Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

WikiProject Photography

So now that the maintenance project has moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Photography, how should this project be organised? Should Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, art of photographs, technology of photography all be together or should these be separated into sub-project? Discussion here:- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography --Traveler100 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Review requested

Anyone interested in taking a look at Canon BG-ED3? Needs work. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Image for use in Media section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm just going to close this one, because it's forum shopping. There isn't grounds for an RfC here, as there's already been one and nothing has changed. Multiple discussions (including an RfC I covered in the Signpost) have taken place, all of them have said that there is no problem with the image, and the largest of the discussions explictly stated that further discussions have to take place on Commons, where the image is held. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

{{rfc|media|rfcid=1EBAA71}}

A discussion involving this image [1] for use on the Wikipedia article Occupy Wall Street has been started on it's talk page here.[2] A request for comment, community wide, to form consensus is requested! Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on what, specifically? Lhb1239 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, judging by the introduction of that RFC, the problem was that the photo included a flag and placard both of which bore certain copyrighted logos. However, the discussion is now closed. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FAR nom of Iwo Jima flag raising

I have nominated Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PumpkinSky talk 11:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg

File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Erik Voake? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

4-cuttingedge.jpg

image:4-cuttingedge.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfonso De Castro - Photographer

Hello photographers. This old abandoned Afc draft will soon be deleted unless it is improved. The photographer is also a professor. I am not experienced in finding reliable sources for visual arts topics. Is this a notable subject, and should the article be rescued from deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass image deletion nominations

User:Frank Gosebruch has retracted his statement that images he uploaded to commons were his own (and blanked his user page where he also claimed they were self-photographed), and is removing lots of them from photography articles and nomination them for deletion. Is there a way to centralize the discussion of these some place useful (I'm not so familiar with how to do such on commons). See this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clay McBride

One more old Afc submission that will soon be deleted. Is this a notable photographer? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with article about Autographer?

Hi folks, I recently worked on behalf of OMG Life, the company that makes the Autographer camera, to write an article about said camera. It went through Articles for Creation, and is now live.

However, there is a small issue in that, during the process of moving the article from AfC to the mainspace, an extra photo of Autographer got included, which is very similar to the one in the infobox.

As an editor with a financial COI, I don't make any edits to articles directly. I'm thus hoping that someone here might be able to remove the duplicate photo at the top of the page, perhaps taking the caption and moving it below the photo in the infobox. Would someone here be able to help out real quick? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Bms4880 (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Photography at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinions needed for an RfC

This is being closed out as the RFC was malformed - see the one below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I just opened up an RfC over on Treats! available right here . Feel free to stop by and give your opinion. Kosh Vorlon   12:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC , take 2

So I closed my prior RFC as it was suggested that it was malformed I've re-opened it here . Your input would be appreciated Kosh Vorlon   16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion! Help requested

Someone suggested deleting article List of specialist photographic suppliers. I think it's useful, and wrote it for that reason. If anyone agrees with me, please help me fix it, to remedy the call that "Wikipedia is not a directory", which is a difficult charge to deflect here. I say lists like those of lenses and camera bodies are similar, but it'll be hard to defend. Help, please? - Denimadept (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware of the wp:canvas policy. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Notifying a single relevant group of something like this isn't canvasing. - Denimadept (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think asking the group to express their opinion on the matter is fine. However, you said "I think it's useful, and wrote it for that reason. If anyone agrees with me, please help me fix it, to remedy the call ..." and sounds like canvassing to me. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry it sounds like that to you. - Denimadept (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
He wasn't asking for votes, just for help fixing. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do NOT add this page to the "newsletter" page. If we want to see his newsletter, we'll watch for it there. - Denimadept (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Interactive tutorial help

I'm working on a project for an interactive tutorial for new editors and we're trying to mock-up the first units/levels (http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game). I need a few good images of the Wikipedia interface, and some dialogue boxes and basic interface shots for the alpha version which will be done in Adobe Flash. Does anyone have basic photoshop skills and a few hours? Any help would be much appreciated. User:Ocaasi c 00:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for equipment recommendations/advice

OK, so I realize this is kind of tangentially related to Wikipedia, but I am looking for some recommendations/advice on camera equipment. I'm very interested in macrophotography, but I've never been able to pursue the interest because I don't know enough about specific equipment and brands to make educated buying decisions (and I can't afford to experiment). Can anyone make a recommendation on a lens/camera that I could buy for this purpose and that is also affordable? I would like to be able to focus on something probably about the size of a ladybug (though smaller is better). I'm educated in using a variety of cameras, and I understand a lot of the technical stuff (i.e. F-stop, shutter speed, dB gain, white balance, etc.), but I've never had to make a buying decision, so I guess I'm kind of nervous to invest that much when I'm uninformed on specific equipment models. Thoughts? Thanks.--Jp07 (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Free a Photographer Challenge

The National Archives contains hundreds of thousands of 19th and early 20th century photographs taken by commercial photographers and registered for copyright at Stationer's Hall. The collection is known as COPY 1 within our catalogue. Thousands of photographers are represented in COPY 1 (heavy duty dataset available here) and we know very little about most of them. In many cases we do not even possess the bare birth/death details that would allow us to clear their works for copyright.

