Talk:Julia Margaret Cameron

1216:

technique as a proxy for soft focus that they were derided as incompetent. (By implication that means the other bits that talk of "soft focus" really need clarifying as it is significant to understanding how she was received.) Secondly I restored the Gernsheim stuff (except the bit crediting him with single-handely popularising her, as I think that was just his vanity, her work had already been published by Stieglitz in Camera Work in 1913 for instance). But he did make the crucial observation that being a great photographer is not the same thing as being an influential photographer, as their contemporaries may either not appreciate their work or simply not have heard of them (he puts Hill & Adamson in the same category BTW). I amended the Cunningham quote to reinforce this, since it shows that even a great fan of Cameron only became aware of her in retrospect - Cameron is popular now because her close-cropped style became fashionable from around the mid-20th century, but her influence skipped a few of generations of photographers in between, basically she was a 100 years ahead of her time!

1368:

look “through” the performance to see only .” “Mary Mother displays Cameron’s characteristic selective focus, a technique that was controversial at the time. The image directs your gaze to linger on the light on her forehead, her profile, her right eye. In order to command such control of the viewer’s gaze, Cameron used techniques that were the opposite of how commercial portrait photographers of the time worked, which was to let in as much light as possible from all directions to reduce the amount of time subjects would have to remain still. So much light, according to Colin Ford, “flattened the sitters’ features and in effect ‘smoothed out’ their characters” (46). One can imagine that a paying customer who wanted a likeness of herself would be reluctant to be still for the amount of time it took the paying customer would not have been interested in an image like the one above. Mary Mother is a performance, not a likeness. Flat light is “photographic”; it merely records what is in front of the lens.”

1267:(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 2598:: as others have stated, the question in the section header is simply a false premise as neither option is "the original photograph". One is the physical photograph 150 years into its natural degradation, and another is a close approximation of what the original looked like. The purpose of the image is to reflect the subject, so the restoration is better on that count. If authenticity with respect to the son's art is the aim then, as neither is a physical photo but a digital image, then again the restoration is better. No "original research" has taken place as the only changes are uncontroversial within the field. — 1291:, from what I recall, this part of her technique was referred to as "soft focus" or "out of focus" much more often than "selective focus" in the reliable sources I've used. That said, you make a good point that the type of focus that she uses might more precisely be described as "selective" and that this distinction may be useful for readers. Her technique overall may deserve more coverage; it is addressed in the article, but it is scattered across several sections. I will have these concerns in mind during the peer review and will look for how this is handled by reliable sources. Thanks for your comments. 2750:. Cautious restoration like this upon digitizing is standard at historical photo archives, which I've worked at and done it myself. It's a Featured Picture for a reason. The restoration was done well. You can always argue it could be done better still, but there is no problem with using a restored photograph per se. While I agree that it is preferable to use a restoration done by a professional, that should not be the standard. We're a free content encyclopedia by volunteers and the starting point is that content is created by us volunteers for free. I do not agree that there is a 711: 611: 335: 2619:, per the arguments above. There is only one certain thing on wikipedia, which is that if you do a lot of work, someone will come along and dump on you. I note the bleat about canvassing: this is an RfC, which should seek as wide an input as possible, rather than being a dark alley for beating someone up amongst friends. There is a world of difference between being made aware of an RfC and canvassing; the argument that "the vote was going my way before the fact of this RfC became widely known" is as pathetic as it is unpersuasive. -- 1351:; that she settled upon, she could certainly have modified her equipment or sought an alter native method of working, but her choice was very consciously made.” In the same text there is a discussion of the standard sliding-box camera that Cameron used, the size of her early glass plates (approximately twelve by ten inches) and the qualities of focus of the fixed aperture (f3.6) French-made Jamin lens of Petzval construction of approximately twelve inch focal length, only the centre portion of which was sharp. 90: 209: 551: 524: 255: 237: 1828:. Of the six diffs you listed (to users: CharlotteM85, Michael Goodyear, Milliabb, AKeen, Vcolsen, SusanLesch), only two have actually voted (Michael Goodyear and Akeen). And the notifications from Quono don't seem problematic or non-neutral; those users seem to have been chosen because they were "someone who has contributed substantially to this article" according to their talk page messages. This falls under 1607:, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy." As pointed out by those favoring the restored version, no one has made a case that Adam Cuerden's restoration does present unpublished arguments. Besides that policy, there is no other policy or guideline that I'm aware of that would potentially be relevant to this discussion, however, a clear majority of editors do favor the restored version. 147: 123: 50: 1255:(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 265: 458: 440: 81: 1160:

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!

