Talk:Photomontage

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Photography: History C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Halcombsr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf "collage"

File:Collage of Leaves.jpg

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

David Ridge

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feel free. No objection from me; I know little about the topic.--DNL 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Adrian Brannan? I am going to remove the sentence from the section on Russian/ Soviet Constructivism, as it is wildly out of place temporally and geographically and has no references other than a Wikipedia page that seems similarly undersourced, making it in a sense a form of vandalism. Brannan does appear to be primarily operating in the commercial world, FWIW. More importantly there are many more contemporary photomontagists, quite a few of them women, a gender that appears to be almost totally lacking from this page. Actio (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. These are not exemplary historical examples but some sort of armchair photoshop bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.207.111 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

mikaul^talk 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of "key" artists

I've added the {{inclusion}} template here, this is an indiscriminate list of people who may use the photomontage technique and as such is not encyclopedic. As the tag says, there is no inclusion criteria defined, for instance, are these artists prize-winning? Are they all members of a group or a specific genre? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photomontage series

1) Source photo 1
2) Cropped, black and white photo 1
3) Source photo 2 (Chapayev street)
4) Black and white photo 2 with color sky and two color rainbows
5) Photomontage of photo 1 and 2
6) Vasily Chapayev on a postage stamp
7) This stamp added to the Chapayev street
8) More soft border between photo 1 and 2 (final picture)

If you think that this is an interesting example of step by step photomontage, you are welcome to add this series to the article. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]