers. These subects all are in need of some wikipedians that know about them. Sometime soon I will think of something but right now all I can think of is maybe creating a parent Wikiproject:Photography to cover all the little wikiprojects that cover different areas of photography. The main problem that I can see with all this is getting people involved and actively working on all of it. I think that two different templates is a very good idea and is along the same line as some sort of branching system for the different areas of photography. Thanks for all the advice on this stuff. Regards, -- Gphototalk 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:HoP (let's call it) aims to cover any photographer who's worth covering by WP, as well as certain techniques and types of photography. Personally I'd be happy for it to cover cameras and other hardware as well, but only if it did so in a balanced and dispassionate way. (Thus coverage of SLRs would say roughly what they are and what impact they've had on photography, but it would not get into brand wars, lens mounts, limited editions, etc etc.) Experience tells me that such coverage of any kind of consumer good of interest to teenage boys (of all ages, and perhaps including the ladies) is not possible, and intuition tells me that once articles on the Canonosonic DX2000, DX3000, DX3000P, DX4000PX etc etc are added to a project, their keen users will then be tempted to add articles on themselves, their best buddies, etc etc ... so no thanks. -- Hoary 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ..... slightly reworded 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I myself understand this as I am in this category, and I see the uselessness of covering the camera market. It would be great if WP:HoP covered photography articles, because then the current WP:Photo could cover what it was originally intended to cover and WP:HoP could cover articles. Regards, Gphototalk 02:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're pretty much describing WP:HoP as Pinkville, I and perhaps others see it. And of course there's nothing sacrosanct about our "vision": you're welcome to nudge it as you want. (Course, we may nudge back! Well, persuade us.) NB "history" most certainly includes the present, but the point of using the word is to remind people that this is an encyclopedia of what's in some way significant, not a compendium of whatever is rightly or wrongly generating a buzz during this or that fifteen-minute period. -- Hoary 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I like how you realize that there is more to this encyclopedia than whatever fills the mind at that certain moment. The encyclopedia needs more people that want to create and maintain articles about history and things that happened in the past and are important now. Whatever you think WP:HoP should write about is fine with me, because you guys are working on photography articles. I guess I can now go back to figuring out how to organize the task of taking the photographs here at wikipedia. Regards, Gphototalk 03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to revitalise this project

To allow editors to focus on what's of most interest to them, I do think we ought to maintain two separate projects: this one, aimed at adding better pictures, and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, aimed at improving photography-related articles. I may even join both.

Can I suggest we restate the aims of this project along the following lines:

To improve the quality of photographic images on Wikepedia and to add new high-quality images; to act as a focal point for photographers and photographic-image editors who are able to offer their skills to the Wiki community; and to act as a point of contact for article editors requiring photographic images or photographic advice and assistance.

[edit] New photograph required (article template)

It would be good to have an easy-to-use template that article editors could use to request a photo. One template already exists, namely Template:Reqphoto, which puts an entry into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. But this doesn't actually allow requests to be categorised in any sensible way, nor can a photographer quickly review the list without going to each article, one by one, to see what type of photo is needed. So, it's not that useful for Project members to work from.

To enable other project members easily to keep an eye on requests of interest to them, the template should ideally allow editors to specify:

  • subject category (e.g. nature, portrait, landscape, buildings, food etc)
  • place (e.g. London, New York) where applicable
  • any special equipment required (close-up/micro lens, telescope, microscope) where applicable
  • any other requirements (free text field for comments)

Also already existing is the page Wikipedia:Requested pictures but, as mentioned above, this is not well-used, and again doesn't allow photographers easily to watch whether requests have been made in their areas of interest. It also overlaps in function with the template, and is confusing for editors. See also Commons:Picture requests, which does much the same thing.

A template of this type would make it easy for me to see, for example, which articles are in need of closeup/macro shots of household items, and to provide them, as well as making it easy for an editor who needs such an image to found out that I'm here and ready to help.

[edit] Photograph requiring cleanup or improvement (article template and/or image tag)

This template should allow article editors to request help from Project members to get an existing image cleaned up or otherwise improved (via Photoshop or some similar program).

An image tag Template:Cleanup-image already exists, which adds problem images to Category:Images for cleanup. This could could perhaps be improved. It would also be useful to have an article template as well, given that many editors don't seem to like to get involved in image issues and would be more likely to add a template to the talk page than to go into an image and edit there. Members may also be more likely to work on a problem image that's associated with an important article, rather than simply picking images without much context.

The unused pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Photos that need attention and Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Project collaboration simply duplicate the above, and could be removed.

I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding.

We should also maintain a page where members can indicate their interests and areas in which they can help - something like a combination of Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers and the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but with at least this information:

  • Name
  • Subjects of special interest
  • Location
  • Uses SLR?
  • Special equipment available
  • Will supply new photos?
  • Will undertake photo editing?
  • Will provide advice?

What do others think? Is there enough interest to move this forward? MichaelMaggs 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


This looks very good! Could you actually create the templates so that they can be put on the appropriate subpages? I think that it will help the life of this project very, very, much if images start to get tagged because people will actually have something to work on. Regards, Gphototalk 20:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

um I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding. See above! --MichaelMaggs 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs: I do think we ought to maintain two separate projects: this one, aimed at adding better pictures, and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, aimed at improving photography-related articles. You may also be interested to see the start of a draft WikiProject Cameras. -- Hoary 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems as if there is not actually that much interest in this. A shame. --MichaelMaggs 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Photo Matching Service

Have you seen an article on wikipedia that needs a photograph but you can't travel a thousand miles to take it? Do you love taking pictures for the wiki but aren't sure what our needs are? I've created Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service to solve both problems by matching photographers with articles that need photos. To a certain extent it duplicates Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers, but its a bit more useful for finding someone to take a photo because its sorted by location. Additionally, the page also includes a list of needed photos for any given location so anybody can see what photos we need and take them for us even if that person doesn't want to list themselves as a photographer. Anyway, the page is pretty bare-bones at the moment and I would appreciate any comments that people have. GabrielF 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29"

If this works out, it will be the death of our dear, dear, slightly inactive project. --Gphototalk 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FOTO just about photos, or about articles about photography as well?