21: 1907:: "Smudged, torn, dirty, undefined, and in some cases almost unreadable, there is hardly one of them that ought not to have been washed off the plate as soon as it appeared". Though this discussion is meant to focus on the infobox image of Cameron, which is by her son, one might ask: what level or type of retouching of Cameron's photographs would be acceptable? 366: 1451:

imagery, her oft-mentioned focus, is by definition 'selective' - there's no other word for it. Very few of her pictures are 'out-of-focus' everywhere (only when she prints through the back of the plate), but all (even those, in the negative) are sharp somewhere, even when her long-suffering subject dares to breath during her interminable exposure times

690:"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"." 1083: 972: 792:

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).

468: 157: 2295:- for reasons detailed by Isaidnoway. The article is about a person, not an artistic work or body of work. The 'authenticity' arguments have no weight in this context - since we are not obliged to represent the person in a manner that reflects their style, rather simply the clearest likeness of the subject. 1159:

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

2810:

of the original. Jpeg did not even exist as a format until 1992, according to our article. I would be very curious to see with mine own eyes what the original looks like. I have a mind to email the curator there and ask if their print is actually, that yellowed, how they scanned it, is it a print or

2636:

I agree with most of the people that are saying here as it's better to have a clearer picture that was something like how it was originally meat to be taken and not been weathered up via up some time. If we are removing these restoration than why do we have the Featured Picture section is beyond me.

1367:

allows Cameron to direct the viewer’s eye where she wants emphasis, and also reminds us that we are not looking at “real life.” This is a constructed performance. The shallow focus along with the spots, scratches, marks, chemical stains, and other “imperfections” of the print make a viewer unable to

791:

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

2541:

How is this even a question? Restored images aren't some new edits to originals; good restorers clear up faults that come from e.g. weathering. The RfC opener seems to misunderstand image restoration, and by making mention both that the subject was at the center of restoration controversy, and that

2019:

Opinions on whether which version is more "visually appealing" or "superior" are subjective; the modified version is not superior IMHO. Not every old portrait or photograph has to be modified to be darker and black-and-white-ish. Any editor could choose an old artwork or photograph on Knowledge and

1215:

Looking through the deletions I've reverted a couple of them (albeit with some rewriting) as I think they matter. Firstly, I disagree with changing "out of focus" to "soft focus" as they are not the same thing, and ISTM that it is precisely because Cameron (and many Pictorialists) used out of focus

1445:

I believe she did, in her talk of 'screwing on' the lens, but lacked the language. Various interpretations of that expression have been made, but not often by those who have actually used large format at full aperture. Her choice of making 'life-size' portraits (as she truthfully described them),

2404:. An institution is concerned with providing accurate images of what is in its collection, which is completely different from providing the best possible representation of the subject of an image for a Knowledge article, so restricting ourselves to the institution's image is not appropriate. -- 1450:

point is analogous to the action of focussing a microscope on a 3D specimen as the sharpness glides over its contours. She gets one eye in focus, but not the other, picks out the contour of the cheek, the line of the nose; significant, emblematic elements of the human visage are isolated. Her

1334:

as a criterion of peerless practice. The making of “out-of-focus" images was considered an expressive remedy that shifted the artificial, machine-focus of a camera toward a more natural vision. Cameron considered focusing to be a fluid process during which she would stop when something looked

658:

You'd still have to source it, e.g. "according to X, Cameron's prints were QUOTE far from perfect, with dust and hair on the plate UNQUOTE". Otherwise we only have your word for it, and we can't cite User:Ericd as a source, firstly because you could be anyone, and secondly because it would be

1308:

There is a reason why contemporary sources describe Cameron's focus as 'out-of-focus', and some later ones 'soft focus'; the term ‘selective focus’ was not in use in Cameron’s time; the earliest mention of the phrase that I can find is 1911, well after her death, in Volume 5, Page 530 of

2754:

problem here. This is equivalent to a volunteer writing a Knowledge article based on professional sources (i.e. how 99% of content is made) vs. a professional writing a Knowledge article based on such sources (welcomed, but in practice rare and not the backbone of our encyclopedia).

