Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/History of Photography

Index · Statistics · Log

History of photography pages by quality
Quality
	Total
FA	8
FM	29
GA	27
B	165
C	560
Start	1,190
Stub	753
List	44
Category	211
File	2
Project	4
Redirect	51
Template	6
Assessed	3,050
Unassessed	23
Total	3,073
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 13,257			Ω = 4.90

AfDs

These are now listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/History of photography (transcluded below). You may wish to keep this on your watchlist.

(Old AfD mentions are here.)

Photography

Philip Krejcarek

Philip Krejcarek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of an apparently non-notable retired photography teacher. No in-depth secondary sources, and his awards for photography and teaching do not seem to be significant ones. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Very trivial coverage in Gnews, with his name in a list of art exhibits. Sources now used in the article are primary or non-RS. Nothing I can find for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Photography, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

FirstVIEW

FirstVIEW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable database or website. Doesn't meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. I can't find any RS online nor on article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Monsoon (photographs)

Monsoon (photographs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Generally fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG, there are no footnotes in the article and not enough information for direct sourcing. I tried to find more sources for this article but I couldn't. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Brian Brake. This could have been done without a discussion. I'm skeptical of GoodHue291's WP:BEFORE search; I suspect a determined editor could find sources for this subject to pass WP:GNG. However, I see no reason that it needs a standalone article. Daask (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Question, why would you be skeptical about my WP:BEFORE search? GoodHue291 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge is the most sensible option. The photgraph is notable and featured in numerous publications globally. NealeWellington (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, as a notable photograph or series of photos (there are many Wikipedia articles on photographs) the topic is well sourced, although these sources are listed on the page as 'Further reading'. This coverage easily meets GNG. No need to merge to the photogrpaher's page as it already has much of this information and a merge does not take into consideration Aparna Sen, the subject of the well-known staged cover-worthy photograph. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Brian Brake. These photos are notable, but not notable enough for their own article. The content would be better merged into the artist's article. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• If the photos are notable then where is the line drawn to be "notable enough"? Randy Kryn (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Brian Brake. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Matt Hunt (journalist)

Matt Hunt (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging Jamiebuba, who recently accepted the draft at AfC. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Environment, Internet, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: He is notable as a journalist. Several coverage from BBC and also a host of a show on BBC as well. Subject is a main personality on a notable international station. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 02:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Please provide a valid, policy-based reason when commenting at AfDs. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete, his cause/work may be notable but notability isn't inherited. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Comparison of photo stitching software

Comparison of photo stitching software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, it is a discussion about whether an article titled "comparison of photo stitching software" should exist on the English Wikipedia.

  What kind of "sourcing" do you think we need for the claim that Adobe Lightroom is proprietary and not open-source? Do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? What basis is there to think that?

  The topic of comparing photo-stitching software is obviously notable and many people care about it. Here are some articles about it that I found after searching for about ten seconds:

  • Coleman, Alex (September 21, 2023). "Best Panorama Stitching Software for Photography". Photography Life.
  • "Best panorama stitching software: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review". www.dpreview.com.
  • "What is the best photo stitching software to use in 2024? | Skylum Blog". skylum.com.
  • "8 Best Photo Stitching Software for Making Panoramas [2024]". www.movavi.com.
  • "10 Best Photo Stitching Software in 2024 (Updated)". expertphotography.com. November 8, 2021.
  • "Top Photo Stitching Software for Breathtaking Panoramas". Cole's Classroom. December 7, 2020.
  • "9 Best Photo Stitching Software To Create Panorama Images". carlcheo.com.

  People who are on the Internet looking for information (i.e. the people that this website actually exists to serve) are obviously interested in this subject, and it is not only possible but very easy for us to maintain high-quality well-sourced information for them. We do not need a long-form thinkpiece from The Atlantic to do this: we just need to cite reliable information about photo-stitching software. Adobe's website is a reasonable citation for how much Adobe's software costs. The thing being demanded here -- that somebody find a New York Times article or something listing how much Adobe Lightroom subscriptions cost, and then cite that instead of Adobe's website -- is unnecessary, unreasonable and likely impossible.
  
  

  The idea that we should destroy this information is both inexplicable and infuriating, and when people have told me they no longer enjoy using Wikipedia as a resource, about eight times out of ten it happened after watching large amounts of neutral reliably-sourced material disappear forever because somebody found it aesthetically distasteful. jp×g🗯️ 00:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?
  