So is Wikiproject Photography solely about getting better pictures on Wikipedia? Or is it also about improving photography-related articles -- say Shutter speed or Aperture or Pentax K1000? Do others think that it would be useful to have such a Wikiproject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowyourider (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 June 2007 UTC

Wow, I look a total newb in that post. Didn't read the entire section of the talk page that contains discussion on this very topic, and I forgot to sign my post. User:Morven/WikiProject_Cameras and User:Pinkville/WikiProject_History_of_Photography are a start at addressing these issues... I still think there should be a Wikiproject for coverage of photography as a general subject, though -- what about coverage of photographic techniques and photographic equipment other than cameras? Or do HoP and Cameras cover areas like that?--Iknowyourider (t c) 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject_photography

I have made improvements to Template:WikiProject_photography it can now be rate articles and show importance etc.

[edit] Konica and Minolta

Another editor -- not me -- has proposed that Konica and Minolta should be merged within Konica Minolta. I can't find any explanation of this proposal. (My own comment is on Talk:Konica.) -- Hoary 01:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

The talk page was a complete mess, so I've archived according to relevance and age (in that order) leaving stuff I think is probably useful and pertinent to the (most) recent project revival effort. Feel free to move anything back. mikaultalk 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviving the revival: summary observations

Reading the exchanges above, it seems there's a fair bit of confusion (well, I was confused, at least) over several areas of activity, although a couple of things are clear enough. I've been taking notes, wondering if there's a future for the project or not... the problem is that there's so there's loads to do. I fugured a summary would help. I'm not going to be too active over the coming weeks, so feel free to edit this list:

  • The project is solely concerned with encouraging quality photo content on the encyclopedia; other stuff belongs in other projects.
  • The project should centralise currently diverse activities to galvanise collaborative activity
  • One of the hardest tasks here is to tie in with Wikigraphists and properly channel and allocate tasks involving retouching and other photo editing needed on the encyclopedia. Links to Commons need to be explored, although the proposed WikiProject_Featured_Pictures should handle an improved migration of WP:FPs to Commons, for example.
  • Work on a range of template and other tags and list them here with explanations (stuff like {{reqphoto}})
  • A very wide scope isn't a good thing; Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, FPC project and any other photo-related projects should redirect from here and deal with their respective areas more or less independently.
  • Create sub-pages to deal with topics and issues too in-depth for the main project page.
  • The Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service is a good example of a service the project should coordinate and improve, by making them sub-pages of the project.
  • A place to list bad or non-free replaceable photos that we can source when we have nothing better to do...
  • Tutorials on taking better enc photos, including lighting and other techniques would probably be quite popular.
  • Keep track of the wiki's regular photographers and keep them informed of developments, improvement drives, etc.
  • Does this mean newsletters, etc? Probably..
  • This is another toughie and the admin involved could be time-consuming. I would suggest, not a rota exactly, but some way of sharing the load. Judging by the number of talkpage comments at FPC, the project should be able to pull together a decent team, rather than end up being one man's burden.
  • Contact those listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers to generate potential latent interest.

That seem s to be about it. As I say, add/subtract as necessary. If there's enough interest now, we can really get the project moving. If not...
mikaultalk 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Great list, mick. I agree with all of the above. In addition, I think that we should try to bring a bit more order to the pictures of topics where photographs are important, plants would be a good example. I also would like to put together some "field guides" if you will, where there is a page like with info-box like things with a large picture of the subject with brief information in the box below. Then organize the "thing" into order by color of size, etc. I'd like to here some other people's ideas. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where the infoboxes come in, could you elaborate a little? --mikaultalk 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shark

Please take a look at Helicopter Shark and join the discussion as to the decision to delete this well known Internet photo hoax. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requested pictures

Could we somehow incorporate Wikipedia:Requested pictures into this project? NauticaShades 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing photo requests

I'm very glad to see a revival of this project taking place! I have spent some time trying to whip Category:Wikipedia requested photographs into shape, but it's a huge job. I put together a proposal for a Photo Request WikiProject which has not received much feedback. Maybe there's interest here in rolling that project into the charter of this one? Tim Pierce 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, definitely think this is a good idea. Not much requests actually seem to be fulfilled, and I think a better organization as well as connections to a large number of photographers here could help. NauticaShades 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the section Proposal to revitalise this project, above, that I made with very similar aims in mind. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem there is a huge amount of interest in getting this done. I wish there was. --MichaelMaggs 06:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, I have already made a number of the changes to the {{reqphoto}} template that you suggested -- great minds think alike. :-) And my PhotoCatBot has been busy adding relevant location and subject tags to unqualified {{reqphoto}} articles to make them easier to find. I would love to hear more feedback, suggestions for more classification it could do, and possibly get some of us to sign up to fix some tags by hand! Tim Pierce 19:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "How you can help" section about classifying photo requests. I think we should take the suggestions that you made for revitalizing this project and put them there (rewording appropriately), so interested Wikipedians who come to this page can see right away how they can be useful. Tim Pierce 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
A task that needs doing, but quite a job. I suggest to anyone tackling this to first pick a topic and scan for articles related to that, it makes categorization easier. I also find the list in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject difficult to go through. May I suggest reorganization of the sub-categories (not bottom or top levels) to take a similar structure to the way subjects are listed in Portal:List of portals? Then doing the same for the Wikipedia:Requested pictures, at the same time adding links to the reqphoto categories. Traveler100 13:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion, open for comments:-

Move sub-categories currently under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject to following new sub-categories under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs.

