Jump to content

Talk:Digital photography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tuj40055 (article contribs).


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annalizzadc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Princess Danso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jolenef.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of consumer digital cameras

[edit]

"Smaller sensor format, compared to 35mm film frame, allows for smaller lenses, wider zoom ranges, and greater depth of field." Is the latter true? This the article's sole reference to "depth", and the issue does not seem to be tackled elsewhere. I did not want to issue a citation for it ;-| but does anyone have any info on this? The lens size and zoom range have been covered, but does a small-lens-and-small-sensor combination necessarily produce greater DoF? IOW, is the aperture reduction better relative to the sensor size?--P00r (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the common wisdom, but only true when the entrance pupil is smaller and therefore the camera has to make the image from fewer photons. If you compare at equal f-numbers, the DOF is more, but the shot noise is also more. These comparisons are seldom "fair" or say what they're holding constant. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. military is phasing out the periscope

[edit]

I'd like to add in a pharagraph about the military, but I'm not sure where I'd put it. In 2004, the United States Navy began fitting photonics masts to Virginia class submarines. These masts replace the need for a periscope by using technology similar to that of a digital camera array.

Any suggestions?--Sparkygravity (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAW image format

[edit]

"The ability to shoot in a raw image format, containing data directly from the sensor. However, as of this writing, there are a number of proprietary RAW formats, some of which require specific software to manipulate."

I can't see how this is an advantage over film. Surely the film is also a sensor, and therefore when using film you also get data "directly from the sensor". Of course there are many advantages when using digital, but I just can't see how this is one of them. Removing it; please correct me if I'm wrong.

80.42.146.175 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Raw has advantages over JPEG, which is another digital format. But it doesn't apply to the film vs digital comparison. --Imroy (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well that section either needs a citation or needs to be redone. In it's current state is doesn't make much sense and I feel is in accurate.--Firewire87 (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with digital camera

[edit]

Since I didn't find this topic mentioned here, I want to present a link to a discussion on this topic at:

Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to digital camera

[edit]

I agree with the discussion at Talk:Digital_camera/Archive_1#Merge, that these articles should remain as two separate articles, but the relation between them can be more conveniently arranged. I'm now making one section for the more digital camera-related aspects of digital photography. Additional ideas are appreciated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion ended with my comment of April 5, 2008, and has been archived. If you'd like to start a new merge proposal, you can. But it seems unlikely that it will get support this time. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change in the social use of photography

[edit]

I feel as though the Social Impact section of this page is quite broad and could use some editing to make it more focused. Also the entire page never talks about how the social uses of photography have completely changed since digital photography was introduced. Since the shift to digital we can see that the primary use of photography has shifted, from a documentation tool to a communication tool. I'd like to make an edit to this section. Is there any other input on how to improve this section?--Firewire87 (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post Processing

[edit]

What do you all think? Would we now need a page on digital post-processing of photos? Not just to mention photoshop, but also all the various techniques that go along with it (sharpening, blurring, layers, etc), which is of course, the digital equivalent of the darkroom ... Ll1324 (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be useful. I think this is the kind of pages that Wiki needs to have more of to separate themselves from the traditional encyclopaedia--Firewire87 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like photo manipulation? Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC): Cou[reply]
Photo manipulation covers a lot of the same territory, but post processing typically covers white balance, sharpening, contrast adjustments, etc. which are not mentioned as photo manipulation, but are quite common post-processing things. That is more the domain of Adobe Lightroom (also not mentioned in the photo manipulation article) but commonly part of post processing. (Adobe Photoshop can be used for post processing also). I think post processing is a bit larger of a topic than the photo manipulation article describes.Ll1324 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to join in on any effort to build a digital PPing page - and I think I can bring in a group of others who would also participate.

Lew the traveler (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing removal of "Social Use- Film VS Digital"

[edit]

Apologies to everyone who's worked on it, but this article is a bit of a mess. I think an important step towards improvement would be to remove the section "Social Use- Film VS Digital". It looks like someone just copy pasted an essay they wrote. I originally thought I would tag the problems in it with {{multiple issues}}, but I ended up with a list of 10 issues. That is kind of ridiculous and it seems like a much better idea to remove than revise here. Here are the problems I tagged on the section: 

citation style = February 2012
dead end = February 2012
essay-like = February 2012
inappropriate person = February 2012
peacock = February 2012
POV = February 2012
primary sources = February 2012
recentism = February 2012
tone = February 2012
wikify = February 2012

