Talk:History of photography/Archive 1

Misc comments that were at top of pre-archived talk

"History of photography" Has been butchered again , She had a photo in 1453?.

Lazaiurs 13:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I like this article, but it isn't very comprehensive. It should be titled "a history of photography in the 19th century". Have there been no developments in the last 100 years?! In my opinion, it should outline the key points:

1. Conception of a light photograph
2. First true permanent photograph

   Refinement of the process used to take that

3. First true colour photograph

   Refinement of the process used to take that

4. Dawn of "moving pictures"

   The effect of this on photography

5. Advent of digital photography

   The ensuing boom in photographers

6. Advent of camera phones

   Causing the dawn of the new age of photojournalism (ie. that cover of time magazine)

I know this is a lot of points, but they really should be in the article. I'll add what I know, if anyone else can help that'd be brilliant, thanks - Jack · talk · 07:13, Monday, 19 February 2007

Sounds good. I just split this off from Photography because it was taking up too much space there. I have no particular expertise on the subject. howcheng {chat} 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"History of photography" is too wide a subject for just one article. A history of early photography deserves an entry of its own, with links to the succeeding developments.

RobertSL 13:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

better history on color photography

People editing photography history should be aware of Colour_photography and its need for an expert on the subject matter. I was very dissapointed to see that a lot of interesting historical information was removed in late March when an early color photo was Wikipedia's Picture Of the Day. See the diff between March 16 and 23 on Color Photography (about 10 edits) Link [1] .... Also, as an example of really good and intersting information about history of color photography, please see [2] (Also, they have very good restorations of Proudskin's 100 year old color photographs as well, see [3]) .... We sorely need a GOOD history section for the history of Color Photography, whether in this article or in another sub-article... Mdrejhon 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

this should be retitled "citation needed"

Great-googly-moogly... All those tags make this entire article come off as fiction. --A Good Anon 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the existing citations using citation templates and removed one citation request that had been left in after the citation was added. The two books cited seem pretty comprehensive from their descriptions on amazon.com, someone with the books should go through and see if the existing citation requests can be satisfied by the existing references, particularly the Crawford volume. We might be able to remove most or all of the citation requests in one fell swoop--HarryHenryGebel 12:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

film vs. digital

I don’t believe the article’s assertion that the resolution of good digital cameras exceeds that of high quality 35 mm film. My understanding is that chemical processes react to light at the molecular level, far smaller than any CCD. Further, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm [downloaded today] says, “A glass plate from 1880 still has more resolution than a Canon 1Ds-MkII.” The assertion should be modified or evidence should be cited.
Phil Kalina, photographer, 216.193.61.9 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Without defining the top of the range, it's hard to say for sure, but it is indeed diffult to match film for resolution, even at 35mm; Rockwell's comment is not relevant to that comparison. Image quality, on the other hand, is more clearly in favor of digital. So I changed it. Dicklyon 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cameras in mobile phones consumer devices?

The section entitled "Cameras in mobile phones" might better be titled more inclusively, as cameras find their way into computers, cars, presumably fixed phones, TVs, front doors etc etc. The essence there I think is not telephony, nor mobility, but the cheapness of lens, sensor and storage systems allowing ubiquity. I've not changed it, I'll leave it for thought or comment. Midgley 12:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took that section out, as it was increbibly narrow, unsourced, and with no historical perspective. Please feel free to put back something better. But it should be based on a source about the history of this sector. Dicklyon 16:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wedgewood

Some people seem to think Wedgewood may have produced the first photograph. See here for a Telegraph article. It doesn't seem to be definite though, but it's an interesting theory. Malick78 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article butchered

The article was butchered in three successive edits early september 2008 from an IP [4], I can hardly believe this went unnoticed, but anyway, I reinserted deleted content. Equendil Talk 19:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Albertus Magnus

I think the birth/death dates are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

first permanent photograph

it appears that no one is quite sure when the first permanent photograph was taken as in this article it states that it was 1825 whereas in another article on this site, it says 1827..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.99.219 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the naked woman photo here?

I like the photo of "woman mit camera". It's very nice but how does it fit into this article? It doesn't seem to be a landmark photo. Perhaps the same could be said of the Crystal Palace photo, too but at least that is older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.211.38 (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement

I think that this article was pretty well written although it could use more details. One of the things I did appreciate was the chronology and the detailed explanations that were given about the discoveries made and those who made them. One thing that i would add is a few sources that highlight the public response to some of the innovations made in the earlier experimental years of photography and who the market was at this time period. Moreover, i think the explanation of color photography was too brief and not specific enough to really gain much knowledge about emergence in society. The sources of this article were mostly sound however there were a few that were questionable. When going through the sources, a lot of them were secondary sources consisting of things like photography encyclopedias, museum websites, and books written by scholars on the topic. On the other hand, there were a few sources that were other Wikipedia articles and a listserve site that didn’t appear creditable. Furthermore, there were about two paragraphs where there was information provided and it was noted, “citation needed” which made the information unreliable. In comparison to a traditional encyclopedia, I think Wikipedia is definitely not as accurate because it can present information without sources and can be openly edited by the public, but it is useful for getting the overall main idea of a topic. Wikipedia also has some sources which are extremely useful when you need to find information about a topic you are researching or interested in. Overall, I think this article effectively gives you a good chronology and scientific background about photography, but I wouldn’t completely base all my research on solely what was presented in the article.

HIST406-10naniko21 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Hist406-10naniko21