  • Arts
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of art
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of albums
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of architecture
    • Electronic music articles needing pictures
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of clothing
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of filmmaking
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of furniture
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of jewelry
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of musical instruments
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of television programs
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of textiles and fabrics
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of toys
  • Biography (People)
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of people
  • Geography (Places)
    • Airport articles in need of photographs
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of mountains
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of schools
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of parks
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of prisons and jails
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of rivers and waterfalls
    • Wikipedia requested photographs in Africa
    • Wikipedia requested photographs in Antarctica cont.
    • Wikipedia requested photographs in Asia
    • Wikipedia requested photographs in Europe
    • Wikipedia requested photographs in North America cont.
    • Wikipedia requested photographs in Oceania
    • Wikipedia requested photographs in South America
  • History
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of historical events
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of military history
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of memorials


  • Science and Mathematics
    • Animal articles needing photos
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of animals
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of astronomical bodies
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of geology
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of chemical compounds
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of fungi
    • Microbiology articles needing photos
    • Plant articles needing photos
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of anatomy
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of weather phenomena
  • Society, Culture and Philosophy
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of sporting equipment
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of sporting events
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of sports and games
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of food
    • Wikipedia requested photographs in Centrist Party
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of religious subjects
  • Technology
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of aircraft and spacecraft
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of cars
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of assistive technology
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of computer equipment
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of consumer electronics
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of firearms
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of machinery
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of motorcycles
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of roller coasters
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of tools
    • Wikipedia requested photographs of transport

Do you think this would be easier to sort through? Would changing the structure cause any problems? Traveler100 12:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reorganised the categories under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs to be based on Wikipedia portals structure (roughly).
There are some I am not sure what to do with, have been moved to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject, any suggestions?
The re-org. has shown up some duplicates, for example Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing photos - Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of amphibians and reptiles and Category:Plant articles needing photos - Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants. How should these be delt with? Traveler100 10:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Merger via WP:CfD? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


I have cleaned up the Wikipedia:Requested pictures page and reorganized it into subject areas that will hopefully make it easier for contributors to follow. I believe I have matched up all sections to the sub-categories under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs (which has also been reordered). Could someone find the time to check through and see if any have been missed? The next stage is to complete the explanation text for each section on how to set the reqphoto template, to make life easier for article contributors. We can then better publicize these pages in the appropriate portal pages.Traveler100 07:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And a bloody fine job you've done too. Looks to be complete to me. I'm not sure what you intend in terms of {{reqphoto}} explanation text: you mean this needs to go onto each section page, I assume. More hard slog.. The WP:RP page works really well as a directory, the way it is now. We should avoid letting it get ito the the state it was before by changing the lead/header text, encouraging people to use the appropriate sub pages. Great work anyway. --mikaultalk 11:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stitching

I don't think I'm alone in having difficulty stitching photos together. I read a few comments on one of recent DIliff's FPCs where some users touched on stitching techniques so I figured I'd give it a go here with my issues. I gave up on trying stitches for a long while, but after hearing about/trying/purchasing PTGui I've taken a lot more. Some common problems that I still can't seem to overcome are:

  1. I can't seem to manage the color of the sky. For instance this picture, and this one both have problems. The color of the subject/ground is ok, but the sky and clouds all suffer.
  2. Many times I'm trying to take interior photos (like this, or this) and I run into one of the following two problems. Either I try to shoot wider than 30mm and PTGui just can't over come lens distortion, or I shoot at 50mm and can't get 15+ consistent exposures.

Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks, Cacophony 07:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

They look fine to me, yes there is some banding but you seem to manage it well. Obviously, keep the same exposure settings, and I take all my pano shots (as of early september) in RAW so that I cam apply the same White Balance and tint and sharpening. I also stop down the lens (mainly my 55-200) to at least f/8 if not f/11 to take care of vignetting that gets in the way of consistant skys. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 19:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with fcb981.. There is some banding but its relatively minor.. one thing - are you using smartblend to blend or are you using enblend or the default PTGui blender? Smartblend in my opinion does a far better job. I also agree about using RAW whenever possible. You have far more control over the white balance (and therefore the sky colour), and you can compensate for vignetting easily. The easiest way to maximise the quality of panoramas is simply making sure the exact same settings (exposure, white balance, etc) are used with each frame. If you do that, you're at an advantage. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, I have been pretty much forgetting about the white balance aspect. Aye aye aye, so many variables. I have been shooting in RAW, so I should be able to fix some of the problems that I've been having. Cacophony 04:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope Issue

Should improving articles on photography be part of this project's scope? I felt that this was more in the scopes of Wikiproject History of photography. The general trend seems that this project is now solely for improving and contribution photographs to Wikipedia, but there are some remnants of its former self, such as the template. The template used to classify all articles with it transcluded into a category for articles on the history of photography, and this obviously does not apply to to the pages it is now transcluded on, such as Wikipedia:Requested pictures. So, what is our stand? Is our scope now solely for contributing photographs, or should it include writing about photography? NauticaShades 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project name change?

I've revived discussion here about possibly renaming the two projects in order to minimize confusion. Any comments either here or there about this would be very welcome. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one is going to comment, then I'm going to presume that silence implies consent and make the appropriate page moves. So if you have a problem with this, please discuss. Girolamo Savonarola 18:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up; I replied there. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded documentation needed for {{reqphoto}}?

Would it be possible to have the documentation expanded on this tag, especially in regards to the optional parameters? When adding the {{reqphoto}} tag to Pennsylvania class cruiser, it took me forever to (a) figure out which optional parameters I needed, and (b) what the available categories were. In this case, after an embarrassingly large amount of searching, I eventually figured out that "|military history" and "|in=the United States" were the best options for this article, however it could have just as easily been something like "|naval ships" (there are literally thousands of ship articles in need of photos), "|in=World War I" or something similar. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the description. Is this any better?