Many of these photographers are extremely notable - some are not - but if we can clear the images from copyright we will upload a selection of images of their work to Commons to complement any article or relevant information received. Leutha (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


Target: (for starters) Evidence for dates of death for 10 photographers to be tracked down

  • Oscar Remandas - example catalogue entry of work here
  • Otto Pfenninger - example catalogue entry of work here
    • b-1855
    • [3] - Might be useful. I believe there's a pay wall, but there's some basic information that might enable you to find the census document elsewhere for free. Familysearch.org is great for this type of thing, especially if you're searching for Americans. Heritage Quest database is also accessible though many libraries. --Jp07 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Lulu Farini - acrobat, explorer, photographer (protege of the Great Farini) - example catalogue entry of work here
    • b-1855
    • [4] [5] - More documents that might be useful. Again, pay walls, but building from what you've got, especially around the time of birth, is usually the best way to succeed in genealogical research. --Jp07 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Henry Bevan Suffolk Photographer (1852 - 1927), Maybe not notable (see Robert Pols Early Photographic Studios for biographical details)

Olympus µ article naming

(Copied from the Help Desk.) The category Category:Olympus cameras lists several compact cameras made by Olympus Corporation. This question concerns the Olympus mju, or Olympus µ, line, which is also known as Olympus Stylus in North America. The category includes articles whose names come from all three styles of the name: mju, µ, or Stylus. It's the same product line - it's just named differently. Shouldn't all the articles be named either "Olympus mju" or "Olympus µ" to make them consistent? JIP | Talk 16:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of scope

Does this project cover such subjects as "image file formats"? Does it cover products that process them? The reason I ask is that some such pages, Digital Negative, Tagged Image File Format, are current under the Computing project, which is inappropriate. Other image file formats, for example Tag Image File Format / Electronic Photography, appear not to be within any project, as far as I can tell. (I'm new to projects). Who works on this project? Barry Pearson 11:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Walter Bosshard

I was hopeful someone here could help with the article on Walter Bosshard. The article recently came up for speedy deletion, but it looks like he is quite notable. If anyone was knowledgeable of him, it would be good if the article could be built up. thanks -- Samir 23:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Assistance identifying photographic equipment on the International Space Station

There is a photo here Beware!, it's big and zoomed right in. I'd love to know how to properly describe the camera equipment, down to the model types or at least the magnification power if I can, there is a telephoto lens, and a zoom lens and flash, what do you call the small lens that is not zoom, and what kind of flash ? help with it could go on this page, or here, whichever is easy for you. The lads up there generally use digital nikons, from the exif info. Thank you everyone. Penyulap talk 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A lens which is not a zoom lens is sometimes described as having fixed focal length (not to be confused with fixed-focus), see prime lens. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, so maybe "fixed focal length camera lens" for the hover over, and prime lens for the link ? cool. Also any help with the telephoto ones would be cool too Penyulap talk 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

project templates

I have been using the History of Photography template on the discussion pages of articles I have recently created. Should I be using the Photography template instead? Bms4880 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fisheye lens

This article contains a list of the FEW fisheye lenses. I´m sure its:

  • not too long
  • has its value especially because it includes nearly all 35mm fisheyes
  • is currently removed by one editor, also former talks show that the list is wanted.

Please help or talk. Tagremover (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Curtis Moffat

Can anyone do anything about this nearly-unreferenced bio article about a photographer? Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts section added

Hopefully once the alert bot runs the first time, the redlink will be populated with article alerts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Pillars of Creation

Pillars of Creation photograph article has been proposed to be merged into Eagle Nebula, the subject of the photograph. See Talk:Eagle Nebula for the discussion. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ADAY.org – Picture Today Inspire Tomorrow

Editors may be interested in a global photographic event on May 15, 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for article: temporal cadence

I need some information to create an article on temporal cadence. This is mentioned in articles related to Transit of Venus and also at this link.
Thanks in advance! EngineerFromVega★ 06:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case it's just using longer words to say Frame rate. Should be a redirect. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll create the redirect. EngineerFromVega★ 05:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Camera timeline templates missing

After noticing {{Canon DSLR cameras}}, {{Konica Minolta/Sony DSLR cameras}}, {{Nikon DSLR cameras}}, {{Olympus DSLR cameras}}, {{Pentax DSLR cameras}}, and even {{Sigma DSLR cameras}}, I am wondering why we don't have similar templates for Category:Kodak DSLR cameras, Category:Fujifilm DSLR cameras and Panasonic Lumix.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess the answer is simple. Most popular brands have had timelines for ages. 1 & 2. Others seem to have been forgotten. I personally disagree with the timeline template as it is quite misleading. For instance, in the case of Nikon, the template suggests that D90 was stopped in Q2 of 2010. However, the camera continues to be marketed and sold in different regions of the world. A template specifying only classification seems more appropriate, IMO. --Jovian Eye storm 04:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know the Kodak or Fuji market shares, but I was guessing they might be comparable to Pentax or Olympus. I am still learning about my first DSLR and thought that having templates for these two additional brands might be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't have timeline templates for Kodak, Fuji and Lumix. As for the timeline format, I think the D90 is a bit of an oddball case, most other cameras have a relatively clear lines of succession with new models. However, having a classification only template would probably be better in the long run. Don't want to have to scroll horizontally to read the timeline in the future.SCΛRECROW 07:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Classification only templates are far less useful to us novice camera people who use wikipedia for age/obsolescence information. When my friends tell me what models they have, I can tell how old they are. This in and of itself provides useful information because technology is always evolving. The timeline is very consistent with other types of product information on wikipedia. See for example Template:Ford North America timeline 1980 to present, IPod#Timeline_of_iPod_models (although they separately present models at IPod#Models). Note how the Ford template handles long timelines. Scrolling is not necessary. I can create model only list templates, but don't even know the relative degree of sophistication. I would hope someone will both format these for classification and add a timeline to help the photography novice reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I have started basic templates for {{Kodak DSLR cameras}} and {{Fujifilm DSLR cameras}}. Please reformat these to make them more usefull. I will leave it for the expert to create the Lumix template since I am not sure what to do with their mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens

