Talk:Photographic film

First sheet film

I'm not really sure who made the first sheet film. The Kodak no 1 camera was in 1888 is notable, but that was probably not the first sheet film? -- Egil 08:56 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Taking picture on a paper negative is as old as Fox Talbot in fact Eastman invented the rollfilm : several pictures on a film. The no 1 and other early Kodak were reloaded in the factory the paper tape allowing the user to load his camera came later. -- Ericd 13:11 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Is it really useful to have a list of all the films available on the market? -- Ericd 00:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Film formats

Could anyone describe the difference of film formats (135, 120, 110.... ect.) Someone (including me) may be interested why they are called by such numbers. Thanks..... investorjoe 19:42 Oct 19 2004 (UTC)

That's a really good idea, actually... I'll write up another section, and move the "list of films" to a separate article while I'm at it. Neckro 08:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It turns out that the topic was already covered at Film format. I included some links to common film cartridges, however, and also moved the film list. While I was at it, I revised much of the article. neckro 23:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gelatin in film

"Photographic film is a sheet of plastic (polyester, celluloid (nitrocellulose) or cellulose acetate) coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide salts (bonded by gelatin)"

Many vegeterians refuse to use photographic film for this reason. Why can't photographic film use synthetic gelatin?

because it doesn't exists... :( --Henriquevicente 03:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roll film

Invention commonly credited to Eastman, it was actually invented by David H. Houston in 1881. (Now if I could just recall the source...) Trekphiler 18:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable films

I created this section to collect a few films that are known for particular characteristics or history. I've listed Kodachrome for its long life, and Velvia because it just rocks. I've also listed Kodak Tmax p3200 and Ilford Delta 3200 as two similar films that can be pushed to very high EI ratings.

I'd like to fill the list out some more. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions? Perhaps the most (widely) sold film or something. Was there any film that was instantly recognizable? e.g "I knew that photo was taken with X as soon as I saw it". I've only heard that said about Velvia so far. Any suggestions? Imroy 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imroy; I edited your info in this section. the info you provided is incorrect. Maco is not a film manufature but a distributor. the "maco IR" film has been discontinued for some time. granted, a notible film type and i changed the info again to reflect this. The info in WIKI should be correct.

rob, Colorado. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.229.153.126 (talk)

I did not write the item on Maco/Rollei film. I simply started the section and someone else added those other films. Now, I have some problems with your edits to this section. You've split the Maco/Aura and Rollei IR films but removed the part about them being essentially the last two remaining infrared films available, which is what made them notable. If Rollei IR is now the last IR film left, then it's even more notable and this should be stated. And you've added Efke, which might be notable. I've edited the Efke article, so I know at least a little about it. But what exactly is supposed to be "notable" about it? Is it just the old formula? You need to elaborate a little more. This is an encyclopaedia, you need to explain your statements. --Imroy 07:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris

Is Solaris really a company? From what's available on the internet it looks like Solaris is just a product line of Ferrania (which is already listed in the Companies that manufacture photographic film section). Can some with actual knowledge confirm that Solaris is also a company? Thanks. Csabo 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital VS Film

I think there should be somewhere in the article about how it compares with digital photography and how some have switched over.. or why some have switched over. Knuckles sonic8 17:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Photography#Digital versus film cover what you were suggesting? I would think that's the more appropriate place to have such information. BTW, I've switched back to film (admittedly after only using two point-and-shoot digitals) and I'm probably not the only one to have done so. --Imroy 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DIGITAL has nothing to do with film! "DIGITAL IMAGING" IS NOT PHOTOGRAPHY. Digital imaging has no place in a film article. -- Rob, Colorado

I agree that comparison among digital and film technologies is needed.

I came here to know how grain density in film photography compares with pixels in digital image.

There are however other interesting comparisons, optical density in film vs. different kinds of digital sensors.

I see yet that film is still superior to digital photography (writing with light). But film is a luxury not affordable for those who only want a make a record of which friends were in a party or taking "selfies". Even for those who like to take artistic pictures, film is becoming more expensive, as the main interest in the majority of people does not reside in artistic ends.