1602:

There is a strong consensus to use the restored version of the photograph. One of the arguments against this is the claim that it is original research, but the original research policy explicitly states, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research,

2338:: We have and make improved versions of photos all the time for the purposes of having improved images for articles. Also, this work isn't even by her, so most of the above "Original" votes should be discarded as not making a valid argument regarding the subject's creative works. 2210:- I think the claims of "modifying a creative work" are exaggerated. Colour-correcting a photograph in a way that probably better resembles its initial state is not "modifying a creative work". Nor is cropping it, which happens on every Knowledge page that has photographs. 2542:

the restoration was by a WP editor specifically (as if that holds less value than an outside restoration), is clearly trying to sway votes, seemingly unaware that many images on Commons have been touched-up to be clearer and of higher quality and this is one of the best.

1415:

because she sought spiritual meaning rather than particular information from her subjects. Her model was the same as that of Watts : Titian. Cameron's friend Sir Henry Taylor (fols. 4v, 5r, 9r, 25r, 29v) described Titian's method in one of his plays, St. Clement's Eve

2453:

ran. There’s a conversation to be had about where the boundaries lay, but of as Isaidnoway points out, we already have a body of guidance, and appropriately, it’s considerably more nuanced than straight up-or-down on photo editing—as with editing text, I’d point out.

2087:. 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" 2421:. This is an article about Cameron, not about the effects of photographic processes and time on photo reproduction quality. It is more important to clearly portray Cameron than to show what someone else's photo of her now looks like as a physical object. — 2020:

modify it to their own liking, but that's not the original artwork as intended by the author. The fact that Cameron preferred "softly focused and unrefined images" might indicate that she prefers the original version. And if people are reading the caption

2786:

like, not about the artistic merits of the original document. (Were it about the latter I would still vote "restoration", but my rationale would be more nuanced - frankly in this instance I don't even see why it should be a question in the first place.)

1850:

between 22:32 - 22:56, 27 March 2021. Then 11 "Restoration" votes came pouring in between 22:40, 27 March 2021‎ and 00:30, 28 March 2021‎. As of 13:00, 28 March 2021, there are 16 "Restoration" votes which came after those Adam Cuerden notifications.

2580:

I agree with the rational of Kingsif, Smirkybec, and Smallbones. The infobox image should include the highest resolution and quality image of the subject that is possible (freely licensed). This restoration is not an inaccurate portrayal of Cameron.

2316:. All the talk about her decisions in her own photos are completely irrelevant, and a distraction. But, hey, what do I know, I only have 536 featured pictures over my career which began in 2008 or so. Clearly I know nothing about what I'm doing. 1714: 2854:. The purpose of the image at the top of the page is to provide a clear image to the reader. Touching up images to make them clearer makes Knowledge a better and more welcoming encyclopedia. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not an art museum. 2519:

the restoration is more likely to reflect the *original* photo than the beat-up, so-called "original", but that's not even a major consideration. In this context, we simply want the best image which is obviously the restoration.

643:

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.

1277:

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.

1176:

Victoria, I am sure you are a welcome addition here. In fact content expertise is a good thing, as long as one does not shamelessly self-promote one's own work! However I have been citing your work around here for some time.

94: 2953: 674:

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. --

2715:

as per the many sensible comments above. The photo is being used to illustrate an article about the photo's subject, not the photographer's work. Better image clarity benefits all users visiting the article.

1446:

when few others would dare, means she was making 1:1 close-ups, and any photographer knows what that means for extremes of shallow focus. So her talk of focussing ('screwing on') the lens till she reaches a

1903:: This is the perfect article for this discussion, as Cameron herself was criticized for her unretouched prints and use of soft focus. The article quotes a particularly scathing criticism of her work from 2140:

generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive...typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction

2231:, but I think for a historical portrait we should value authenticity over what some editors subjectively view to be visual enhancements of the image. I'm not even convinced the darker, restored photo 1411:“Because her work was intended to achieve pictorial effect, Mrs. Cameron naturally adapted the photographic technology of her day to that end. Sharp focus was less useful to her than differential, or 1326:

Here are some reliable sources that use the term in relation to Cameron's technique which may be useful in the peer review and in creating a specific section in the article (underlinings are mine):

2698:: To use the original is to assume every user has the same browser size and clarity, or the same operating system. We should make these images the best quality possible for all users to access. 2948: 1882:. In this context, an editor retouching an artwork might be like an editor "fixing" what they perceive as grammar mistakes when quoting a poem that uses creative phrasing or formatting. It's an 1886:

intervention. We should leave the difficult business of modifying creative works while retaining the artist's original intent to professionals publishing their work in authoritative sources.