Does the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens belong in Template:Four Thirds lenses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no. Its image circle covers an APS-C sized sensor, and it's not available in 4/3 or m4/3 mount. decltype (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Advertising of Special:Contributions/Carlang for www.photographytalk.com

I think the ads of User:Carlang for www.photographytalk.com on about 50 Articles are not correct. I do not have the time to remove them. But i will be glad if someone deletes all this worthless "reviews" or "12 reasons to ...." stuff. Edited since August 22.[6]

The main interest of photographytalk seems to be "Advertise here". Tagremover (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Overexposed

The usage of Overexposed is up for discussion, see Talk:Overexposed (album) -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting about new Template:Nikon DSLR cameras proposals

There is a voting between 3 proposals, additional variants possible. Decision probably in the second half of February? Tagremover (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Canon QL

I just uploaded File:Canon FTb quick loader.JPG an image of the Canon QL 'quickloader' system. Many models in Template:Table of Canon SLR from 1966 on use it, I think. Is there an article that deals specifically with the QL feature?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Kodak has *completely* discontinued Ektachrome and all other transparency films?

If you know the above to be either (a) true, or (b) complete nonsense, can you please comment at the Ektachrome talk page. Thanks! 79.70.195.34 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nude photography

Nude photography has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Nude photography -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Genre category

Details on issues at: Category talk:Photography by genre. It may be too much for just this project so I will put a link at village pump as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr RfC

There is currently a discussion on the Flickr Redesign Controversy on the Talk:Flickr page. Please add your voices if you have an opinion! Thanks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please help us develop consensus on an Infobox photo

Could available editors please give their opinion on which of these photos would make a better Infobox pic for the Rick Remender article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not going to participate. Just don't have any photo for now, and boldly pick a photo in a year or so when all the excitement has died down. See WP:LAME. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program (photojournalism course)

I teach the following university course through Wikipedia Education Program. If you are interested in becoming part of W.E.P. and you want to be involved with photography or journalism-related courses, please consider being an online or a campus ambassador. You can assist students with Wikipedia-related issues and advance the project at the same time! If you're interested, please contact me via my Talk, and fill out an application at Wikipedia:Education_program/Ambassadors#Steps_to_becoming_an_Online_Ambassador. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Photography: Ambassadors (or those who apply) may want to also consider signing up as a volunteer for my current fall semester Digital Photography course, which is more limited in length (a matter of two or three weeks on the assignment). Students will be illustrating several Wikipedia articles each. They will be finding articles that are in need of illustration or may use current images request categories to get ideas. Some students may want to brainstorm with an experienced Wikipedian. After the photo shoot and photo editing, these students may need help with questions about uploading, filling in copyright forms (easy because they will be the creators), or placing images with captions in an article. This assignment requires knowledge of Wikimedia Commons as well as Wikipedia. The majority of these students should have had some prior experience with Wikipedia. Crtew (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about photography - Skysmith (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Frederick Douglas Miller

Hello,

Please help with this article. I have a complete detailled bio as reference, but rephrasing it is not easy. I am trying to determine if his is the author of Gandhi's pictures taken in London in 1930 (see Getty images). Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pinhole (optics)

See talk:Pinhole (optics) where a discussion is going on about the scope of the article and its name -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography to a new "Photographic Work" task force of this project.
Closed per request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#WikiProject_Photography. I will leave project members to implement this decision. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I know this has already been discussed but I think there should be one more Support/Oppose round for the next stage of this re--organisation.

Now that the maintenance project has moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Photography, proposal is to move Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography here as a task force page Photographic Work and have additional task forces for Photographic Principles and Photographic Technology. See the new form of this project page. Other suggestions on naming welcome.

Note also update to project banner template.

--Traveler100 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. I am not a member of any related project and won't become one, but this seems like a logical thing to do. I am commenting here to remind the other 85 page watchers of this discussion. Hans Adler 08:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on merger. I see that the proposal lingers. Any plans to finalize? I've no idea what that means; do people vote on it? As a photohistorian, one of the great frustrations is searching for photo history material and having to wade through lots of general photography information before getting to real history. Keeping the history separate from other photo topics is helpful to me. I think that it is to others who research in photohistory. The problem as I see it is to make more people interested in HoP aware of the entry and encourage them to edit and contribute. I could probably accomplish some of that just because I have a wide network of people who share an interest in the history of the medium. At any rate, I would welcome to see more talk on the subject. Will (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Photographers

Anybody known anything about Menzies Dickson?

Also, I start an article on Leo Matiz, whose work is pretty impressive if anyone wants to help.

And finally, I created a new article on Joseph Janney Steinmetz, much of whose work revolves around life in Sarasota, Florida.