I disagree with Rob, because Digital Imaging is, whether one likes it or not, a way to capture light in a digital media which can be projected or printed. It has its origins inf film photography, I hope that Rob agree with me in NOT calling film photography: analog photography, because there is no analogy in the process, it is a direct writing in film by the light, which is developed, one see what the light wrote on the film. Analog is not exactly an opposite of digital, In a fanatic vision one may say that film photography is also digital, because the image is formed in a countable set of crystals.

Rob, I would like to convince you to support a section comparing with digital imaging if you prefer that term, because many people could learn in that section, why film photography has a much more better quality, than the electronic counterpart. Although newer and very very expensive DSLR cameras may take very impressive pictures which compete with film cameras.

You kids will never understand. It's not that film has some intangible quality that is hard to achieve digitally, it's that film has the potential to record, for a few dollars, what would cost thousands of dollars to capture digitally. But you have to know what you want, and how to make it happen. In ancient times we spent YEARS learning the characteristics of various film stocks, and of the chemicals used to develop them, all so that we could instantaneously capture in the camera what we needed to create the images we wanted. And I have yet to see any digital image that can compete for resolution with 35mm Kodachrome 25 exposed by a master, or the insane amount of data contained in a Polaroid 55 negative. I used to shoot entire closets full of clothes on a single 55, and the weave of the fabrics was plainly visible UNDER A MICROSCOPE. But you have to know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film camera article

Why was Film Camera merged into this article, vis-a-vis Digital camera? I am not a photography expert or even an enthusiast, but I must say I prefer film. Leaving all that aside, however, is Film Camera no longer considered notable enough even to have its own article?

What really wierded me out was a comment on another talk page where someone said "they still make 35mm film. hell, they EVEN still sell 35mm CAMERAS". As if the product were completely obsolete, and evidence that you can find almost anything online! So I went on Wikipedia to learn about the history of film cameras and their current availability, only to find... no page dedicated to the subject.

There's no point in being directed to 35 mm film if Nikon, Canon etc. have decided to stop making film cameras, and this info is buried on the relevant Wikipedia pages! Not to mention the fact that the article on film cameras redirects here and that the main page for 35 mm references camera film only in passing. You have to click on an orphaned subpage, 125 film which is the only page that has extensive info on film cameras in one place. Having info like this would help reassure me that my old Nikon is still serviceable.

Could someone with extensive film expertise Be Bold and remedy this? See Film Camera. The fact that Digital camera exists is an argument for the notability of what seems like a pretty broad topic (yes, I know, WP:EXISTS. --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a redirect since it was created in 2005; if you think a separate article is in order, create one, or make a split proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal

The statement is made "Black-and-white reversal film exists, but is uncommon." It is/was a common motion picture format (ex. Kodak Tri-X and Plus-X who share confusingly similar names to their still camera negative counterparts.) I'll find some links to back this up, but the statement is confusing and false. Should it be removed or just a parenthetical exception added with a reference? The latter sounds messy, and the former sounds preferable to me, since the statement isn't necessarily an important one to make. (Is it really important that B&W reversal stills film is/was uncommon?) Micahmedia (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Film Production Companies

This list seems to be incomplete and out of order: Fotokemika Efke ceased production in 2012 (no official statement that I am aware of, only third party statements) Kentmere was acquired by Harmann/Ilford in 2007 but is still a separate production line and AFAIK still a separate company as well. Should it be mentioned? Filmotec (ex-ORWO) is missing. They are still in production. Inoviscoat makes film for Fotoimpex sold under the ADOX brand. Slavich (Borisoglebskaya Sloboda, Russia) is AFAIK still in production. For many of these I didn't find any official statements as sources. Can someone with deeper insight sort it out? --NonesensE (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did my best to update the list. Xo-whiplock (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Foma in the Czech Republic are also still producing film. See http://www.foma.cz/en/homepage 193.69.193.14 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Color may be Misleading

The section called Color makes this statement:

"By the 1970s color film predominated and the use of black-and-white film was increasingly confined to low-light and "art" photography and other niche applications."

