Talk:Photomontage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.
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.

Contents

[edit] Leaf "collage"

Image:Collage of Leaves.jpg

I am pulling this leaf image -- no longer convinced it is a collage. Contacted the author. No response.


[edit] Citations

I have been developing this article based upon sources documented in the References section. But do I also need to footnote sources or insert the citation for specific claims to "world's largest montage" in the Montage enlargement section? Fishdecoy 19:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to do this, but the probability that someone removes or changes the text in the future goes up a lot, unless you provide citations. Especially claims like "the world's biggest..." are likely to be removed.
Besides, a lot of the references are text only. If you provide hyperlinks to those available on the internet, it will help people verify the claims. Mlewan 11:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Ridge

Who is David Ridge? --Dan121377 01:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a pertinant question. "David Ridge is a London-based artist and photographer doing a wide range of commercial work. (He also designed and made the sofa and chairs.)" [1]. Smells more of vanity here than legitimate reference. Surely a better-known exponent of recent photomontage can be found.... Pinkville 14:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That's my take too. A recent edition of Gallery Guide highlighted SM Lewis. I don't see what Ridge does that's more warranting a reference. --DNL 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This article needs some serious expanding as well as the addition of some better examples of photomontages (e.g. Hannah Höch, John Heartfield, Hockney, Ruff, etc.). Pinkville 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Feel free. No objection from me; I know little about the topic.--DNL 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] needs serious work

This article has a bunch of issues. The tone is one of art criticism, rather than a general encyclopedia. It voices a lot of opinions that fall into POV or original research. The layout also needs work, as it's overloaded with images. A few examples are fine, but it seems like everybody wanted their work included in this article and piled it on with no regard for overcrowding. On my monitor it's an absolute mess. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soccer moms

"But it is largely soccer moms cutting and pasting family images into scrapbooks who are propelling a worldwide interest in montage. " ... Are we sure it's worldwide? Rich Farmbrough, 14:14 24 November 2006 (GMT).


sorry about that...I thought I was editing my own page..oops

[edit] Photoshopping

The photoshopping issue should be addressed by reasoned arguments based on verifiable sources. DreamGuy's removal based on "actually, there IS consensus that Photoshopping means Adobe Photoshop..." was pointed out to be assuming a false state of arffairs. He re-did it with "regardless of hotly contested there, no verifiable and authoritative resource has ever been offered to support the idea that the term means anything other than use Photoshop so it's gone". So I provided one such verifiable source. We can talk about what's authoritative, but there are certainly many reliable sources that use the term and/or define the term as different from using Adobe Photoshop. Dicklyon 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are the persons who change photoshopping back and forth deliberately making fun of the principles of Wikipedia? I have seen no discussion, but a lot of reversion. Personally, I frankly could not give a d if the article says one thing or the other, as it is a minuscule point, but it disturbs me that the revert war goes on. Mlewan 23:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to get some discussion going, but nobody offered any opinion or support one way or the other. Mr.7 is working very hard to flush photoshopping from all articles, and keeps acting unilaterally, claiming a consensus that does not seem to me to exist. He mostly likes to put his argument into edit summaries instead of on talk pages. So sometimes I just revert with no comment. Dicklyon 06:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I just realised that discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Photoshopping. I had no idea where it was. Mlewan 08:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please comment there on the active poll about whether the word "photoshopping" should be kept or flushed. Dicklyon 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lola Alvarez Bravo and other info

Following a copyedit of the useful Renau (et al) content, I've pulled this as I can't find any sources to support it. If you have the refs (and you know what it refers to!) by all means reinsert it.

[...]coming from magazines like Life, Squire, etc.

mikaultalk 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)