I really came for help with the first subject, Menzies Dickson (a mystery!!!) but I figured I would mention the other two in case anyone wanted to help with those too. Have a happy every day. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Aodh McAingil MacCathmhaoil.png

Can this file be transferred on Commons? (please be so kind to reply on my talk page either on it.wiki or Commons -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Angela Cappetta

Here's another old abandoned Afc submission about a photographer. Is this a notable subject? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think notability is borderline. I moved it to mainspace: Angela Cappetta. Let it ride.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, Candleabracadabra, it looks like you copy-pasted it instead of using the "Move" function, and created two separate files. I've pasted them back together. Thanks for the improvements you made. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Photographic formulas — new subproject proposal

Hi, i've started a private wiki on this topic, but it seems that i'll be easily overwhelmed. Can someone help me joining work already done with wikipedia? All the formulas are out of the copyrights scope, so there will be no problem about this. Any help will be much appreciated Atelierelealbe (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this something for Wikipedia, or a private effort? I don't know if the processes are covered by Wikipedia itself, as they might be too technical. - Denimadept (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy in camera articles

In many camera articles, there is an infobox that lists certain common specifications, plus a Features section that often lists the same specifications. This is, to me, an example of "redundancy in the same article", which is bad. What should be the general guideline?
-- Michael Barkowski (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprized MOS:INFOBOX makes no sugestion, so I suggest that where the infobox entry covers the spec adequately, there's no need to put it in a section. Exceptions would be smallest, slowest, ugliest or otherwise exceptional specs. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Generally, all information in the infobox should be presented in the body of the article. Occasional exceptions are made (e.g., street addresses for businesses), but redundancy is generally considered desirable, as some readers don't actually look at the infoboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
And some may only look at the infobox. - Denimadept (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for the right term

Maybe you photography folks can help me out: I'm looking for the proper term describing the technique of transforming a photograph into a high-contrast black and white version (where all areas are either completely white or completely black). I'm writing an article about an album and I want to use the correct terminology to describe the cover art. This is the original photo and this is the album cover. This technique has been used for many punk rock album covers over the decades; For example Rancid has done it on a number of their releases (...And Out Come the Wolves, Indestructible, Let the Dominoes Fall, Radio Radio Radio, etc.). What's the technical term for this? I've usually just referred to it as "high contrast" but that doesn't seem entirely accurate. Any help would be appreciated; I'd sure like to use the correct terminology in the article I'm writing. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems an extreme case of Posterization. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly "orthographic", used in making halftone images for printing? - Denimadept (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Camera for documentation

I am often taking pictures for documentation purposes within a short amount of time. Let's say I take pictures of 50 cars within a day, with ca. 10 pictures per car. Is there a camera (or any other tool) that allows me to easily keep track later which pictures belonged to which car? Some ideas of what could work: 1) camera puts images of each car in separate folders (50 folders); 2) camera names files differently for each car; 3) some kind of info in the exif data. I know that many cameras allow to rename directories, but this feature is usually hidden in the menus, and switching directories 50 times would be to cumbersome in this case. Ideally I would just press a button or two after each car and the camera switches automatically to the next series of images. bamse (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

iPhoto will automatically create "events", which relies on time having elapsed between shooting sprees. I don't know if the threshold is adjustable, but a simple algorithm on this basis should be easy to implement in any operating system. Some programs also have the ability to group images by colour similarity. This might work if you're taking only exterior pictures, and the paint colours differ between vehicles. If you think your camera has the ability to create a new folder, try putting this functionality on one of your programmable buttons - your camera manual is your friend. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. The idea with the time might actually work. Unfortunately, none of my cameras (which are a couple of years old) allows to put the "create-folder-function" on a programmable button. Perhaps some newer models do. bamse (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This might be better asked in a photography forum, which this isn't. Try Googling. - Denimadept (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

UV filter image

At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tiffen UV filter, there is discussion on what the proper image is for a UV filter. There is a discussant who says that the proper image would not include a cap like the current main image. Should I take a picture of just a flat UV filter or one on its side.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I expect the current image is intended to make the photograph a bit more interesting than just having a filter on a white background. - Denimadept (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbon tissue

Dear photographers: This AfC submission was declined as being to technical. Is this a notable topic? If so, it can be reworded for clarity. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem, as stated in the rejection notice, is that the first paragraph only states what it's related to, it doesn't state what it does or why it's needed. Crucial is this sentence:
It is a gelatin-based emulsion used in the chemical etching (photoengraving) of gravure cylinders
Okay, so it's something reated to etching, but how is it important to the process? How does it improve on any method used previously? To put it succinctly, why do we care? If the reader isn't able to understand why they should care to read the rest of the article, then the article fails. Samsara (FA • FP) 05:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ping

Anybody else still active? Samsara (FA • FP) 13:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just "joined" yesterday. - Denimadept (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, cool. One of the proposals I would like to discuss is whether Category:Live-preview digital cameras is all that useful, as something like 95% or more of cameras now being released have live preview, in some cases providing no other assistance for framing a subject. So it's become almost a catch-all category for digital cameras. We already have an article on live preview, and it presents some of the same information. Samsara (FA • FP) 05:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've thought about it. Seems to me that most camera models do not have live-preview, since most camera models pre-date digital photography. Now, whether we want to differentiate between "digital camera" and "live-preview digital camera", requires more thought. If this category is a sub-category of Category:Digital cameras, I think it might be useful. - Denimadept (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think it might be more useful to distinguish by the type of camera, e.g. compact, bridge, boutique compact, MILC, DSLR (and, separately, SLT if you want). If it is decided that Category:Live-preview digital cameras is to be kept, then it should be properly populated. At the moment, all the point'n'shoots are missing. Once you add those, it will be a huge category - I'd estimate that currently only 10% or less of eligible cameras are in there. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Fujifilm Finepix S1800

Fujifilm Finepix S1800 is reporting a {{convert}} error because of broken syntax. What does the following specification mean?