Thanks, Oxguy3 tc 00:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • While browsing for things to do I stumbled across this nightmare which is clearly an academic essay of questionable quality and relevance. The history of photography is not the history of digital photography alone; the essay (as I too believe it is) is not even complete or scholarly and makes no point to address the effects of digital photography in any way. The fact it details the history of photography; and poorly; skipping the topic of digital photography and the key details surrounding its creation and resurgence just asks for a delete before addressing other clean ups.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Digital Photography not Digital Cameras

[edit]

As the article Photography does not carry on about the history of the digital camera and seems to be the first jumping point; I wonder if the history of the digital camera section even needs to be there. This article should cover the various types of digital photography; from cameras to recorders to those found in cell phones that are now being used for medical purposes. This article is sorely lacking in relevant and strong information. I've begun to make some edits here and there and will continue to do so; but this article really needs a lot of work. Most importantly is the fact that this seems to be entirely dated in just about every form and way. Lots of the advantages and disadvantages are not even applicable anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The social impact section is another area of incorrect research that I will try to correct later; much of the information is correct such as, "Digital photography began to be available in the early 2000s" The direction of the entry just needs citations and corrections; the biggest thing about social impact is the surprising trend that most pictures are taken and never viewed at maximum resolution on most computer displays.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to hold off on further changes for the time being; I want some response before considering further changes. The article itself is still to bloated and rambles on unrelated topics. Cell phone cameras and cell phone use should be noted, but I don't know if it deserves its own section or should just be indicated and point to the relevant pages. Please comment on what direction this article should go on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date comparisons to film

[edit]

This article seems out of date in the way it compares film and digital. Unreferenced statements about slow frame rates and lower resolution in digital cameras appear to have been written before the advances of the last couple of years. If film still offers some performance advantage, the article should have recent references that support that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.186.135 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. I followed your lead and removed some additional unsourced, outdated content. - MrX 02:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frame Rate

[edit]

Hi all, Is the 'frame rate' paragraph up-to-date? It talks about the Nikon D3 and the Canon F1, which are older models (the canon f1 was produced in the 70s and is not even available anymore). There are lots of other cameras nowadays which shoot at higher fps!! Thanks Zalunardo8 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, and neither is the article as a whole. The Canon 1D X for example will captures 14fps. I've been trying to update this article as I can, removing unsourced and out of date content. Feel free to join in! - MrX 12:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer MrX, I'll try to help as best as I can! Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

[edit]

MrX Since when does a picture of a person doing digital photography with a leading DSLR camera get described as "This has nothing to do with digital photography".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing encyclopedic about someone using a camera. It is a very, very common activity. It's ubiquitous. It does not need illustrating. Also, what possible reason, consistent with WP:NOTPROMO, would we include a link and the name of the photographer in the caption?- MrX 23:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal. We might as well use the same photo in an article for the brand of shoes or shirt that adorn him.. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am just using an image that we have in related articles. It is not promotion. Since you mention a brand of shoes, look at how many athletes are named and pictured in the Adidas article (3). Nike, Inc. also includes a named athlete. Maybe you might be familiar with the term illustration. Digital photography should have images of people doing digital photography. That is what the photo showed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy is nonsense and even worse it's a lousy photo. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Is there some reason why you are posting this image and related content across multiple articles [1] [2]? It leaves me wondering if you have a COI.- MrX 01:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, Nope. Just a fan. In fact, I am going to be nominating Emily Ratajkowski at FAC within the next week in hopes of getting it promoted to FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA. During discussions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3, GRuban discovered the source file that availed many high quality video resources for of a supermodel for WP. Look at uses of the files at places like Lip liner, hair rollers, pop out cake and hair spray. Where do you think we can find a supermodel in creative commons licensed content. I have been trying to incorporate her content in relevant articles. I think the majority of the files that I have tried to add improve the articles they are in. If you know any good copyeditors, Ms. Ratajkowski's article might benefit from one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPI or PPCM?

[edit]

If a digital photo is described as 1600*1200 is this pixels per inch or per cm? Is this the same as DPI/DPCM? Quentin Durward (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Digital photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Digital photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SONY Mavica

[edit]

I'm surprised there is no mention of one of the first digital cameras in the 90s, the Sony Mavica. It stored images on 3.5" diskettes. Jimj wpg (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Culture

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Princess Danso (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Digital Media

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pg-547 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pg-547 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_photography&oldid=1225184418"