Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/History of Photography/Archive/2008

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Theodore Roosevelt on broken glass[edit]

I would like to ask for reviews fo the above image, also I havn't been able to find an article about image deterioration, perhaps you know of some. _→AzaToth 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine photo, but it's been given a name that strikes me as very odd indeed. I know squat about the deterioration and conservation of glass plates, but I think I know broken glass when I see it and I don't see it here. To my entirely untrained eye, what we're looking at is a print from a slab of glass that's in fairly good condition but which was covered with an emulsion that has deteriorated and in places perhaps even disappeared.

Let's imagine for a moment that my guess here is correct. If so, the wrong filename shouldn't matter too much in practice, but in principle it's strange indeed. And if I were a reviewer I'd be reluctant to give any award to a something blatantly mistitled.

But I could be entirely wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the title is totally wrong, but I couldn't find the right words! So I did choose something that was at least partially true :) (there is a minor brokenness in the glass at the middle left border). _→AzaToth 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the title suggests to me that he's standing on a pile of the stuff (perhaps after a battle): had the glass been broken, possibly "TR on a broken plate", but even that would be a strange title, as one doesn't normally title a photograph after its damage. I suggest that you ignore the nature of the damage when retitling it, and concentrate on the image that it shows. Somebody knowing a lot more than me (or perhaps you) might then use it appropriately within some article on image degradation. -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Demi Moore[edit]

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) 19:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is an FA... but, by all means, give Demi Moore a boost! :~) Pinkville (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about the MDM article. I could express the negatives on the article's talk page (indeed, I've already expressed a few there) but I don't want to do so because that talk page will certainly be examined by the "GA" people and I don't want to spike the article's chances.

The good thing is that clearly the article is well researched, documented, written and of course illustrated. What doesn't appeal to my own interest as a participant in WP HoP is that it's all celebrity kerfuffle and moral panic. The photograph is competent enough but strikes me as uninteresting; it would strike me as most interesting if I had the hots for Mrs Willis, if I were starstruck, or if I felt remotely involved in US hysteria about what may and may not be shown (cf "Nipplegate").

All in all this seems much less a photograph than a media (non-) event. I suppose it's notable as the latter; certainly the hoo-hah about it does to some degree appeal to my inner Ambrose Bierce. So my advice for improving it is pretty much photography-unrelated. The stuff about how rich and successful Moore and her husband were seems overdone. Yes, it's worth saying, but to that degree? And the fact that Leibowitz had just had an exhibition also seems by the way: she was the Fair's star photographer at the time and had a history of posing celebs in novel (or, if you're not an admirer) gimmicky ways. If you're going to have background, I suppose you should say a bit more about earlier covers showing posed celebs, Fair covers, and [let's whisper the next bit so that it doesn't attract massed nitwits and trivia buffs] posed "celebrity skin". Unfortunately I don't know anything about any of these and therefore can't help.

Back to the photo as photo. Leibowitz is very highly rated and recently and famously photographed the British queen. I'd guess that some starstruck interviewer might have asked her recently about "MDM" especially in the context of photographing the queen (who's not noted for appreciating artistic or other trends of the last several generations). Also, there may be some new books about about Leibowitz that discuss "MDM" as photograph rather than (or as well as) event. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since your reply, I have augmented the article in a way that may make it more relevant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird with the footers I don't understand...[edit]

Okay, I'm not the most knowledgeable Wiki editor around here, but I can't figure this situation out.

I've been dropping the Photography subject footer into several photo related articles as seen here: {{photography subject}}

But it's producing different footers in Post Mortem photography as opposed to Portrait photography. What's up?

--24.6.29.122 (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thot I was signed in when I left that message. --Mactographer (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the browser that I happen to be using right now, the two look much the same. -- Hoary (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More weirdness. Just a second ago, the footers were completely different. Now they are only slightly different. The only difference I've noticed is the small category: postmortem photography doesn't show the small category: senior photography when you are IN Post-mortem photography. I am going to sign OUT of my user ID to see if things change yet again.

--Mactographer (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, someone please explain this to me. See the differences in the screen grabs below. The first one is what I see when on the two afforemented pages when NOT signed into my Wikipedia account. The 2nd screen grab is when I AM signed in. The first images shows obvious differences in the footers. The 2nd image shows only SLIGHT differences in the footers as circled by a small red lined box. Please don't tell me to flush my cache.. I've already done that and have RE-started my Windows XP PC. Same problem exists. --Mactographer (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The exact same thing happens with I browse the same pages on my MAC computer. --Mactographer (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This problem appears to be fixed or corrected now. --Mactographer (talk) 08:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different stylesheets: When you're not logged in, pages are formatted according to default CSS; when you are logged in, they're formatted according to the CSS of your preferences, which may be different. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]