![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 1, 2012, November 1, 2016, November 1, 2017, November 1, 2021, and November 1, 2023. |
I wonder whether we need this article, but if an article is justified for any landscape photograph, this is probably at the top of the list. If the article is justified, I would add
It would also seem appropriate to add artistic criticism, and perhaps a history of sales and prices, but I would defer to others on these issues. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I added the date and supporting ref, but have held off on the rest because I think it would give disproportionate emphasis to the making until there is more information about the image itself and its reception. JeffConrad ( talk) 21:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Are we at a point where a section Making of Moonrise is justified? The current wording needs to be changed a bit, because Adams’s original account, given in U.S. Camera 1943 Annual, is considerably less dramatic. Alinder maintains that U.S. Camera got much of it wrong, but the original account was contemporaneous, and Alinder relied on Adams’s recollection almost 40 years after the fact. There’s no way to make the call; however, by my calculations, the original account better fits the facts—though it wasn’t really twilight as Adams supposedly said, the Sun was slightly below the hills to the west when Moonrise was made. Further support comes from an assertion from Cooke that they never made the lens Adams later claims to have used. Clearly, we can’t cite either of these, but they do lead me to believe it’s as reasonable to trust U.S. Camera (a presumably reliable source) at least as much as Alinder’s much later account. Adams’s own description is similar to Alinder’s, but again, it first appeared almost 40 years after the fact. In any event, I′m inclined to begin with something like “Accounts differ . . .” JeffConrad ( talk) 08:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Jeff Conrad is right that there are a lot of excess page numbers in the reference to the Alinder bio. Also, there is a double reference to the Adams autobiography, one of which has excess page numbers. This is an artifact of my moving content from an article I wrote about Cedric Wright. I will pull the books and trim the refs.
The main shortcoming now is the need for critical commentary on the photo as a work of art. Once we add that, it should be OK to add a low resolution version of the photo under fair use. Thoughts? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If it was work for hire for the U.S. Govt., then it would be free of copyright... AnonMoos ( talk) 13:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason at all to believe the dramatic version of events is actually true? My scepticism is piqued because I find it very hard to believe that if one had undergone such a tense, even slightly panicked, moment and then getting recognition for the fruits of your labour, one would then make up a drab story about using the light meter in the usual way. The fact that the dramatic version postdates the first account by several decades does nothing to quell my disbelief. Has Cedric Wright ever commented on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 ( talk) 16:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 1, 2012, November 1, 2016, November 1, 2017, November 1, 2021, and November 1, 2023. |
I wonder whether we need this article, but if an article is justified for any landscape photograph, this is probably at the top of the list. If the article is justified, I would add
It would also seem appropriate to add artistic criticism, and perhaps a history of sales and prices, but I would defer to others on these issues. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I added the date and supporting ref, but have held off on the rest because I think it would give disproportionate emphasis to the making until there is more information about the image itself and its reception. JeffConrad ( talk) 21:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Are we at a point where a section Making of Moonrise is justified? The current wording needs to be changed a bit, because Adams’s original account, given in U.S. Camera 1943 Annual, is considerably less dramatic. Alinder maintains that U.S. Camera got much of it wrong, but the original account was contemporaneous, and Alinder relied on Adams’s recollection almost 40 years after the fact. There’s no way to make the call; however, by my calculations, the original account better fits the facts—though it wasn’t really twilight as Adams supposedly said, the Sun was slightly below the hills to the west when Moonrise was made. Further support comes from an assertion from Cooke that they never made the lens Adams later claims to have used. Clearly, we can’t cite either of these, but they do lead me to believe it’s as reasonable to trust U.S. Camera (a presumably reliable source) at least as much as Alinder’s much later account. Adams’s own description is similar to Alinder’s, but again, it first appeared almost 40 years after the fact. In any event, I′m inclined to begin with something like “Accounts differ . . .” JeffConrad ( talk) 08:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Jeff Conrad is right that there are a lot of excess page numbers in the reference to the Alinder bio. Also, there is a double reference to the Adams autobiography, one of which has excess page numbers. This is an artifact of my moving content from an article I wrote about Cedric Wright. I will pull the books and trim the refs.
The main shortcoming now is the need for critical commentary on the photo as a work of art. Once we add that, it should be OK to add a low resolution version of the photo under fair use. Thoughts? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If it was work for hire for the U.S. Govt., then it would be free of copyright... AnonMoos ( talk) 13:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason at all to believe the dramatic version of events is actually true? My scepticism is piqued because I find it very hard to believe that if one had undergone such a tense, even slightly panicked, moment and then getting recognition for the fruits of your labour, one would then make up a drab story about using the light meter in the usual way. The fact that the dramatic version postdates the first account by several decades does nothing to quell my disbelief. Has Cedric Wright ever commented on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 ( talk) 16:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)