I intend to reorder some of the categories under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs as I also find it difficult to navigate.Traveler100 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The updated description looks great, and the examples are especially helpful. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Science

This needs to be renamed, perhaps in science or in the sciences or something like that? Is it possible to rename categories like this in an automated fashion? Looking at the other cats, most of them have unnatural names and unconventional capitalization. By the way, I want to add a biology subcat here, but what can I call it? Perhaps ditto with 'in biology' or 'in the biological sciences', or 'Requested biological photographs'. Richard001 09:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree it does not sound good; I was simply using the tool provided. Not sure if the reqphoto tool can be easily changes, so how does Wikipedia requested photographs of Science Subjects sound? Although that makes the typing of the request longer. Traveler100 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thinking about it you could do {reqphot|in=The Sciences} to get Wikipedia requested photographs in the sciences; but maybe this could be confusing as the in parameter has only be used for location.Traveler100 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not just keep it simple? Wikipedia requested science photographs. The parameter, also kept simple, should be "=science". Girolamo Savonarola 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree; the only problem is getting a template with that code to put the request in the category suggested. As it stands the template places the request according to the rule 'Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of/in [category]', so it would need to be reworked somehow, and I'm not even sure if that's possible, let alone practical. Richard001 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm certain the template variable area (and output results) could be easily modified. The problem is more finding someone willing to implement it. Girolamo Savonarola 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone possessing good skills with the template parser could probably do it pretty easily. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Started looking at the science categories and agree we need a biology sub-category. As not sure how to edit templates may I suggest we create a Wikipedia requested photographs in Biology using the in= parameter. I see this has already been used for non location sub-categories. Traveler100 07:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Technically we should probably do away with the capitalization of words like Biology and Science. Richard001 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images, diagrams etc

To me it seems a bad idea to start by splitting things into diagrams, photos, illustrations etc. Often I just want an image, I don't care whether it is a photo or diagram etc. I would rather see all images treated together, perhaps with a colour code or something to show which are photo requests, diagram reqs etc if that is specified. Something like {{reqimage|category name|diagram=yes, photo=yes|Description of request}}. Multidimensional classifications are difficult, but I think this would be better in the long run. A description, as shown above, would also be a good addition to the code of templates. Richard001 09:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nevada

I don't know how active this project is but I am looking for a photographer in or near Henderson, Nevada, anyone here who can help or knows someone who could help would be greatly appreciated. IvoShandor 10:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll be wanting the Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service, specifically this part. Hope you find some help there. --mikaultalk 15:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Members of this project may be interested in using the Template:Infobox Digicam where appropriate. John Carter 15:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

true enough, thanks. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slideshow?

Your expertise may be helpful in evaluating Template:Slideshow here. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia requested photographs

I have been slowly cleaning this category up but it is along repetitive task. I notice there is a bot User:PhotoCatBot that would reduce this task somewhat. The owner appears to be taking a break. Those who know about such tools; is there a way to get this or a copy of it running? (I tried to read up on the topic of bots but it is not an easy subject to jump into). Traveler100 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Movie Still or Stage?

I hope I'm posting in the right place. I was looking for some info on "Stage photography" but all what I found was movie stills photographer. Are the same? Is there any other definition for Stage photography that I'm not aware of? Thanks. --Dia^ (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to know? There's no actual genre, AFAIK, for stage photography, but there are articles like stage lighting, for example, which touch on photographic themes and approaches. You might find something appropriate to your search at the photography portal, or failing all that, someone here will most likely be able to help with a specific question or two. --mikaultalk 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mikaul for your answer. Stage photography is actually a genre in Germany and in Italy (and I suspect in all old Europe). My original question (maybe not so clearly written) was if the right expression would be "Stage photographer" or "movie still photographer" for someone for someone working as a "stage photographer" for the cinema.--Dia^ (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you have the answer right there: these are quite specialised fields & that's reflected in the terms people use to describe them. I know Cinematographers call them movie stills photographers to differentiate them from cinematographic photographers, but it's safe to say they do basically the same job as stage photographers, just in a rather less specific arena. Looking around, I can see the two descriptions are sometimes used interchangably, ie, stage photography being referred to as stills photography, but never the other way around.. "movie stills" is easily the more common term for the cinematographic job, at least in the UK/USA, and probably serves as such to cover stage photography in the encyclopedia. --mikaultalk 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introducing myself

Hi there, I've been doing more image work lately and some people suggested I connect with this project formally. I've had an account on Commons for over a year and became active there two months ago during the California wildfires. For the past several weeks I've been wading through the PD slush piles for potentially feature-worthy images that had been overlooked. My workshop for this project is User:Durova/Landmark images. Saying hello to the other participants here. DurovaCharge! 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova, welcome and good to have you aboard. Certainly any feature-worthy material is always appreciated both here and at commons. In case you arn't so familiar with en.wiki, nominate at WP:FPC or WP:PPR (the peer review). cheers, -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major rewrite of Sony alpha discussion

As A200 and A300/350 is out/about to be released, i have move A100 and A700 to separate article. And should we create A article called Alpha mount and list out lens produced by Minolta, re-branded Minolta, Sony-Zeiss and third parties lenses? Matthew_hk tc 12:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And as a template, what do you think this one? User:Matthew hk/sandbox/Sony DSLR list Matthew_hk tc 12:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:SPEEDY

For some reason this page is listed for speedy deletion, but I can't find any tag on here which explains why? SGGH speak! 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's gone now, never mind! SGGH speak! 11:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent placement of prod tag on multiple camera realted articles.

I just want to point out that if the recent "{{prod}}" campaign by User:Mikeblas on the Sony Cyber-shot articles is effective that Nikon, Pentax, Minolta etc... may be next. I Think community involvement is very important on this issue. I posted the following message upon his talk page expressing my personal stance.

