User talk:W.carter

Section for non-photographic FPs of plants

Dear Cart, it seems odd that our gallery page Non-photographic media/Others has a section for (FPs of) animals, but no one for plants. Apropos of this nomination I think we need (in the future) a section for plants; I have added one for the sake of discussion. Is this OK (i.e., should we keep that section if at least one plants FP gets promoted), or is there a better solution? Thank you, – Aristeas (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Aristeas, I see no harm in creating that section. Usually we create sections and gallery pages when we need them; after new photos have been promoted or if other sections are becoming too crowded and we need to re-organize. But an empty (or one photo) section is not bad either, since it reminds people that we could use such photos too. It was along this thinking that the Composites and Montages and Styles and Techniques were created. Too many photos had been sneered at since they didn't fit in any gallery, and see how we have benefited from opening up those. Giving such nudges can be good. :-) --Cart (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Ha! Aristeas, I had a feeling that van Gogh's "Sunflowers" had been featured, so I had a look. Sure enough, they were in the 'Interior' section. I found two more files there that are better among 'Plants'. Your new section now has files in it. :-) --Cart (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cart, thank you very much! So the new section can stay. And indeed these images fit much better under “Plants” than under “Interiors”, great! Of course we could discuss whether especially the first one should be listed in a “Still lifes” section, but we we don’t have such a section either, and listing it under “Plants” seems more in accordance with the current structure of the “Non-photographic media” gallery pages. (If we get more such FPs in future, we can think again about an additional dedicated “Still lifes” section.) All the best, – Aristeas (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, very true. We'll see how things develop. For now, it makes a good statement that 'Plants' aren't just pretty flowers. --Cart (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Inded – and you have added two more FPs, great! I think now the new section can already be considered as clear and established: no other section would fit these images better. Thank you again, – Aristeas (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Quercus robur acorns in Tuntorp 1.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quercus robur acorns in Tuntorp 1.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Supercategory of “Featured pictures by equipment” and “Featured pictures by photographic technique”

Hello Cart and A.Savin (and possibly other people interested in this),

I have taken the liberty to change the supercategory of Category:Featured pictures by equipment and Category:Featured pictures by photographic technique. Both were subcategories of Category:Featured pictures by subject, but IMHO they should be direct subcategories of Category:Featured pictures, just like Category:Featured pictures by subject, Category:Featured pictures by creator, Category:Featured pictures by country, etc. The equipment (gear) used for taking a photograph is not a part or aspect of the subject of the photograph (or only in the special case that the photo happens to include a mirror etc. which reflects the camera ;–)). And likewise the photographic technique used for taking a photograph is not a part or aspect of the subject of the photograph (or only in the special case that the photo was in the first line created to demonstrate that technique). Equipment and technique are independent qualities of photographs and have no direct relation to the subject of a photograph. Therefore I have changed the supercategory of these two categories to Category:Featured pictures.

I hope this is OK. If not, i.e. if I am just too stupid understand this correctly, please explain why, then I will revert the change. All the best, – Aristeas (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Most FPs are not categorized like that. Should we add one subcategory of Category:Featured pictures by equipment for all of them? Then do we need to divide Category:Featured pictures taken on film for slides, and other old photographic techniques? Yann (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think these categories are necessary per se, but if we want to add them, that is just extra information for readers and people browsing the cats. There are plenty of similar categories for photos in the system, optional but not required.--Cart (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Aristeas, looks ok to me. Thank you for your expert handling of the FP categories. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cart: Thank you!

@Yann: My understanding is that Category:Featured pictures by equipment was created and used with the idea to collect FPs which haven been taken with “unusual” equipment. Therefore it has subcategories for compact cameras, satellites, mobile phones and drones (“unmanned aerial vehicles”), but not for DSLRs, DSLMs and digital rangefinder cameras (which are used to create the majority of our FPs). Probably the idea was that it’s not very interesting whether a good photo was created with a DSLR or with a DSLM, but it’s interesting to know that it was created with a compact camera, drone or mobile phone. I have already tried to get the categories for the latter a bit more complete.

