Talk:History of photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified History of photography as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)