Talk:Digital Photography

I see that this wikibook is nowhere even near 25% people have put it as 50% complete have changed the status to 25%. Yndesai (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me adding stuff. I like Digital Photography. :) Lynx7725 05:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We definitely need to reorganize this page. The size of the page is getting unfriendly.. Lynx7725 03:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think let's classify the Digital Camera sub-section, and the Memory/ Batteries sub-sections into one separate page called Camera Types and Accessories -- we can expand to include flashes, filters, etc.


 * Taking Pictures and everything under it can probably be one separate page by itself.. at the moment, Pre- and Post-processing doesn't seem to have enough content to justify a page by itself, what do you think?


 * So, something like this on the first page:


 * Introduction to Digital Photography (Short introduction on page)
 * Taking Digital Photos (Opens New Page)
 * Pre- and Post- Processing (Currently keep on page)
 * Digital Camera Types and Accessories (Opens New Page)

Lynx7725 05:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For now it would be real improvement over keeping everything on one page. I just typed such long list to have an idea what is missing in this book and how to expand it. I'm new to wiki's so can you make your proposals into this book? --Minda315 06:17, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)


 * No probs. Just let me do it over the weekend.. I'm at work and I'm actually supposed to work ^^; Lynx7725 06:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the above big stack of changes is somewhat done, but the Taking Digital Photos part needs to be reworked again (still too big, Wiki complains... :) Take a look through and let me know what you guys think.

Two issues -- the pages are supposed to have a link at the top to point back to the previous page, doesn't seem to be working right now so I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.

The other thing is the standardization of URI links. I'm currently using  subject  to link, but I noticed some of us using  subject  to link.

This does change the way Wiki renders the page. Do we want to standardize this? Lynx7725 05:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes we need standartisation. I just added link in  subject  format due to lack of wiki knowledge :( Anyway links to wikipedia, in my opinion, are very useful.


 * Taking digital Photos in current stage is written somehow chaotic and needs to be arranged in more systematic way. It is good to view all things in practical aproach, but adding some theory, short terms descriptions (with links to wikipedia for details) won't hurt. I try to work on litle peaces, as I i have free time. One big problem is that I'm not native english speaker, and and learned english not in the scool but on my own, so my english texts are low quality :( --Minda315 13:55, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)


 * On the subject of links, I would prefer the  subject  link because it is an internal link and somehow seems more trustworthy to me. I am more hesitant to click on an external link because I have done that in the past and they've taken me to hoax sites.  I would say that if we have the ability to use the specialized wikepedia links then we should standardize on that, and use only external links when linking to an external URL. --SteveJM 21:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I kind of like  subject  :-). --DavidCary 04:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, can the various contributors please update the Authors section? Would like to know who we are working with. :P Lynx7725 03:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, nevermind, I've added Minda315 and SteveJM. Lynx7725 05:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the outline above is a good start, making it more of a real book format rather than a glorified FAQ. But I think we will find that once we have the new structure some of the sections need to be rewritten to avoid overly duplicate information. Not to worry though, that's a bridge we can cross later.

One other suggestion. I would really like to see more sample photographs that illustrate some of the concepts. I am willing to start with some myself (over the next few days). I think this could do wonders to anchor the readers attention around bits of information that this book is trying to communicate.

Meanwhile, I am trying to get the hang out of editing my comments here. --SteveJM 18:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, will give my inputs whenever I get some free time.
Hello, I like digital and film photography too and so i will try to provide inputs for this book whenever i can get some free time. seeya around :o)

--Siddord 07:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki
You may be interested in using material from Transwiki:Digital camera astrophotography. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 00:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Copying from Wikipedia?
Hey there everyone. I just have taken an interest in this wikibook, and I was wondering if there are any rules to coping from wikipedia? Check out the Sensor size and angle of view section of the Digital photography article in Wikipedia. It seems like we could almost copy/paste that section into a new "Choosing a digital Camera" section, and then edit it to give a more buyers guide type feel for the different types of digital cameras (DSLR vs point and shoot vs cell phone) Looking further into that article, about half of it would fit into a "Choosing..." section. Any ideas?


 * Wikipedia is open source, so there would be no problem copying it. However, I would make one point&mdash;if we want to copy the content at this moment and then let it evolve independently (which is probably appropriate here), then copy'n'paste. Updates here will contextualize the information in this source and remain independent of updates to the wikipedia page...in other words, there should be no attempt to keep them in sync. On the other hand, if we do desire to keep a solid reference to the wikipedia page, then I would recommend we link and/or reference the wikipedia entry here, perhaps providing a brief summary of the relevant content of that entry.


 * I don't know if this is a standard practice on Wikibooks, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be. (If your question is primarily concerned about copyright, no need&mdash;all content created for both this site and Wikipedia are completely open source and license-free.)

needed sections...

 * Technical
 * Digital Photography/File formats
 * Digital Photography/Megapixels and Image quality
 * Digital Photography/Lenses
 * Styles
 * Digital Photography/Sports and action photography
 * Digital Photography/Nature photography
 * Digital Photography/Macro photography
 * Digital Photography/Landscape photography
 * Digital Photography/Portrait photography
 * Digital Photography/Panorama photography

Just a place for me to brainstorm needed areas. --J.smith (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)