This seems misleading. Large Hollywood features were switching over to color in the late forties. Unconquered 1947, Easter Parade 1948, Samson and Delilah 1949 were top grossers in color. The top ten American box office films of the fifties were all in color. Mainstream films in BW were rare in the Sixties, at least in the US. And this is not limited to the US. For example film industry in India moved to color during the sixties. Already in 1960 Mughal-e Azam was in color.

Maybe the above statement could be phrased better.

Sukkoth 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Entirely inappropriate edits

User:Xo-whiplock edits have removed the lede section and replaced it with a personal reflection on the current state of photographic film in 2015 and entirely unencyclopedic content…”Branding is fundamental. Branding is basic. Branding is essential. Building brands builds incredible value for companies and corporations." What on earth is that about? Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theroadislong is using personal bias against film to base his choices of removing entire paragraphs without first discussing the problem he has with the page with me first. Now he is telling me why he deleted my intro giving the current state of film and its future. This pargargraph replaced the one that stated film is dead and obsolete and superseded by digital. If you seek to turn this into a digial vs film war on wiki, I suggest you think again. I removed the lies and un-cited remarks about film by digital haters of film, and replaced them with cited information that present facts about the current state of film. The branding is in relation to products made with photographic film need to be branded for consumers and companies to build value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xo-whiplock (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the section "Currently (2015)" is to be included at all it needs to be at the end of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, and thank you for bearing with me in my noob state. Appreciate the help and direction. I just want to update the page to reflect that film is not deserving of the kind of treatment is has received by the sweeping changes to photography in the last decade, and is still a viable medium for many photographers, which is increasing in numbers again. You can see from the talk above this, that there was some problems during this time, and many were looking to "kill film" through remarks and bias. Thankfully I believe that time has passed and film is re-establishing itself in the movie making world and the photographic world. It won't be like a tidal wave as it was with digital, but a slow steady revival. Why should "Currently (2015)" be moved to the end? Is it inappropriate to place just before "History"? What's the logic in putting it at the end? I'd like it to be seen before one reads "History." Also, the outside links in my lists, how to make those right? I've read the template article on citations and can only manage the web links?Xo-whiplock (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the "Currently (2015)" section is still poorly placed at the beginning of the article. Nearly every article tends to start with the beginnings of the technology, not a treatise on its resurgence. I agree with Theroadislong's constructive comments, and while Xo-whiplock's edits were well-meaning, I think they interfere with the value of the article and the flow of the usual Wikipedia format. The rationale in placing the History section first is to describe the technology and its origins, and then proceed in a linear timeline to the present, not start at the present and work backwards, like some Benjamin Button. While the "Currently (2015)" section may have been well intentioned, the references do not support the text. The Calgary Herald article you cite is grossly incorrect, referring to "ambertypes" (not "ambrotypes") and "wet plates" as 1970's technology, when these were 19th century developments. The date of the development of digital photography is incorrect, and the first sentence of the paragraph that film was the only form of photography prior to digital is factually wrong. The information of "lomography" is based solely on their advertising website, and does not support the statements made concerning its professional use. Please consider the comments here and above constructively. We are intending to improve the readability, accuracy and usability of the article. N0TABENE (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected external links and checked spelling

I hope this is done correctly now. I simply typed out the list and added a citation to the end, so external links show up in references now, instead of in the article. I checked the spelling and looks good to me. The grammar is something that looks good to me as well. I removed the header tags for fixing external links and spelling and grammar. If still not right, let me know where and what and how to fix it, or if you are skilled better, please help by fixing it instead of simply putting tags on the page. Thanks. ;)Xo-whiplock (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between WP:External links and a footnoted citations, which is why there are two separate templates. It is not helpful to move External Links to unspecified references. Also, consider the quality of the reference - many of the references you added in good-faith are merely personal blogs, opinion pieces and commercial promotional sites. N0TABENE (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Put in a request for the page to be reviewed and ranked accordingly. I'll request a "peer review" after the findings of the ranking review. Xo-whiplock (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of looking up citations for sections without any

