This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know if these external links are worth mentioning, but photographer Keith Loutit has some incredible examples of Tilt-shift Miniature Faking on his websites:
He says he aims to make Sydney look like "The Model City". -- Epynephrin ( talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It is somewhat unclear, from both the title and content, what this article is about. Is it miniature faking in general, “tilt-shift miniature faking”, or combination thereof? If the first or last, I think this article must remain separate from the
Tilt-shift photography article; if the two articles are merged, the non-photographic material will probably need to be removed. As I've indicated on the deletion talk page, I've recommended keeping this article but clarifying its meaning and cleaning it up.
As noted, the article lacks reliable sources for any of its statements. I've added tags for some that are questionable:
The material here needs cleanup whether the article remains separate or is merged. Some of the changes, such as close-up photography for macro lens, are trivial; others may be somewhat more controversial. Some statements are simply wrong, and without clarification or citation of reliable sources, may need to be removed. JeffConrad ( talk) 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Ummm ... the edit comment for the article itself should have read, “Added {{fact}} tags”. JeffConrad ( talk) 02:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The consensus among those proposing to keep this article seems to support moving to Miniature faking to better reflect its content, as well eliminate some possible ambiguity. Unless there's an objection, I'll make this move. If people insist, we can keep Tilt-shift miniature faking as a redirect, though I think it's a bit misleading. I'll also try to address some of the issues that I've raised above, dealing primarily with optical techniques. I've have little experience with blurring using digital postprocessing, so for the most part, I'll leave that to someone else. Presumably, the material on digital postprocessing will expand to include other techniques.
JeffConrad (
talk)
20:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've made the page move and made a first attempt at cleaning up the article.
In any event, I think the article is a bit better and more accurate than it was. See what others think. JeffConrad ( talk) 09:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Also removed {{DEFAULTSORT:Tilt-Shift Miniature Faking}} while we're at it. — Nahum Reduta [ talk| contribs] 05:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a number of external links from Tilt-shift photography, consistent with how I read WP:ELNO and WP:NOTLINK. I've indicated my reasons on the Talk page for that article. A couple of those links might be more appropriate in this article:
It's possible, of course, that these links aren't appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia. Because they've encountered past resistance here, I'm not going to add them unless others agree. JeffConrad ( talk) 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As I indicated, I don't think the image of the image of the building is especially notable, but it is mentioned in the text as an example of a simulation that isn't really convincing. If it's removed, at the very least the text needs to be changed so that it doesn't refer to a nonexistent image.
To me, the Jodhpur images seem reasonably convincing, even though the blurring is a bit exaggerated. The other images reflect an attempt to make do with what's available. I think the ideas in the article would be much better illustrated by more carefully selected images, with perhaps some taken specifically for this purpose. A really good illustration might show an image taken from a fairly low angle to the ground (like that of the large, low building), and include
This might be too many images, and might run afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO. It would also pushing it with regard to WP:OR, but absent a good source, I'm not sure there's a viable alternative. And I don't think including such a group of images here would be any worse than citing a web site that would not really qualify as reliable under WP:SOURCES. Perhaps we don't need all the examples I've suggested, but I think adding even a few would be an improvement. JeffConrad ( talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
http://labs.artandmobile.com/tiltshift/
86.31.24.91 ( talk) 09:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I just watched the film Gulliver's Travels 2010 and added the note in "usage in film/television" Rokman ( talk) 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Under the techniques section it references a picture of jodhpur which is no longer there. Should the reference be deleted or can we bring the image back? TiddiesTiddiesTiddies ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know if these external links are worth mentioning, but photographer Keith Loutit has some incredible examples of Tilt-shift Miniature Faking on his websites:
He says he aims to make Sydney look like "The Model City". -- Epynephrin ( talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It is somewhat unclear, from both the title and content, what this article is about. Is it miniature faking in general, “tilt-shift miniature faking”, or combination thereof? If the first or last, I think this article must remain separate from the
Tilt-shift photography article; if the two articles are merged, the non-photographic material will probably need to be removed. As I've indicated on the deletion talk page, I've recommended keeping this article but clarifying its meaning and cleaning it up.
As noted, the article lacks reliable sources for any of its statements. I've added tags for some that are questionable:
The material here needs cleanup whether the article remains separate or is merged. Some of the changes, such as close-up photography for macro lens, are trivial; others may be somewhat more controversial. Some statements are simply wrong, and without clarification or citation of reliable sources, may need to be removed. JeffConrad ( talk) 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Ummm ... the edit comment for the article itself should have read, “Added {{fact}} tags”. JeffConrad ( talk) 02:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The consensus among those proposing to keep this article seems to support moving to Miniature faking to better reflect its content, as well eliminate some possible ambiguity. Unless there's an objection, I'll make this move. If people insist, we can keep Tilt-shift miniature faking as a redirect, though I think it's a bit misleading. I'll also try to address some of the issues that I've raised above, dealing primarily with optical techniques. I've have little experience with blurring using digital postprocessing, so for the most part, I'll leave that to someone else. Presumably, the material on digital postprocessing will expand to include other techniques.
JeffConrad (
talk)
20:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've made the page move and made a first attempt at cleaning up the article.
In any event, I think the article is a bit better and more accurate than it was. See what others think. JeffConrad ( talk) 09:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Also removed {{DEFAULTSORT:Tilt-Shift Miniature Faking}} while we're at it. — Nahum Reduta [ talk| contribs] 05:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a number of external links from Tilt-shift photography, consistent with how I read WP:ELNO and WP:NOTLINK. I've indicated my reasons on the Talk page for that article. A couple of those links might be more appropriate in this article:
It's possible, of course, that these links aren't appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia. Because they've encountered past resistance here, I'm not going to add them unless others agree. JeffConrad ( talk) 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As I indicated, I don't think the image of the image of the building is especially notable, but it is mentioned in the text as an example of a simulation that isn't really convincing. If it's removed, at the very least the text needs to be changed so that it doesn't refer to a nonexistent image.
To me, the Jodhpur images seem reasonably convincing, even though the blurring is a bit exaggerated. The other images reflect an attempt to make do with what's available. I think the ideas in the article would be much better illustrated by more carefully selected images, with perhaps some taken specifically for this purpose. A really good illustration might show an image taken from a fairly low angle to the ground (like that of the large, low building), and include
This might be too many images, and might run afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO. It would also pushing it with regard to WP:OR, but absent a good source, I'm not sure there's a viable alternative. And I don't think including such a group of images here would be any worse than citing a web site that would not really qualify as reliable under WP:SOURCES. Perhaps we don't need all the examples I've suggested, but I think adding even a few would be an improvement. JeffConrad ( talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
http://labs.artandmobile.com/tiltshift/
86.31.24.91 ( talk) 09:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I just watched the film Gulliver's Travels 2010 and added the note in "usage in film/television" Rokman ( talk) 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Under the techniques section it references a picture of jodhpur which is no longer there. Should the reference be deleted or can we bring the image back? TiddiesTiddiesTiddies ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)