CCD sensor : 1/2.3-inch CCD source

The problem in the article is that someone simply put a convert template around 1/2.3 (convert has recently been upgraded so it reports errors like that). Does it mean "one of 2.3 inch"? Would someone please fix the article, and replace the dead reference link with the correct one above. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a fraction, so it means the sensor's width is 0.434 inches. It's common for smaller sensors to be measured in inches rather than mm like larger DSLR sensors (don't ask me why). I had a look at what some of the other camera articles were expressing it as and copied the format. The issue is fixed: I essentially just removed the convert template and linked the width to Image sensor format which explains the sensor size in relation to other cameras better. Hope that helps. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I just learned something new. After replying here, I realised that 1/2.3" is not actually the width of the sensor at all. And it turns out that the reason why some sensor sizes are expressed in inches is because they are actually a different measurement. It apparently dates back to the 1950s when 'tubes' connected the sensor of TV cameras and the diameter of the tubes were what was measured, rather than the sensor itself (reference here, as well as in the image sensor format article mentioned above). So the width of a 1/2.3" sensor is actually significantly smaller than 1/2.3". There you go. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

article request

It would be nice to have an article like List of Nikon F-mount lenses with integrated autofocus motor except for Nikkors without the integrated autofocus motor. As far as I can see, there isn't one. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

So you want a list of Nikon lenses for use by everything BUT low end Nikon bodies? - Denimadept (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably not every lens Nikon ever made, but ones for their modern AF DSLRs that don't require the integrated AF motor. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Nikon F-mount lenses with integrated autofocus motor

List of Nikon F-mount lenses with integrated autofocus motor has many lenses that are underlined when they are not links to articles. There is no explanation of why they are underlined. (The ones with the green background have VR.) Anyhow, seeing no need for or explanation of the underlining, I removed it. Someone just reverted it w/o explanation. Is there a reason for the underlining? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

From the nomenclature section, it looks like an underline represents a full frame-capable lens. But the use of color highlights and underlines on that page is nonstandard. It would be better to put the various lens properties explicitly into a table. --Mark viking (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any explanation of the underlining, but it would be good to indicate those. The underlined ones are hard to tell from the links to articles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've introduced a sortable table for this. We can put in columns for attributes as appropriate, get rid of the colors and underlining, and allow people to sort on the criteria they wish, which isn't currently the case. This is just an initial idea. If it works, we might port it to other such lists. - Denimadept (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to a request to not develop this table in the article, I've moved it to User:Denimadept/List of lenses. Please contribute there. I very much welcome help in doing this! The columns are not in concrete, the data is incomplete, etc.. If you feel it's worth doing, please help. If you don't, please say so on the sandbox article's Talk page. - Denimadept (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of cramped navigational templates

There is a relevant discussion here: Template talk:Nikon DSLR cameras#Future layout of this template. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that they should be rotated 90 degrees. The categories (entry level, advanced, etc) will be a small fixed number of columns and the years and quarters can be extended down the page as far as needed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo contests/competitions

Why can't I find any pages about photo contests or competition? --ViseMoD (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Far as I know, nobody has written one. Perhaps a good start would be to add a section to Photographer or some other article, eventually expanding it to a separate article. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, there is some information here about photographic contests, but it is patchy, scattered, and not always under that name. I created a page Photographic Alliance of Great Britain with some information about the competitions they hold. I created a new section of the Digital image page called "Projected Digital Image (PDI)" on 2011-10-30, especially to include information about their use for competitions, but this section was deleted on 2012-02-12 for a reason that is unclear to me. There are pages such as Food Photographer of the Year and (the following may well demand raw images from the winners) Wildlife Photographer of the Year and Travel Photographer of the Year. Salons and Exhibitions are types of competition, for example see Category:Photography exhibitions. Most of the salons and exhibitions I enter qualify for Fédération Internationale de l'Art Photographique (or "FIAP") points. Barry Pearson 17:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The FIAP article looks like a crude beginning of a general contest article. One possibility is to rename it for that purpose and add your previously deleted material. Mainly, this scheme requires a new paragraph or two about how contests operate. Maybe someone can suggests an entirely different approach. If not, then this idea can be adjusted as we go along. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Drake

Dear photography experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable photographer? Should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstract photography

I'm currently researching material for a new article on abstract photography. It's a bigger topic than I originally imagined, especailly since the definition is fairly broad. If anyone is interested in collaborating please let me know. Otherwise look for a first iteration in a week or so. Lexaxis7 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable?