I am in the process of finding citations to support each section tagged with the citations needed tag. Xo-whiplock (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the quality of the added references - consider using recognized academic or reference textbooks, in lieu of opinions, commercial advertising or unreferenced web sources. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery Section

The gallery of images following the lede makes no sense. There are no captions accompanying the file images, they seem to be a random mix of positive and negative photo images and diagrams with no explanation or link to the text. Suggest moving unreferenced images to the end of the article, and providing in-line descriptions of the relevant diagrams referring to the layers of film and the H&D curve. N0TABENE (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I give up

You all have at it. I removed the "Currently (2015)" as the cites I used are not up to Wikipedia standards. I removed the "gallery" as the added images are unwelcome (I could have move to bottom and added text, but since they are wikimedia, you just click on them and see the info on them. I could have use them as icons and said, hey here's a famous color image, or a look at a negative, etc... truth is, this page is rife with stuff taken from other sources and not cited as it belonging to other writers. The idea that there is a standard that wikipedia is after and say that my original efforts with inferior web page links does not measure up is too much. Later... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xo-whiplock (talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what's to say the un-cited text should remain??? Shouldn't this article be completely removed of all statements without citations??? Also, if web links don't belong in citations when all there is, is a web link, what book or current academic source will have anything that's not 10 years old??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xo-whiplock (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to fix things right

Removed everything that was not cited and/or copyrighted material.Xo-whiplock (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Removed lists that were deemed a "directory" and did not belong on Wikipedia.Xo-whiplock (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we begin then to write the introduction using citations and then on to the history with citations? Yes, I think that's where to begin now.Xo-whiplock (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had to undo a reversion of my edits. I wish people would read the talk page before doing things like that.Xo-whiplock (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xo-whiplock I read your comments; it is not appropriate to delete an entire article. It would be more useful to replace or edit sections rather than deleting the entire contents. I was in the process of citing sources and improving text of individual sections when you removed most of the contents of the article, not just sections you had added. Ergo, I reverted your edit which essentially deleted the article. Xo-whiplock Wikipedia is a collaborative effort Wikipedia:Ownership of content N0TABENE (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC

Very well and good, but the majority of the context of this wiki article is taken from a copyrighted work here: http://sdmuhcc.net/elearning/aridata_web/how/f/film/film.htm (2002)Copyrighted material can not remain in a Wiki.Xo-whiplock (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the plan now is to start over. Nothing should be written or undone (text placed back in the article) without a citation. Copy the old article to your sandbox and work on it there. Add cited work when it is finished.Xo-whiplock (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrighted article forms the basis of this Wiki, and others have copied and pasted parts of other wiki pages to build this page. Never, has anyone ever put citations to any of their comments or edits. The whole article is untrustwothy and needs a complete re-write from scratch and with citations (mandatory) if it is to be Encyclopedia worthy.Xo-whiplock (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a correct way to reference a web source. See using the Web Citation template. The reference you cited contains general information. Copyrighted text material can be used if properly cited. It is inappropriate to again delete the article. This is a pattern of disruptive editing. You statement "the plan now is to start over" indicates you do not understand that this is not your personal article. I am asking you to review the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. N0TABENE (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your supposed copyright site, http://sdmuhcc.net/elearning/aridata_web/how/f/film/film.htm, looks to me as if it was copied from http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/film.htm. None of this article appears to be violating the HowStuffWorks copyright. Stop insisting that copyright is a reason for your ridiculously huge removals, eviscerating the article and leaving nonsense in its place. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I'll not remove the text that does not have citations. I'll add the "challenge" to each and every line that does not have a citation ^{[citation needed]} and note that a challenged sentence can be removed at the discretion of any editor that sees fit to do so. At some point, this article will be made up to date and accurate with citations. The history and evolution of this article (I reviews the entire history from start up to the current state, and simply because it has been here without citations for so long, does not make it right to keep statements that do not have citations. How can anyone find and add citations to what's already been written? Better to start over and allow editors to find and add information from sources that can be cited.Xo-whiplock (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you continue down this road you will be blocked.