  

  Of course Adobe's website is not a reliable source for "Lightroom is the best and easiest-to-use software ever", but it's a reliable source for "Lightroom has a stitching mode for fisheye lenses", which is indeed what we're citing to it.
  
  

  These sources -- again, they are from the first page of a Web search, I could certainly find more if I actually went to the library -- are obviously not canonical listings of the best photo stitching software packages, they're evidence of this being a notable subject that people have a consistent and strong interest in. If you really want evidence that evaluating and comparing types of panoramic stitching software is a subject that's been given proper scholarly treatment by serious people with graduate degrees, I can also do a quick publication search.

  • Mehta, Jalpa D.; Bhirud, S. G. (May 31, 2011). Pise, S. J. (ed.). "Image stitching techniques". Springer India. pp. 74–80. doi:10.1007/978-81-8489-989-4_13 – via Springer Link.
  • Montabone, Sebastian; Pohlmann, Frank; MacDonald, Brian; Andres, Clay; Anglin, Steve; Beckner, Mark; Buckingham, Ewan; Cornell, Gary; Gennick, Jonathan; Hassell, Jonathan; Lowman, Michelle; Moodie, Matthew; Parkes, Duncan; Pepper, Jeffrey; Pundick, Douglas; Renow-Clarke, Ben; Shakeshaft, Dominic; Wade, Matt; Welsh, Tom; Markham, Jim; Moore, Ralph, eds. (May 31, 2009). Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers. Apress. pp. 205–234. doi:10.1007/978-1-4302-2842-4_9 – via Springer Link.
  • Benzar, Julia (May 31, 2012). "Hardware and Software for Panoramic Photography". www.theseus.fi.
  • https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/752941/dunguyen_thesis_final.pdf?sequence=2
  • Montabone, Sebastian (July 27, 2010). "Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers". Apress – via Amazon.
  • Soler Cubero, Oscar (September 2, 2011). "Image Stitching" – via upcommons.upc.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:jiafm&volume=36&issue=1&article=015
  • Gillmore, John; Dodd, Bucky (June 27, 2011). "Panoramic Virtual Environments for eLearning Applications". Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). pp. 951–956 – via www.learntechlib.org.
  • Song, Huaibo; Yang, Chenghai; Zhang, Jian; Hoffmann, Wesley C.; He, Dongjian; Thomasson, J. Alex (March 31, 2016). "Comparison of mosaicking techniques for airborne images from consumer-grade cameras". Journal of Applied Remote Sensing. 10 (1): 016030. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.10.016030 – via www.spiedigitallibrary.org.
  • https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39670392.pdf
  • Weitoish, Daniel (January 1, 2012). "From the Canopy: An Arborist's Perspective" (58) – via repository.upenn.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

  jp×g🗯️ 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Those articles, ironically, describe how to stitch images without the use of the software programs listed in the article. Those sources might look authoritative, but they only cover image stitching as a general technique, for which we already have an article for. In fact, the existence of these sources are a reason to delete this article, because it shows that people tend to avoid buying expensive subscriptions for photo stitching programs in favor of DIY solutions. And again, that's nothing to say of the mountains of original research and synthesis in the original article. Tunneling on one specific use of one primary source misses the bigger picture that the nominator and two other delete votes have painted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories

Images

Templates

Proposed deletion

• Pixillion Image Converter (via WP:PROD on 10 September 2023)

Merging two 19th c categories

I have noticed that Photographic processes dating from the 19th century is the most commonly used one, but there is one Photographic techniques dating from the 19th century. It's creating a false division between them as they are both partially cataloged.

Category:History of photography articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:History of photography articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Michael Yamashita

Hi all,

I am a fan of Michael Yamashita and am attempting to salvage an old Wikipedia page before it is deleted. I've deleted some information without sources and am adding neutral info & facts. Open to any help and advice as I am a new editor. I believe this page contributes to the public good as Michael is one of the most well known modern day Asia photographers.

-Drew Cryptohydrate (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

Some progress has been made on Michael Yamashita's page, thanks to some editors here and others.

There is a "citation needed" on the first sentence of the bio, with regards to exhibitions. I've started [thread] with a link to some useful info on the Talk page, in hopes some editors will take a look and advise. Cryptohydrate (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Improving Film speed

Hi there, I just wanted to get my suggestion sped up a little by pointing it out here: Talk:Film speed#ASA: 1943 vs. 1960. --2003:DA:CF39:B861:60FA:97C4:BA2C:67AC (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)