I'm not a member of the group but I'd like to do a bio of a photographer. His subject matter is generally gay "radical sex" people. His first book came out about 10 years ago and the second will appear in the fall. He's not had many solo shows but has been included in group shows. Is that notable enough for the project? - kosboot (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kosboot: Notability guidelines are not managed by wikiprojects, but centrally. Therefore, you need to look at pages such as Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. HTH, Samsara 10:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submissions

Draft:James S Stening and Draft:John Cato. They appear quite promising. What do you reckon? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Just found Draft:Frederick Frith as well, although it's not as promising as the other two. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Also Draft:H H Tilbrook and Draft:Ruth Maddison. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: These have all been promoted to article space. Samsara 11:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How to format a list of exhibitions

There is a discussion on the best way to format a list of photographic exhibitions at Talk:Rhodri Jones (photographer)#List of Exhibitions. Similar issues may apply to other photographers' biographies. If you have a view on this then please comment on the Talk page. Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've replied there, I suggest others do the same. Samsara 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Lenses without infinity focus

Dear All,

I'm thinking of deprecating the max-dist parameter from the lenses infobox template, Template:Infobox photographic lens, as extremely few lenses have anything other than infinity focus at maximum, which makes this parameter nearly redundant and better to mention in prose, to avoid clutter. Opinions? Samsara 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be non-existent for most lenses. Perhaps it would be better to have a field named, perhaps, "focal limit", documented to be left blank if there is no limit (i.e. infinity), and have a value if there is. So the minority of lenses with a limit could have it specified and the rest would have less clutter in the infobox. A fancy way to code it would be for the new field to inherit any value of "infinity", "infinite", ∞, etc to be blank.

There seem to also be lenses with two ranges, one for normal mode and one for macro, with normal focusing to infinity and macro having a short limit. So the fields could be reconfigured to say "focal range" for normal mode and "macro focal range" (if it exists). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis Bratland. I just implemented the hiding of infinite values. I'm wondering if what you're mentioning about macro vs. normal focus ranges is functionally the same as a focus limiter. Maybe presence of a focus limiter could be mentioned as a feature... Samsara 14:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Naming of articles on lenses: Sigma as case study, recent work

Noting that Sigma lenses as listed in Template:Sigma lenses or Category:Sigma lenses followed a mixture of f/2.8 and F2.8 style notation, and that lenses by other manufacturers mainly follow the f/2.8 notation, I changed any F2.8 style articles to the f/2.8 style. However, I will also note that Sigma uses the technically less correct F2.8 notation in official product names as per their press releases and website listings, so I'm open to an argument in favour of official product names. Unfortunately, it seems that product names are generally not used consistently - for instance, there is a developing convention to refer to Sigma's Art lenses simply as "A" and its Contemporary lenses as "C", and likewise for Sport. Whether the vertical bar ("pipe", i.e. "| Art" or "| A") is also used, varies. For Pentax lenses, officially the coating (smc or HD) should be inserted before the word "Pentax". However, hardly anybody outside Pentax/Ricoh actually uses that styling.

Generally, lens articles do not follow any consistent naming, with some referencing particular products and others merely the focal lengths, meaning several products having that focal length would need to be covered within the same article. It would be great if we could find a willingness to improve our coverage and consistency.

If anyone is still reading, maybe leave a note and ping me? Thanks.

Samsara 11:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As a footnote to this, work is currently underway to remove the "lens" suffix from all lens articles whose titles are actual product names. Furthermore, I believe there is an implied practice of not following manufacturer capitalisation w.r.t. nouns, proper or otherwise, so for instance I would not capitalise Sigma, Pentax or Macro, even though manufacturers often do. It remains to be clarified whether "lens" should ever be part of article names at all (except where in brackets when disambiguation is actually needed). For now, I will follow established convention, but I think there's a case to be made for omitting this. Comments welcome. Samsara 15:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I very much appreciate this "lens" thing being removed from articles about lenses, except for in articles with incomplete names or which don't specify a particular lens but rather a group of lenses (so we both seem to have come up with basically the same "definition").
This unnecessary "lens" appendage is something that bugged me for years, but I even created some articles including it because it looked as if there was some kind of agreement to include it in lens articles for what reasons ever - but apparently there never was a community decision to include it, so let's get rid of it - it certainly isn't supported by our normal naming conventions. Realistically, it will take a long while to update all articles and links accordingly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start it.
Regarding capitalization of "Sigma", "Macro" etc. you meant to write "Sigma", not "SIGMA" and "Macro" instead of "MACRO", right? I would not like to see it being written as "macro", though. And, of course, there should be redirects catching the alternative capitalizations as well, in particular, if the actual labeling on a lens uses the all-uppercase form.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Correct. The only exception I'm currently making is to not write smc as upper case if I find that both the tech press and the manufacturer don't do so, simply because we have no other consensus in that regard. Perhaps iPod is a precedent for this. Samsara 22:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Superzoom camera - what qualifies?