Any legitimate concern about this article, any legitimate wish to see it improved, would start out as actual improvements, for instance the rewriting of particular sections, cited to published sources. Instead, you have a savaged the article with swaths of deletions, and you are now promising to keep tearing it down without adding anything intelligible. That, too, will lead to your getting blocked for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Binksternet. Xo-whiplock, adding "citation needed" to every sentence in the article is again, simply disruptive. You would be more helpful to find the appropriate valid references or redraft sections, such as I did with the DX coding section, rather than the disruptive approach you have decided to take. N.B. Xo-whiplock a Disruptive Editing Warning has been filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0TABENE (talk • contribs) 07:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You all should read this: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS Note the part about citations needing to be part of your edits, and appearing to be helping when all you are doing is being disruptive. Nobody was editing this page or doing anything about the lack of citations until I came along. Then when I started to work on fixing the page, I get "disruptive editing" thrown at me by those who are being disruptive. How can any of you say you are working for the good of Wikipedia when you never add a single citation to an article? All you do is run people off.Xo-whiplock (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes Section

I moved two footnotes from the Reference section and created a new Notes section. However, I am at a loss to find a reference for either comment. All search engine references to Edward's Isochromatic Plates seem to point back to a version of this Wikipedia article on other websites. If anyone is aware of the original source, I'd be grateful if you'd add the reference. IMO, neither comment is very important and doesn't add to the understanding of the topic - e.g. the first note comparing the amount of film to the area of Wales, and I think the article would be improved by deleting the two comments if there are no objections. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Theroadislong (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Appropriate scope of history section

For several years, the "History" section of this article has led off with a paragraph informing uninitiated readers that there was photography long before the introduction of film. It simply notes the three most commonly mentioned carrier media: the daguerreotype's silver surface, the paper negative and the glass plate. As this article is about photographic film in particular, not photography in general, it seems desirable to limit its general history of pre-film processes to an extremely summary overview such as that, while providing readers whose curiosity has been aroused with links to the Daguerreotype, Calotype and Photographic plate articles, along with the broad History of photography article link provided by the "See also" located immediately above.

Another editor recently expanded that paragraph with mention of the Niépce heliograph and some photochemical detail (unclear but apparently very erroneous) about the daguerreotype image, additions which I reverted, resulting in a dispute which has thus far generated heat but very little light. I contend that the addition of such specifics is undesirable in that context and invitingly opens the door to the piling on of other processes and other detail by other editors, transforming what is now an easily grasped introductory statement into yet another mini-history of early photographic processes, of which there are arguably too many in Wikipedia already.

Apart from my concrete objection to the scrambled daguerreotype information in the currently reverted addition, the dispute appears to boil down to a matter of conflicting opinion and judgment. Input from other interested editors might be helpful in resolving it and would be appreciated. AVarchaeologist (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why place roll films above glass plate? Both are now technically obsolete, yet still in use amongst those particularly interested in the process. If anything, this position has shifted over the life of WP as any film near-disappears in favour of digital. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AVarchaeologist As you well know, I am the editor you are referring to, and you fail to note that I rationally responded to your concerns, including your claims that erroneous material was included, all without you providing single a reference source for any material you added. You seem to be attempting to take ownership of this article, again providing nothing more than your unsupported speculations and opinions. The information provided on daguerreotypes was neither scrambled nor erroneous and were duly referenced. Your reversion was due solely to your objection that you wrote the section years ago, and to quote you, you are "the world's expert on what the [section] was intended to say". As I pointed out, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, and your ad hominem attacks and disparaging remarks about content you feel does not suit your personal view of an article is unhelpful. The purpose of the historical section was to contrast the modalities that led up to the development of film, which include predecessor processes. The fact that you do not have access to standard reference texts in the field should not deter other editors from citing sources. N0TABENE (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@N0TABENE Your irate and wide-ranging response to the critique of your edit that I posted on your talk page made it clear enough that nothing constructive was likely to come from continuing that exchange. You have also made it quite clear that you disapprove of me and my editing in general, and you yourself said "This discussion belongs on the Photographic Film talk page ...", so here is an RFC to solicit the presumably more detached perceptions of other editors. However, as you are apparently intent on continuing in a similar accusatory vein in this public forum, you oblige me to reply to the above in detail in defense of my honor and reputation.

