This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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).
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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).