Julia Margaret Cameron received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 11, 2023. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I noticed some discrepancy from source to source on the marriave and "move to england" dates. Without spending *too* much time on this, I updated the page with what looked like the most credible of the sources I was looking at. Alchemist0405
I've seen some original prints by Julia Margaret Cameron. They are far from perfect : dust and hair on the plate, I think this is objective not POV. Ericd 00:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I added her birthplace and parentage info. Also, the section on her "illustrations" needs to be clarified, since it seems, at times, that the article is talking about actual drawings, and not narrative photographs. -- AKeen 18:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This paragraph keeps appearing from time to time. If someone could actually find the source for this it can be included:
"Unfortunately Julia produced her own prints and was unkempt in apperance. Producing her own prints stained her fingers making them look dirty. With a least one vistor had the fear of god put in them when Julia seeing a new subject over- enthusiastically approached them. Julia must have appeared as a beggar from her looks than the "Lady of the House"."
- AKeen 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Julia Margaret Cameron by George Frederic Watts.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be informative to add mention of David Rocklin's novel "The Luminist" which is based on Cameron's time in Ceylon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.91.204 ( talk) 17:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I'm curious to know what book if any can be used as a source for Cameron's allegorical work. Her (at least) four amazing pictures of Alice Liddell are evidently in this group. (Please drop a note on my talk page if there is ever a reply to this note.) - SusanLesch ( talk) 04:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The section entitled Later Life several times refers to Cameron as being in India, statements apparently based on the belief that Ceylon was part of India. It was not, is not, never has been. The government of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) was always quite separate from India's. I have therefore changed the text in this section to remove mention of India, replacing it with Ceylon. Do I have to cite sources for this fact? I have referred to the subjects of her pictures as Ceylonese in order to avoid assuming that they were Sinhalese or Tamil (they were likely the former, but I have no way of proving or sourcing that statement). Penelope Coleman ( talk) 21:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Penelope Coleman
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. 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.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. 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.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
So I just became a wikipedia editor a few days ago as part of an Art + Feminism event and didn't realize that it wasn't cool to edit entries that I had a personal interest in. Ie. I wrote a biography of Julia Margaret Cameron in 2003 so a few days ago I went in and made some updates, including (among other changes) adding some more recent exhibits of her work, taking out references to her being an "unattractive" woman, and adding my own published biography to the reference section. So I guess I'm just flagging this for someone else to check my work because I didn't mean to run afoul of the rules. If I did, please instruct, revert, or whatever. Thanks/apologies! Vcolsen ( talk) 21:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)vcolsen
Samatarou is right to draw the distinction between soft focus and out of focus, but neither term describes her technique effectively; much of Cameron's work uses selective focus. This is especially evident from the summer of 1865 when she started using a larger camera, with 15x12 inch glass plates producing images such as The return after three days of that year and then early in 1866 switching to a larger format still for Summer Days (a big group including May Prinsep, Freddy Gould, Lizzie Koewen, Mary Ryan), dated 1866-1870. Even contact printed, the depth of field with such a format is but a razor's edge and requires much more precise operation than is credited to Cameron by most commentators (most of whom have not tried it for themselves). Focus has to be placed 'here' or 'there' but can't be 'all-over'. Both The Return and Summer Days are sharp, but very selectively, and in examples like Prayer and Praise (1865) the forward tilt of the camera produces sharpness at several, very strategic, points in depth; lips, nose and one closed eye of the Christ child in the foreground and just the eyes of 'Mary' and 'Joseph' in the background at top of frame. That image reveals a highly sophisticated use of focus we see rarely repeated by her peers. It might even have been achieved by titling the lens panel...if her camera was designed that way. We don't know because a difficulty preventing deeper analysis of her technique is that none of Cameron’s cameras survive and the only lens to come down to us is her first, a 'Jamin', made in Paris a Petzval type made specifically for 'soft-focus' portraiture with a severe curvature of field and used for the earlier glass plates approximately 12 x 10 inch (31 x 25.4 cm). It is between usually very sharp areas of focus that the 'roundness of form' that Cameron loved is given expression.
The article needs added a knowledgeable section on the technique of this hugely important artist which she quite evidently warrants and which I hope comes out of this peer review...the term 'soft focus' does her an injustice.
Jamesmcardle
(talk)
05:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Should the image of Julia Margaret Cameron used in the infobox be the original print as reproduced by The Metropolitan Museum of Art or a modified version that has been altered by a Wikipedia editor who has cropped the original, removed spots, increased contrast, and modified the color? Qono ( talk) 20:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
NOTE about WP:CANVASSING ( Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification/Campaigning): Adam Cuerden made these following posts about the RfC immediately after their vote/comments at 22:31, 27 March 2021 [1]. This happened after Pincrete's !vote when the straight vote count was 9 for Original and 4 for Restoration. Judge the diffs for yourself.
FURTHER NOTE about WP:CANVASSING ( Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification/Campaigning): Qono, who started this RfC, made the following posts about the RfC immediately after opening it.