1. "... your claims that erroneous material was included ..."; "The information provided on daguerreotypes was neither scrambled nor erroneous and [was] duly referenced. Your reversion was due solely to your objection that you wrote the section [sic] years ago ...":

The reversion was amply justified by your description of daguerreotype image formation, if that is indeed what it was intended to be: "The light-sensitive chemicals were exposed directly to light and were chemically transformed into visible images, which in the case of daguerreotypes, is as a result of deposition of insoluble silver halide salts formed on the surface of a silver-plated copper sheet" (your addition to the pre-existing text in italics), which certainly is erroneous, as any relevant reference book of substance, including your cited 4th (2007) edition of the Focal Encyclopedia if carefully read (see page 67), should confirm. The daguerreotype image consists of microscopic blobs ("image particles") of metallic silver, amalgamated with mercury if mercurial development was used and also with gold if gilding was used. If any silver halides or trapped halogens remain after processing, they are simply unwanted residue. See the x-ray analysis in this highly respectable specialized source [1] for confirmation by modern technology. I checked the first few pages of your open-ended ("page 28 et seq.") cit via Google Books and could find nothing to explain your reporting. However, the generally laudable Mr. Osterman does occasionally go astray, as in this [2] spectacularly wrong definition of "virtual image", which adorns page 121 of the same edition of the FE and was duly copied to the George Eastman House site (where, the last time I looked, it was still around to misinform inquiring minds despite the note I sent the GEH several years ago pointing out the error), so just possibly it is actually something in the FE which is to blame. If you did not mean to describe the formation of the image, then I contend that your statement, with its "insoluble" silver halides, is so scrambled and inscrutable as to constitute a non-constructive addition, quite apart from the question of whether or not it is appropriate to delve into any technical detail in that paragraph.

2. "... all without you providing [a single] reference source for any material you added ...":

I believe the only material I added any time recently is the 1839 date of the introduction of the daguerreotype, which I realized was missing and is obviously essential to establish the chronological framework. Like the fact that a silver surface, paper and glass were photographic media used in the camera before there was film, it is a datum found in all standard histories of photography, not contentious or controversial "material likely to be challenged" and positively requiring a citation per WP:CITE. However, the Focal Encyclopedia citation you supplied for your own purposes serves nicely to support what is there now, so I took care to preserve it.

3. "You seem to be attempting to take ownership of this article ...":

Not asserting ownership, just trying to do some occasional upkeep on the parts I have worked on and evidently improved (as judged by the test of time and the tacit approval of the knowledgeable editors regularly watching), always glad when I see some change clearly for the better since I last looked in.

4. "... again providing nothing more than your unsupported speculations and opinions.":

If you mean my speculations about what sorts of readers will be perusing the article, and my opinions about how best to present the information to them, I plead guilty as charged. If you mean something else, you will have to be specific.

5. "... to quote you, you are 'the world's expert on what the [section] was intended to say'.":

You are seriously misreporting the source. To quote myself accurately, and in context: "The revert-involved paragraph [N.B., paragraph] was mostly written by me in the course of an overhaul and considerable expansion of the history section several years ago. That does not give me any ownership of it, of course, but it does make me the world's foremost authority on what it was designed to accomplish ...". Chide me for emphasizing the obvious if you like, but not, as on your talk page, for "chest-beating". Anyone who contributes a bit of text they composed is, naturally, the world's foremost authority on what it was designed to accomplish. Their purpose might be accorded the courtesy of some consideration, at the least a hearing.