  • I have no objection of the loss of a single article either way as an editor of one of the many articles you've randomly placed the tag upon. However I do have an opinion, and from the looks of your user talk page your no stranger to that. The opinion is as follows. A Merge and redirect campaign may have been more useful as a whole and would create less cleanup in the long run. Many of the articles you have tagged are interlinked to other articles, and what happens when an editor randomly clicks a previously deleted article red link, he gets that "your attempting to edit a deleted article" guilt trip message. This is discouraging to editors IMHO. This also re-creates articles which may not be as good as the original once was. I would also like to point out that unlike cell phones which have a user life of say 6 months to a year, cameras will always remind someone of a link to their past. Cameras are often passed along, collected or resold. In today's ever "green" market of recycle & reuse, articles such as the sony series you recently have decided are advertisements or un-notable are often the younger artists only resource to make better usage or buying decisions, Yes that would be advertising if the company still sold the item. Users often forget why they bought a specific model, or why they still have it, Wikipedia as a resource was once there to remind them, much like the way Cameras (unlike cell phones) Capture memories and the past.?Slysplace | talk 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

♫Slysplace | talk 03:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panasonic Lumix digital camera AfDs

I don't see a deletion discussion listing in this WikiProject, and the {{delsort}} tag doesn't work for this project, so I'm posting this here.

Several Panasonic Lumix DMC series digital cameras have been nominated for deletion in Articles for Deletion discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7

— Becksguy (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussion listings for Photography

Doesn't it make sense to enter a request for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting to set up a deletion category for this WikiProject, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography. Currently, any deletion discussions have to be posted manually, both here (for want of a better place), and in the AfD discussion itself, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 for an example (rather than using the {{delsort}} tag). See the above section on Panasonic Lumix camera AfDs also. — Becksguy (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Demi Moore

I don't see any photograph articles listed at WP:FA. I hope to move More Demi Moore up the quality scale possibly toward FA and want to know what the best article is about a photograph. I am looking for something to model this article after. I imagine other photograph articles may be more technically-intense. However, I am not sure which direction to go.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Photographers needing articles

I created the following templates and the photographers have many redlinks. I am not sure if any of them are important photographers, but my perception is that inclusion on these templates should make them notable enough for WP:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I suspect more of these templates will be forthcoming.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
v • d • e
1996 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models (photo)
Location
Bodypainting
Georgianna Robertson
Photographer
Marco Glaviano • Robert Huntzinger • Walter Iooss
1996 Swimsuit Issue Online
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
1997 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
(print edition photos)
Models
(online photos)
Models
(online videos)
Locations
Athletes
Gabrielle Reece • Karri Poppinga • Holly McPeak • Linda Hanley • Patty Dodd • Adriana
Malibu, California
Laetitia Casta • Navia Nguyen • Brandi Quinones
Photographer
Sante D'orazio • Russell James • Walter Iooss • Andre Ran
1997 Swimsuit Issue Online
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
1998 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
(online photos)
Tyra Banks • Caprice Bourret • Laetitia Casta • Louise Forsling • Eva Herzigová • Heidi Klum • Tanga Moreau • Chandra North • Irina Pantaeva • Lorraine Pascale • Daniela Peštová • Rebecca Romijn • Beri Smither • Niki Taylor • Stacey Williams
Models
(print edition)
Tyra Banks • Caprice Bourret • Laetitia Casta • Louise Forsling • Eva Herzigová • Heidi Klum • Tanga Moreau • Karen Mulder • Chandra North • Irina Pantaeva • Lorraine Pascale • Daniela Peštová • Rebecca Romijn • Beri Smither • Niki Taylor • Stacey Williams
Models
(online videos)
Locations
Athletes & Wives
Diane & Daryl Johnston • Cindy Herschel Walker • Janet Jones & Wayne Gretzky • Tina & Dan Majerle • Marita & Reggie Miller • Jennifer & Denny Neagle • Amy & Phil Mickelson
Photographer
Walter Chin • Francois Deconic • Robert Erdmann • Russell James • Hanspeter Schneider • Matt Mahurin • Myers Robertson
1998 Swimsuit Issue Online
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
1999 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
(online photo & video)
Locations
Bodypainting
Athletes
Allan and Tamara Houston • Annika Sörenstam and David Esch • Chuck Finley and Tawny Kitaen • Joe and Jennifer Montana • Julie Foudy and Ian Sawyers • Nikki McCray and Thomas Penson • Suzy and Mark Hamilton • Tom and Melissa Lehman • Tom and Nikki Gugliotta
Photographers
Hans Feurer • Dominique Issermann • Andrew MacPherson • Antoine Verglas
1999 Swimsuit Issue Online
See also: Joanne Gair
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
2000 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
Locations
Malaysia • Oahu • Maui • Mexico
Athletes
Ben and Julie Crenshaw • Bill and Julie Romanowski • Evander Holyfield and Heidi Klum • Glen and Christina Rice • Jason and Joumana Kidd • Junior and Gina Seau • Laird Hamilton and Gabrielle Reece • Ricky Williams and Kadra Ahmed-Omar
Photographers
Walter Chin • Robert Erdmann • Walter Iooss • Russell James • Antoine Verglas
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
2001 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
(online photos & videos)
Models
(print edition)
Locations
Body painting
Photographers
Robert Erdmann • Christophe Jouany • Patric Shaw • Stewart Shining • Terry Richardson
2001 Swimsuit Issue Online
See also: Joanne Gair
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
2002 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
(online photo & video)
Models
(print edition)
Better Halves
Diedre and Albert Pujols • Jeanine and Laffit Pincay, Jr. • Iwalani and Chi Chi Rodriguez • Analy and Javier López • Aliette Vazquez and Hélio Castroneves
Locations
Photographers
Enrique Badulescu • Jeff Bark • Walter Chin • Pamela Hansen • Walter Iooss • Stewart Shining
2002 Swimsuit Issue Online
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
2003 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
(online photo & video)
Models
(print edition)
Locations
Athletes
Serena Williams • Caroline Portelance and Vincent Lecavalier • Debbie and Roger Clemens • Dina and Brian McBride • Ekaterina Gordeeva and Sandy Meyer Woelden and Tommy Haas • Shannon Foster and Cobi Jones • Sonya and David Toms • Valerie and Shaun Alexander
Virtual Reality
Body painting
Photographers
Enrique Badulescu • Jeff Bark • Gavin Bond • Robert Erdmann • Walter Iooss • Tiziano Magni • Stewart Shining
2003 Swimsuit Issue Online
See also: Joanne Gair
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
2004 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
(online and print photos)
Locations
Athletes
Anna Kournikova • Cynthia and Alex Rodriguez • Erin and Tony Hawk • Rita and Jose A. Santos • Serena Williams • Tamara Johnson and Eddie George • Veronika Vařeková and Petr Nedvěd
Bodypainting
Virtual Reality
40th Anniversary Hall of Fame
Online Video
(excludes group)
Photographers
Jeff Bark • Walter Chin • Jerome Diaz • Walter Iooss • Wayne Maser • Jeff Olson • Stewart Shining
:See also: Joanne Gair
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
2005 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
(online photos)
Locations
Exuma, Bahamas • Belize • Costa Rica • Bora Bora, Polynesia • Anantara Hua Hin, Thailand • Pico Bonito, Honduras • Croatia • Chile • Laguna Beach, California
Underwater
Athletes
Amanda Beard • Lauren Jackson • Venus Williams • Jennie Finch • Heather Mitts and A. J. Feeley • Keyshawn and Shikiri Johnson • Mark and Stephanie McGwire • Richard Jefferson and Teresa Lourenco
Bodypainting
Photographers
Walter Chin • Walter Iooss • Raphael Mazzucco • Anne Menke • Jeff Olson • Stewart Shining • Diego Uchitel
:See also: Joanne Gair
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
2006 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models (online photos)
Locations
Los Angeles, California • Huahine, Tahiti • Las Vegas, Nevada • San Pedro de Majagua, Colombia • Harbour Island, Bahamas • Palm Springs, California • Turks & Caicos • Cat Island, Bahamas
All-Star Reunion
Celebrity
Bodypainting
Online 360 degree views
Online Videos &
Instant Messenger Icons
Online Video Diaries
Photographers
Steve Erle • Walter Iooss • Tiziano Magni • Raphael Mazzucco • Stewart Shining
2006 Swimsuit Issue Online
See also: Joanne Gair
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
2007 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
(online photos & videos)
Locations
3-D
Celebrities
Bodypainting
Online Model Diaries
Photographers
Walter Chin • J.R. Duran • Pamela Hanson • David E. Klutho • Brian Lovely • Raphael Mazzucco • Anne Menke
2007 Swimsuit Issue Online
See also: Joanne Gair
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09
v • d • e
2008 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Models
Locations
Celebrities
Players wives
Bodypainting
NFL Cheerleaders
Tracy Burns • Erin Carlisle • Janipher Choi • Larisa Coy • Marisa Coy • Anabel Dela Cerna • Milly Figuereo • Ireivy Guerra • Marlina Moreno • Christina Parker • Jessica Trainham • Meghan White
Photographers
Steve Erle • Walter Iooss • Raphael Mazzucco • Stewart Shining • Thomas Sewell • Paulo Sutch
2008 Swimsuit Issue Online
See also: Joanne Gair
Swimsuit issues: 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 • 71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80 • 81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 •
86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09