As a result, the first few comments are overwhelmingly in support of the "Original". Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron, readers expect to see the original portrait by her son, not some modified version from a Wikipedia editor [18] [19]. The status quo is the original version and if consensus is to use the restored version, then the caption needs to explicitly state that it's a restored version as to not mislead readers. Some1 ( talk) 02:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC) expanding on my !vote, Some1 ( talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron. If we are using the Restoration version, then the caption needs to clearly indicate that it's a Restoration or readers will be misled into thinking that the Adam Cuerden Restoration version is the original "1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron" [20] [21]. Some1 ( talk) 00:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron) over the restoration. Not everyone thinks the restoration is better. Some1 ( talk) 22:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Julia Margaret Cameron received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 11, 2023. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I noticed some discrepancy from source to source on the marriave and "move to england" dates. Without spending *too* much time on this, I updated the page with what looked like the most credible of the sources I was looking at. Alchemist0405
I've seen some original prints by Julia Margaret Cameron. They are far from perfect : dust and hair on the plate, I think this is objective not POV. Ericd 00:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I added her birthplace and parentage info. Also, the section on her "illustrations" needs to be clarified, since it seems, at times, that the article is talking about actual drawings, and not narrative photographs. -- AKeen 18:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This paragraph keeps appearing from time to time. If someone could actually find the source for this it can be included:
"Unfortunately Julia produced her own prints and was unkempt in apperance. Producing her own prints stained her fingers making them look dirty. With a least one vistor had the fear of god put in them when Julia seeing a new subject over- enthusiastically approached them. Julia must have appeared as a beggar from her looks than the "Lady of the House"."
- AKeen 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Julia Margaret Cameron by George Frederic Watts.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be informative to add mention of David Rocklin's novel "The Luminist" which is based on Cameron's time in Ceylon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.91.204 ( talk) 17:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I'm curious to know what book if any can be used as a source for Cameron's allegorical work. Her (at least) four amazing pictures of Alice Liddell are evidently in this group. (Please drop a note on my talk page if there is ever a reply to this note.) - SusanLesch ( talk) 04:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The section entitled Later Life several times refers to Cameron as being in India, statements apparently based on the belief that Ceylon was part of India. It was not, is not, never has been. The government of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) was always quite separate from India's. I have therefore changed the text in this section to remove mention of India, replacing it with Ceylon. Do I have to cite sources for this fact? I have referred to the subjects of her pictures as Ceylonese in order to avoid assuming that they were Sinhalese or Tamil (they were likely the former, but I have no way of proving or sourcing that statement). Penelope Coleman ( talk) 21:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Penelope Coleman
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. 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.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. 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.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
So I just became a wikipedia editor a few days ago as part of an Art + Feminism event and didn't realize that it wasn't cool to edit entries that I had a personal interest in. Ie. I wrote a biography of Julia Margaret Cameron in 2003 so a few days ago I went in and made some updates, including (among other changes) adding some more recent exhibits of her work, taking out references to her being an "unattractive" woman, and adding my own published biography to the reference section. So I guess I'm just flagging this for someone else to check my work because I didn't mean to run afoul of the rules. If I did, please instruct, revert, or whatever. Thanks/apologies! Vcolsen ( talk) 21:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)vcolsen
Samatarou is right to draw the distinction between soft focus and out of focus, but neither term describes her technique effectively; much of Cameron's work uses selective focus. This is especially evident from the summer of 1865 when she started using a larger camera, with 15x12 inch glass plates producing images such as The return after three days of that year and then early in 1866 switching to a larger format still for Summer Days (a big group including May Prinsep, Freddy Gould, Lizzie Koewen, Mary Ryan), dated 1866-1870. Even contact printed, the depth of field with such a format is but a razor's edge and requires much more precise operation than is credited to Cameron by most commentators (most of whom have not tried it for themselves). Focus has to be placed 'here' or 'there' but can't be 'all-over'. Both The Return and Summer Days are sharp, but very selectively, and in examples like Prayer and Praise (1865) the forward tilt of the camera produces sharpness at several, very strategic, points in depth; lips, nose and one closed eye of the Christ child in the foreground and just the eyes of 'Mary' and 'Joseph' in the background at top of frame. That image reveals a highly sophisticated use of focus we see rarely repeated by her peers. It might even have been achieved by titling the lens panel...if her camera was designed that way. We don't know because a difficulty preventing deeper analysis of her technique is that none of Cameron’s cameras survive and the only lens to come down to us is her first, a 'Jamin', made in Paris a Petzval type made specifically for 'soft-focus' portraiture with a severe curvature of field and used for the earlier glass plates approximately 12 x 10 inch (31 x 25.4 cm). It is between usually very sharp areas of focus that the 'roundness of form' that Cameron loved is given expression.
The article needs added a knowledgeable section on the technique of this hugely important artist which she quite evidently warrants and which I hope comes out of this peer review...the term 'soft focus' does her an injustice.
Jamesmcardle
(talk)
05:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Should the image of Julia Margaret Cameron used in the infobox be the original print as reproduced by The Metropolitan Museum of Art or a modified version that has been altered by a Wikipedia editor who has cropped the original, removed spots, increased contrast, and modified the color? Qono ( talk) 20:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
NOTE about WP:CANVASSING ( Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification/Campaigning): Adam Cuerden made these following posts about the RfC immediately after their vote/comments at 22:31, 27 March 2021 [1]. This happened after Pincrete's !vote when the straight vote count was 9 for Original and 4 for Restoration. Judge the diffs for yourself.
FURTHER NOTE about WP:CANVASSING ( Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification/Campaigning): Qono, who started this RfC, made the following posts about the RfC immediately after opening it.
As a result, the first few comments are overwhelmingly in support of the "Original". Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron, readers expect to see the original portrait by her son, not some modified version from a Wikipedia editor [18] [19]. The status quo is the original version and if consensus is to use the restored version, then the caption needs to explicitly state that it's a restored version as to not mislead readers. Some1 ( talk) 02:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC) expanding on my !vote, Some1 ( talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron. If we are using the Restoration version, then the caption needs to clearly indicate that it's a Restoration or readers will be misled into thinking that the Adam Cuerden Restoration version is the original "1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron" [20] [21]. Some1 ( talk) 00:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron) over the restoration. Not everyone thinks the restoration is better. Some1 ( talk) 22:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)