I've cleaned up Category:Superzoom a little bit, but I'm now confronted with the fact that there are a number of cameras in it that have a zoom range that is now standard for compact cameras, yet back in the day, they might have marginally been considered "superzoom". I'm not sure what to do with these since technology has moved on - leave them in for historic reference? Or update the category under a moving wall principle to reflect the pace of technology? I usually would err on the side of historic reference, but it may be difficult when adding other articles for old cameras to ascertain whether they were considered "superzoom" in their day and therefore give them fair treatment. What think ye? Samsara 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bump. Samsara 20:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, the same applies to other categories based on "soft" criteria. "Category:Macro lenses" is another example. There is no "hard" definition of what the term "macro" stands for. Your original definition for the category was "1:1 or better", which I changed to "1:2 or better" in order to include the many dedicated macro primes which only go up to 1:2. Otherwise we'd loose most of the macro lenses of manual-focus times and even quite a few AF ones. I guess we should better err on the inclusion side rather than their exclusion as such categories are typically used to locate articles or contents, not to establish a mandantory "rule-set" in their own right. Every lens that is supposed to be a super-zoom or macro or whatever, but is not included in those categories, is a miss for someone searching for it, whereas listing a lens not associated with the cateory title by all people (now or in the future) doesn't harm much. If a category gets too cluttered, we can always sub-divide it using more specific criteria in the future. So, to me your "moving window" approach appears to be the right one for such kinds of "soft" categories. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
No, these situations are not the same. The reason 1:1 should be used for macro comes from analog photography: 1:1 allows copying film at the same size. This is one of the things that makes macro lenses special, plays a hugely important role in film photography, and cannot be replicated by 1:2 lenses. 1:1 can, of course, be achieved by any lens with suitable accessories, so saying you can put an extension tube on a 1:2 lens and get it to "true macro" is a moot point. The change should be reverted. Samsara 14:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But what you describe looks like Category:Lenses with life-size magnification rather then Category:Macro lenses to me. But if having a category for this is really important, this could become a sub-cat of Category:Macro lenses.
The problem with drawing the line at 1:1 is that a lot of dedicated macro lenses would have to be excluded from this category then. To give you an example: Where would you put the following dedicated macro lenses, which all achieve up to 1:2 only? (Obviously, this list is very incomplete and just covers some lenses I am aware of from the back of my head):
* Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 (F-mount)
* Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 (F-mount)
* Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8D ED (F-mount)
* Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D ED (F-mount)
* Minolta AF Macro 50mm f/3.5 (A-mount)
* Minolta Macro Rokkor-QF 50mm f/3.5 (SR-mount)
* Minolta MC Macro Rokkor-QF 50mm f/3.5 (SR-mount)
* Minolta MC Macro Rokkor(-X) 50mm f/3.5 (SR-mount)
* Minolta MD Macro Rokkor(-X) 50mm f/3.5 (SR-mount)
* Minolta MD Macro 50mm f/3.5 (SR-mount)
* Minolta MC Macro Rokkor-QE 100mm f/3.5 (SR-mount)
* Minolta MC Macro Rokkor(-X) 100mm f/3.5 (SR-mount)
* Minolta MD Macro Rokkor(-X) 100mm f/3.5 (SR-mount)
* Minolta MD Macro Rokkor(-X) 100mm f/4 (SR-mount)
* Minolta MD Macro 100mm f/4 (SR-mount)
* Sigma AF 90mm f/2.8 Macro (various AF mounts)
* Sigma AF 180mm f/2.8 Macro (various AF mounts)
* Sigma AF 180mm f/5.6 Macro (various AF mounts)
* Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 Macro (model 52B) (various MF mounts)
* Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.5 Macro (model 52E) (various AF mounts)
* Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.5 Macro (model 152E) (various AF mounts)
* Tokina AT-X AF Macro 100mm f/2.8
* Cosina Voigtländer AF Macro Dynar 100mm f/3.5 (various AF mounts)
* Exakta AF Macro 100mm f/3.5 (various AF mounts)
* Soligor AF Macro 100mm f/3.5 MC (various AF mounts)
* Phoenix AF Macro 100mm f/3.5 (various AF mounts)
* Promaster Spectrum 7 AF Macro 100mm f/3.5 (various AF mounts)
* Vivitar AF Macro 100mm f/3.5 (various AF mounts)
There is no clear definition of "macro" (our article currently says 1:1, but I could cite from a lot of books defining "macro" either as "approaching 1:1" or "approximately 1:1"). The industry standard DIN 19040 even defines "macro" as anything between 1:10 and 10:1, while many photographers often draw the line at 1:3 to 3:1 in practice. Some vendors use(d) the term "macro" for magnifications up to 1:1 and "micro" for 1:1 and higher. Nikon uses the term "micro" for 1:2 and higher.
Ignoring the description, I understood the Category:Macro lenses as if it was meant to list dedicated lenses for macro photography, but not those types of "zoom lenses with pseudo-macro modes", which don't even come close to 1:1. This is a goal which is still achieved by chosing 1:2 instead of 1:1 - with one or two exceptions (I am aware of one dedicated macro prime only achieving 1:3 and of one "normal" macro zoom actually achieving 1:2).
But if your intention for this category really was "1:1 and higher", the name of the category should be changed to something like "Category:Lenses with life-size or higher magnification". This could become a sub-cat of "Category:Macro lenses".
Regarding your assertion about extension tubes, well, I didn't raise that argument at all, so this is only a technical side-note.
But I'd like to clarify that optically for all those older macro lenses there really isn't a difference between focusing via the focus ring or via extension tube/bellows. This is because all those macro lenses were extension-focused, anyway. Sometimes, the dedicated macro lenses came with a special extension tube to achieve 1:1 (Minolta called them life-size adapters). Even when macro lenses started to utilize float-focusing designs around 1985, they still used extension-focusing for the most part. This is why these newer designs still offer good performance on extension tubes and bellows without significant image degradation.
Things started changing only a couple of years ago with the introduction of macro lens designs using internal focusing. As a result from their optical design, they change their focal length with focusing (at the near end the effective focal length is significantly lower than their nominal focal length. (That's why they often don't compete well with the older designs in terms of achieving a larger lensfront-to-subject distance.) There is often also a visible degradation of the image quality (f.e. bad bokeh) when combining them with extension tubes or bellows. So, for these modern designs, allowing extension tube to achieve higher magnifications would be sort of a moot argument, while for the older ones it didn't matter and therefore extension tubes weren't a bad idea at all.
Greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you know and I know that manufacturers often put "macro" in the name of lenses with ridiculously low magnification ratios, often not exceeding what any old kit zoom can do. But what the marketing department wants is not relevant here. There is a name for such lenses, and that name is close focus lenses. They are not true macro lenses. Regards, Samsara 23:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Notable photographs or notable photography