[edit] Photo of statue in santo Domingo...?

Hi, can anyone take photos of this statue in Santo Domingo, for the article about Antonio de Montesinos (Dominican friar)? The flickr photo is copyrighted... Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of the project - all images or just the photographs?

There has still been no clarification or even discussion regarding the scope of the project. It seems to me as if it is about Wikipedia photographs, as the project name and most material/discussion here seems to imply. But it also says 'images' at the top of the project page. So which is it? I think this important distinction needs to be made. If this is just for photos, a broader project for all images (or even for all media in general) might be a good idea. Richard001 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good question. I could go either way on this, personally, but I'm fairly new to this project I can't really speak to the original intent. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall some talk about this somewhere, largely pointing out that WP:WikiProject Illustration might be a better place to co-ordinate work on images in general, while WP:FOTO concentrate on specifically photo-related stuff. Given that the illustration project is even less active than this one, there's clearly an overwhelming lack of enthusiasm for any co-ordinated image work. That said, the WP:Graphics Lab seems to have taken up the baton of fixing up all kinds of images & is very busy indeed, while projects like WP:FPC are as popular as ever, again, for all kinds of images. Maybe this talk page is a good place to discuss anything of general interest to photographers, but in practice stuff just gets discussed elsewhere, leaving this page to be stumbled upon, largely by accident, every couple of months or so. As the History of photography project handles all work on photographer related articles, it very much seems like WP:FOTO is a project without a brief. --mikaultalk 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syntax referencing images from other wikipedia

Is it possible to reference an Image in say the German Wikipedia in an article in the Englsih Wikipedia (without copying to Commons or the English wiki)? If so what is the syntax? Traveler100 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean use the image, or just link to it? You can use [[de:(Image name)]] easily enough, but I presume you want the image itself, which is impossible. If the image is fair use, upload it here. If it's free, upload at Commons and admonish the uploader there for not doing so originally. Richard001 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo requests

There are two different circumstances in which one might request photos for an article: 1) Requesting photos be uploaded for use in that article , or 2) Requesting photos be added to the article from existing stock (of course, there may not be anything suitable, in which case this would default to 1). The template {{reqphoto}} is unclear on this, though it links to the uploading page with the word 'included', so presumably is exclusively for the former. So what about situations where someone just wants photos to be added to brighten up an article, when they are already available but perhaps the person just doesn't have time or doesn't know the syntax for adding images? The template also seems to imply the article is photo-less, yet some photo requests might be for articles which already have several good images, but another, unique one is requested. Richard001 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for non-feature-worthy photos?