6. "As I pointed out, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort ...":

Constructive collaboration is one of the pleasures of life, but being lectured about the basic principles of Wikipedia, as done at some length in your talk page reply, is not. I started editing five years ago and familiarized myself with the essentials then, so unless there have been significant changes recently ...

7. "... your ad hominem attacks ...":

Where are those? I "attacked" an edit, not an editor. From my perspective, it is your departures from the specific and excursions into the general (e.g., on your talk page, "... your 'contributions' are more akin to personal opinions ...") that risk trespassing into ad hominem territory.

8. "... and disparaging remarks about content you feel does not suit your personal view of an article is unhelpful.":

Apparent meaning: criticizing something I disapprove of is wrong, and I should stop doing it.

9. "The purpose of the historical section was to contrast the modalities that led up to the development of film, which include predecessor processes.":

Using words like "modalities" makes me wince a bit, but there is not much to disagree with in that statement. The question is how to present the material so as to benefit the greatest number of readers to the greatest degree. Too many articles unnecessarily start tossing math or chemistry or other technical matter at the reader early on, inevitably causing some eyes to glaze over and skip down to another section or bail out entirely. This being the year 2015, the average reader of an article entitled "Photographic film" is likely to be very unfamiliar with the subject and in need of introductory overviews written in non-technical terms if their interest is to be stimulated and their attention held. There is room enough later on to go into the sorts of technical details which less casual readers may appreciate and which those already familiar with the basics may have come seeking.

10. "The fact that you do not have access to standard reference texts in the field should not deter other editors from citing sources.":

If by the first part of that you mean to imply that I have not read standard reference texts, you are mistaken. I first stuck my nose into Newhall and Gernsheim and the Focal Encyclopedia in 1966 and have consulted and compared dozens of other print sources since. However, you are quite correct if you simply mean that I do not currently have access to them, except as available in snippets or chunks via Google Books. Physiological limitations have ended my days of making expeditions into the musty sub-basements of university libraries, or even the substantial local public library, and other considerations prevent me from ordering up a private library from Amazon. Happily, there is enough available online that I am enabled to confirm or refresh my recollection of details, although typically not from a single clean source in a form suitable for citation in a Wikipedia article. When I add something very obscure and not likely to be found in standard reference books, I usually supply some kind of a cit for it, and if it is something that goes against conventional wisdom, or contradicts an existing sourced statement, I certainly do.

Wikipedia's introductory guidelines reassured me that I was welcomed to contribute in whatever form and to whatever degree I was able, and that there would be other people, proficient in the aspects that taxed my capabilities, who would eventually be around to tidy up irregularities and take up any slack. I was informed that, although it was a requirement that any information added could be cited to a reliable source, actual citations were mandatory only in the case of "material likely to be challenged". I do not derive some sort of fiendish pleasure from making work for editors who specialize in upgrading articles by improving their sourcing; I respect and appreciate them for taking on that laborious task. Perhaps you could at least show a little less contempt for citation-impaired editors whose efforts are confined to making articles more informative, factually correct and comprehensible. There are articles bristling with citations, all done strictly by the book, which are built from innocently but insidiously misreported or flawed sources (it seems all sources for historical information in this field have at least one demonstrable error) and are propagating misinformation. Notwithstanding the fundamental importance of citing reliable sources, it is, ultimately, the reliability of an article's contents which is of supreme importance. As I believe Jimmy Wales once remarked, "No information is better than wrong information." AVarchaeologist (talk) 15:46, 5

December 2015 (UTC)

Resolution of Agfa 10E56 holographic film

While the citation added (Applied Optical Measurements, edited by Markus Lehner, Dieter Mewes) mentions Agfa 10E75 and 10E56 holographic films, it does not mention the resolution of the films nor the comparative to CCD sensors. Since the technical discussion of the particular film was tagged as unsourced several months ago, and there has been no verifiable citation, this content should be be deleted unless a verifiable source for that information is provided. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 18:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The density equation

Whence did you take the density equation: $D=1-(1-k)^{l}$ ? Since $l$ cannot be negative, density is limited to $(0,1)$ , which is wrong because it is defined on the interval $[0,+\infty )$ .