I have proposed that an article topic that I have created be renamed Photographs of Aylan Kurdi. However for now there is an insistence that the article could be renamed Photography of Aylan Kurdi. It is actually the reactions to photographs of Aylan Kurdi that are notable. The photography involved has not yet been found notable, or am I wrong about that. --Burst of unj (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to mass rename lenses from "Sony Alpha" to "Sony α"

You can find and comment the request here. Samsara 23:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As the proposed moves go against our naming conventions, I will likely carry out the same moves except leaving "α" as "Alpha" and create appropriate redirects from the α variants. Any more comments? Samsara 15:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

New batch of 1500 high-quality camera/lens/accessories images

I've recently transferred about 1500 camera images from Flickr to Commons. They can be found in commons:Category:Files uploaded by INeverCry (Cameras) and commons:Category:Files uploaded by INeverCry (Cameras - checked) if anyone wants to help categorize them, add them to articles, or just look through them. There's some great stuff in there. INeverCry 22:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest help required for The Honest Body Project

The Honest Body Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, photography Wikipedians. I spotted this article while patrolling new pages. It seems to pass the WP:CCS test, and looks like it may have WP:NOTABILITY, with a good number of sources already cited (quality of sources not verified by me). What is needed is for someone who is suitably experienced at managing a WP:COI and has the correct background to properly evaluate the article and sources. The creator, NatalieRMcCain (talk · contribs) seems friendly and keen to work with us to address the COI. So, I'm appealing to you to help Natilie out with this. If you are interested, please see Talk:The Honest Body Project#Conflict of Interest. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Murph9000 I'll take a look. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

AfC submission

Draft:Harold Baker (photographer). Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Instax Instant Cameras

Not sure if this is a big enough deal to be put here, but with the "Instax mini" line (the "8" model in particular) being generally the best-selling camera on Amazon, I imagine their page should be receiving a fair amount of attention from seasoned Wiki editors, but I don't think it is. Specifically, I'm referring to updating their page with new and upcoming releases (which happens rather quickly on more conventional brands' pages). The Instax mini 70 was recently announced and will be released soon, so I'm thinking that should be on the Instax page somewhere; however, I am a novice at adding brand new content to articles (and haven't the slightest clue where to start when it comes to those lovely tables that product details/histories are often displayed in), so feel free to help me out here. Or dismiss me altogether... one of the two. natemup (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi natemup. It seems unlikely that the Instax article would be "receiving a fair amount of attention from seasoned Wiki editors" no matter how popular the camera, because in my experience articles on camera equipment don't see much editing. Upcoming camera releases shouldn't be added to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia should deal in reality and an upcoming release isn't yet reality. But please go ahead and try to add actually released cameras, that would be a useful addition to the article. Try copy and pasting an existing line of the table and amend the details to make your addition (copy two lines, the first with a |-, and the second with the main line of information; make sure the last line in the table is a |}). If you make mistake I or others can help correct them – we'll either see what you've done or you can add a comment here.-Lopifalko (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I added the Instax Mini 70. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Camera templates

Can someone please remove all these canon cams? Tanks, 217.250.188.243 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Massive donation of pictures of Paolo Monti on commons

FYI, 17000 photos of photographer Paolo Monti are now on wikimedia commons. See also here for more information (in Italian) or contact WIR User:Marco Chemello (BEIC)--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Alexmar983. In English, you can refer to Commons:BEIC. --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Women in photography

You are invited...

Women in Photography
worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Ipigott (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Help with naming convention

Hello, photography Wikipedians. I'm creating an article on The Friends of Photography (FOP), which was an important organization founded by Ansel Adams to promote fine art photography. Currently there is no article called "Friends of Photography", but in naming this one I want to distinguish it from any future articles about similarly named organizations. Ordinarily I might add the name of the city where the organization was located, as in "Friends of Photography (Carmel, CA)", but FOP later moved to San Francisco and choosing one city or the other seems confusing. Since the organization is no longer in existence, would it be appropriate to distinguish it by the dates when it was active, as in "Friends of Photography (1967-1994)"? I'm guessing there is some proper naming convention, but I couldn't find one that addresses this. Lexaxis7 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know for sure, but common sense tells me you should name it The Friends of Photography. If a future organisation uses the same name then it can be decided then how to name both articles. You cannot see into the future; go with what we have now; articles can easily be renamed. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Lopifalko. I'm going with your idea. It's the easiest and most practical. Lexaxis7 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The Friends of Photography article is now published. Please offer any feedback, and, of course, edit it as may be appropriate. Lexaxis7 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)