I see there is Wikipedia:Picture peer review but that seems to be for potential FPCs. Is there a forum when one can ask for help on posing, taking and polishing photos for a specific article (my specific need is ketogenic diet). If anyone can point me in the appropriate direction that would be great. Alternatively, if someone wants to leave me a message, I'll explain what ideas I've got for the article and am interested in your ideas. Thanks, Colin°Talk 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You can leave the specifics here, and hopefully people will respond. WP:PPR is another option, just say that you want photo suggestions and are not necessarily hoping to get an FP. I will certainly respond here if you are more specific about what you are thinking about for photos of that article. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
On the article talk page, I've put a bit more about what sort of ketogenic diet meal photo I'm considering. I've also mentioned a couple of possible variants for the test sticks and powdered feed. If you or anyone else has ideas of pictures for the article, how to stage and frame them, etc., I'd be interested. I see that a lot of photos of objects have a pure white background (e.g., Image:Salad platter.jpg). I'm aware I can tweak the levels and white balance in GIMP but since the items I'm shooting also contain a lot of white, I don't want to bleach them out. Any ideas on how to take such a photo so that it is easy to adjust. Outdoors or indoors? I only have a compact camera but I do have a bright halogen worklamp that could be used to light a subject. I've used paper as a background/base but is something else better? Thanks. Colin°Talk 12:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's maybe worth pointing out that you can request a photo of anything you're not confident about shooting yourself. I'd be happy to shoot the food for you, for example, as it doesn't seem to call for anything difficult to source like the test strips etc would be. If you're ready and willing yourself, the best way to shoot white things is on a non-white background. Not just for the bleaching-out (which certainly is a problem, as you can see in that salad shot) but to stop your camera being tricked into underexposing (as you see on the shots already on the page). Your background just needs to be reasonably neutral and devoid of clutter / distracting elements. For convenience I'd recommend shooting everything outdoors, in the shade on a bright day, rather than struggle with lights. If it has to be indoors, point the light to an adjacent white or neutral wall or ceiling and bounce it onto your set. Use a tripod if you can. --mikaultalk 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the good advice and offer. It will be at least a week before I can take pictures as I'm now without my camera. I have a tripod. Yes, if you want to shoot the food then that would be great as my skill and means are rather limited. I've added some more thoughts to the article talk page. Colin°Talk 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance requested

If a knowledgeable editor from the project could adopt the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-31 Nikon DSLR cameras, it would be most sincerely appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing tasks.

I don't see a whole lot of activity of this page, so I was wondering how active everyone still is with the project. Personally, I've been busy categorizing Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Illinois into smaller categories by county. It's almost completed, but it took quite awhile. I got the inspiration from California and other states that are currently being worked on (or have already been completed). I've also begun taking more photographs for some of these locations. What else has everyone else been working on? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing a lot of images already up, particularly correcting perspective and other distortions on every decent building image I see and switching them in. Mfield (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been uploading a few images of New Zealand birds from Flickr; I've had luck getting photos for articles that had none by nicely asking the uploader. In terms of images (not just photos; see my request for clarification of the project's scope) I'm working on scans from PD literature, currently looking at uploading the pictures from Mr. Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Richard001 (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to a very heavy RL workload I've been so inactive I almost missed this thread entirely. I've spent some time recently helping propose a new kind of COM:QI(VI) for the encyclopedia and fielding other proposals to allow some image contributors to have inline credits. Once I get some time I'd really like to inject some energy into the WP:VP project before it goes off the boil completely. The upshot of all my RL work is happily going to provide a bunch of new uploads. Just as soon as I get round to it. --mikaultalk 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Pictures, Images and Photographs

For some time now a few people, including myself, have been tidying up the request for photographs and request for images pages and categories. The main goal has been to create some clarity to what requests there are on a particular subject. To this end categories of related subjects have been grouped together and articles containing lists of requests cross referenced to the categories. I have now however reached the point were a major change needs to be made and would like others views on the topic. Basically does the distinction between images and photographs serve any real purpose? I believe not and it is clear from the contents of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs and Category:Wikipedia requested images-other that most users of Wikipedia do not see the difference between an image taken with a camera and a general need for a picture in an article. It should not be forgotten that these categories and list are not there as a classification system for talk pages but to bring article to the attention people so that the request can be addressed. The current situation is that there are two main methods of making a request. One is to add one of a number of reqphoto/reqimage templates to a talk page; the other is to add an imageneeded=yes (or similar syntax to a WikiProject template). See the sub-pages of Wikipedia:Requested pictures for a reasonably complete list and Category:Articles needing images for a few examples . Both these methods have there advantages and limitations. The reqphoto template is useful in that people do not have to try and locate what projects cover the article in question; a complex, time consuming task. The reqphoto also has the advantage you can add more that one subject and location in a single step and once you know the syntax you can use it on many topics. One disadvantage of reqphoto is that some interpret it solely for camera photographs while other see it as any type of image (scan, screenshot, drawing etc.). The main disadvantage however is that the categorization of requests does not match those of WikiProject template image requests, leading to multiple places to watch and misunderstanding by many readers and contributors. The advantage of the WikiProject templates is that they are generally being managed by an active group of contributors; the request has a greater chance of being address, which is the real purpose of all these lists. The disadvantage of WikiProject method is that they are not easily accessible to occasional contributors, even if you find a relevant project it is not always clear if a template exists or not for an image request and what the syntax is. Often the resulting category is not even in the to-do list of the project page.