The subcategory Category:Featured pictures taken on film is a special case. Until now it has been used as a catch-all category for all featured photographs created with any non-electronical, chemical process, and it is very incomplete. It would be very nice (a) to get it a bit more complete and (b) to divide it into more precise categories. I can help with task (a), but it would be great if you (Yann) could – maybe together with other experts for historical photos – draft a set of more specific subcategories. IMHO it would be useful to keep this simple and clear, i.e. to create not too many and too refined subcategories. It would be great if you could look into task (b). Then I can help with task (a), i.e. to get these categories as complete as possible.

Do you (Yann, Cart, and anybody else) think that we should also add categories for the majority of FPs, i.e. 3 categories “Featured pictures taken with DSLR cameras”, “Featured pictures taken with DSLM cameras” and “Featured pictures taken with digital rangefinder cameras”? I can take on that task. Even if these categories are not that interesting they can still be useful. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Myself I'm very much in line with what Annie Leibovitz said when she responded to the question "What camera are you using?" - "If that's what you're thinking about, you're not taking pictures." (at 1:05). Having said that, I know there are plenty of 'tech-heads' here on Commons and elsewhere in the photography community, and for their benefit I usually add that hidden equipment category to my photos, same as I often add the (in my mind) completely useless categories like "January 2010 in Visby". I mean, that info is all there in the exif, but there are those who like it, and so I comply.

I don't see any harm in setting up categories for what camera equipment was used in creating FPs, especially for the unusual equipment like line scan cameras, etc. There are people who will enjoy this, and others (like me) who couldn't care less. But let those with a special interest in this technical area take care of this categorization and don't make it mandatory. I would probably just botch the whole thing if I tried to help with such a task. :-) I would be more interested in the collodion process or cyanotype categories. --Cart (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see we are quite on the same boat ;o) (and same generation). I will add categories for old equipment, but I am not sure yet how much specific we need to be. And for a lot of photos, we simply don't know, except it was not digital. Yann (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. Well, we do not need to deepen this. All I was interested was the correct supercategory for the equipment and photographic technique cats; I touched on the question of further equipment categories mostly because Yann had raised the question about Category:Featured pictures taken on film. There are many other things to do here on Commons, so I can easily waste my time with other things. ;–) Best, – Aristeas (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear Aristeas, just make sure you are "wasting your time" on things that you like to do here. You are often too burdened by a sense of duty and order. That is of course very commendable, but don't forget to have some fun too. You certainly deserve it! :-) --Cart (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Well spoken, Cart, thank you :–). – Aristeas (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I added Category:Featured pictures taken on film for all non digital FPs, except some for which we have more information, and there is no negative: slide, ambrotype, daguerreotype. OK? Yann (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Ahem, that might have been a little bit hasty. For example, didn't Nadar use Collodion process? And then there are all the photos taken on glass plates like the ones Ansel Adams took, example, glass plate negative. And Edward S. Curtis also used glass plates for his photogravure process. It might be prudent to put a notice at the top of that category saying that "the category might contain photos not taken on film and if anyone can sort them further, then please do so". I'm no expert on glass plates, but one of my friends digitized such photos for the Gotland Museum, so I saw that they were used a good way into the 1900s by professional photographers. When in doubt, leave a note and let those who know more sort it properly. ;-) --Cart (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah OK, but collodion process uses a negative and a print. Yann (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm no expert what processes use a glass plate or a celluloid/plastic carrier for the concoction that makes the negative. Both photos made on glass plates and on what we now call "film" are often called just 'negatives' in the archives. Sometimes you need to go to other sources to dig up what medium was used. That is where the experts come in. :-) I saw only 'Gelatin silver print' on the Commons file page or The Half Dome, and I had to go to the en-wiki article where it said "Monolith has also physically endured the test of time as the original glass plate negative is still intact and printable." So this is indeed tricky territory. --Cart (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)