[edit] My assessment

  • Both methods have their uses and should be kept but the confusing distinction between photographs and images needs to be removed,
  • The main aim of these activities is to make it clearer to contributors what material is needed, and to provide images. Therefore there should be one clear location for requests on a particular subject, so that WikiProject active people and photographers that move around different topics find the same complete list.
  • WikiProject template needimage=yes, reqimage and reqphoto should all create the same result.

[edit] Proposal

  • Change the wording of reqphoto template to request for image.
  • Change the destination categories from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of/in … to Category:Wikipedia requested images of/in ….
    • or … articles needing images
  • Make reqimage and reqimage-other same as proposed reqphoto
  • Start talking to WikiProject teams to change the imageneeded target category to the same place as the proposed reqimage categories.

[edit] Questions

  • Agree, disagree?
  • Can you see any disadvantages to this proposal?
  • How could we get from where we are now to an easier, clearer state?

Traveler100 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that reqphoto and image-needed serve the same purpose. I had recently modified the {{WP India}} template to match the reqphoto categories. The template automatically categorizes the request at the task force level. For example, {{WP India|tamilnadu=yes|chennai=yes|image-needed=yes}} will categorize the article under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Tamil Nadu as well as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Chennai. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphics in hopes of resolving these issues, such as through the four templates listed at WikiProject Graphics request templates. Note how the four templates cover all the 25+ templates listed at Category:Image request templates. GregManninLB (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure the answer is more templates. One of the problems at the moment is that for someone for the first time looking how to request and image they are confronted with a confusing collection of templates. I was thing more of merging what already exists. Loosening the definition of what a photo is and making reqimage and reqphoto one template. Also making the results of the template match the image-needed=yes type entries in project templates. Traveler100 (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Reqimage has been depreciated since January 21, 2006, so I don't think we can modify it. It's "of" parameter doesn't work and the 25+ templates listed at Category:Image request templates cover all of its functions. GregManninLB (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates for Image/Photo requests

I basically agree with the proposal. I do think that keeping the simple reqphoto template is particularly necessary, to make it easy for editors to slap into a Talk page without studying the varying syntax of each Project template which might include an image-needed option.

Here is another suggestion: add an optional coordinates field to the reqphoto / reqimage template, and/or otherwise set up things so that, at the Category page for place-oriented categories, a map may be automatically generated which shows the actual locations on a Google map of all places having coordinates. This would greatly facilite trips to get pics. I myself have just printed out a Google map with sites in Santa Ana, California, in Orange County, California, that is obtained by clicking on "Map of all coordinates" from List of Registered Historic Places in Orange County, California. That provides me a list of all the Santa Ana NRHP sites, about 20 of them, and i will visit as many as i can when i happen to be in that area, someday soon. For these NRHP sites, all of the sites, not just those needing photos, are listed.

User:GregManninLB has attempted to integrate this map feature with the reqphoto feature somewhat. See, for example, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Orange County, California, which includes a "Map of all coordinates" which you can click on to get to a Google map which is intended to show the sites needing photographs. However, the system is not working properly, it shows only 2 sites for the whole county and specifically does not show some sites that I know have "reqphoto" on their talk page and have coordinates in their article page. I don't know how the 2 sites actually get picked up into the map of coordinates.

Basically, do whatever it takes to generate actual maps showing the places that need photos, clickable to get to the wikipedia articles that correspond to the places. This seems to me to really offer potential to make the reqphoto system actually work in getting people out there to really take photos. doncram (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Parameters are easy to add to a template. Do you have an example of a template that uses an optional coordinates field? If so, we can use that to modify reqphoto. GregManninLB (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Being able to map where reqphoto are for based on the contents of a category would be a very useful tool for those of use who often visit areas we are not familiar with the names of places in the region. It does not need yet another parameter in the template, the place for co-ordinates are on the article page with the existing template for that task. I did last year try and attempt to do this but apparently there is an issue with the update the data that Google map uses for what is in a category. See Template talk:GeoGroupTemplate#only sometimes works. If someone can figure out why this is not working we have all the tools already in place. Traveler100 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it's nice to know that we wouldn't have to put coordinates into the reqphoto, because that actually would be somewhat of a pain to do, duplicating coordinate info in the article already. Sad though that the GeoGroupTemplate is not working properly for categories though, that link to Template Talk is helpful in showing that. It's way over my head, about getting involved in data dumps from the English wikipedia, etc. I suppose we just have to wait for someone else to address it. Or, perhaps we could make a request somewhere, state the need / explain the purpose that would be served by fixing this as opposed to other complex programming problems that super-techies are addressing instead. I don't know where to go to express that kind of request though.
By the way, armed with printouts from a Google map generated from the GeoGroupTemplate on the List of RHPs in OC, I did visit Orange County, and was very successful in scoring a whole bunch of photos. It would have been impossible to 1/10 as productive without that printout. It would have been nicer still if I had a wifi with my phone service and some kinda PDA device, so I could have been navigating around with the Google map, live.... doncram (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howtoreqphotoin in Category

The {{reqphotoin}} template is intended for location-oriented photos; asking for a generic photo of an ironing board does not require a location. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New York uses {{Howtoreqphotoin|New York|New York}} to emit instructions on adding a page to that category, and displays a GeoGroupTemplate box for display of the locations. There is a delay because it works from a copy of the database. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hopeful for a moment but in fact I believe the above comment provides no new information about the problem. The "Howtoreqphotoin" template just includes some text and the same way we were already discussing to display photos in a category. This way, as has been covered further above, is broken and/or not supported. So the New York example is an old page that did work, and does show a map of old photo requests, but the copy of the database it is based off of is not being updated and new requests for photos in New York will not be displayed. Thanks anyhow! doncram (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Commons announces launch of new Valued images project

The official VI seal
The official VI seal

[edit] The project goes live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC

This Commons Valued images project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute images of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain in featured picture or quality image technical quality. The project will run alongside the existing Commons Featured pictures and Quality images projects.

Please visit Valued images candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations. Anyone with an account on Commons is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)