1649: 2029:. 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. 2438:. The point of this image is not to demonstrate her style or her son’s style; it’s to identify her. The restoration does a superior job at that. This really is standard practice. Compare 2173:- as per Isaidnoway. The fact that she favoured creating "softly focused and unrefined images" is irrelevant to the desire of our readers to see depicted the best available image of her. 1192:

I put the reference to your work in a more standard format. Thanks for reminding me of your work. However you did delete a lot of material, and there may be some discussion about that. --

725:) 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. 718: 704: 620: 534: 356: 1541:

Klug, Jennifer M., "“Who has a right to say what focus is the legitimate focus?” Tennessee Williams and Julia Margaret Cameron’s Theatrical Portraits of Women" (2018). Masters Theses.

218: 133: 1879: 35: 2988: 2973: 311: 2958: 2933: 2829:

I looked up the Met's photo curatorial department and was about to email them to tell them about this thread, but didn't as I was not sure if it would be canvassing. Anyway,

1730: 412: 2150:

available, and the restoration is by far superior quality. I believe the restoration is what our readers would expect to see, when you compare the two photos side by side.

1956:'s points above. The purpose of images on an artist's page is to show the artist's work as it appears, and I believe that using the original is the only way to do this. - 2871:

The improvements do not alter the photo in a way that would mislead the reader. The photo accurately reflects who the person was, it just looks better than the original.

2482:

process in the bin. Not only are these types of touch ups normal, we are attempting to show the subject of the image, not what the image itself looked like. Best Wishes,

957: 422: 3023: 2998: 1524: 1431:

who built a philosophy of photography on the principle. It would be interesting to know if Cameron, whose work predated his by about 20 years, anticipated his ideas.

1528: 879: 875: 861: 1505:, Thames & Hudson in association with The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles and The National Museum of Photography, Film & Television, Bradford, p. 50, 1722: 2983: 2654:: The purpose of the infobox photo is to show what she looked like, not to illustrate her son's technique, and this is better achieved by the restored image. 3018: 2993: 2794: 601: 591: 3008: 2923: 2908: 2397: 388: 2681:: shows the subject of the article much more clearly. Unless we are required distribute paper copies of the original for complete authenticity? Thanks. 1247:

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

1243:

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

3028: 2968: 2938: 2918: 2498:

as per many of the good points above, the photograph is not her work, and it has been restored to better illustrate her as the subject of that image.

1715:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Given_there's_an_RFC_about_making_my_work_on_Wikipedia_forbidden_to_be_used_on_Wikipedia,_I'm_out_for_a_while.

2252:

for both historic reasons, and because the "new and improved" is actually very dark on some devices, so not really an improvement across the board.

1641: 1271:

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

650:

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.

490: 317: 2806:

as it is presumably closer in fidelity to the original photo. But let's bear in mind that both the Met's and Adam Cuerden's photo are both digital

3003: 2963: 2928: 175: 379: 340: 567: 3013: 2903: 1562: 1509: 1485: 1394: 1870:. The alteration by Knowledge editors of an original work of art as digitized and published by reliable, authoritative sources is a type of 768:

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

1706:. This happened after Pincrete's !vote when the straight vote count was 9 for Original and 4 for Restoration. Judge the diffs for yourself. 179: 2943: 2131: 1427:

Did Cameron herself say anything about using selective focus (however described)? The most noted proponent of selective focus is surely

749: 481: 445: 958:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100211181039/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/features/photo_focus/cameron/related/index.html

2978: 2008: 1199: 1184: 1145: 1034: 287: 183: 2767: 1703:/Campaigning): Adam Cuerden made these following posts about the RfC immediately after their vote/comments at 22:31, 27 March 2021‎ 1078:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

967:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

857:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

558: 529: 174:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 61: 2913: 2130:- superior quality, visually appealing, and it doesn't cause the subject to be misrepresented. The restored photograph met the 961: 170: 128: 2733:: I can't see why restoration is not considered helpful. We should strive for the best possible versions of historic images.-- 2566: 1871: 1585: 847: 742:

Would it be informative to add mention of David Rocklin's novel "The Luminist" which is based on Cameron's time in Ceylon?

1738: 2890:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

278: 242: 687:

This paragraph keeps appearing from time to time. If someone could actually find the source for this it can be included:

2830: 1620: 1127: 1016: 922: 710: 103: 1090:

An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the

979:

An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the

387:

and related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2789: 1610: 1501:

Cox, Julian; Ford, Colin, 1934-; Lukitsh, Joanne; Wright, Philippa; Cameron, Julia Margaret Pattle, 1815-1879 (2003),

1282: 1068: 2721: 2005: 1875: 1196: 1181: 1142: 1031: 2447: 878:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

797: 355: 334: 2876: 2426: 664: 753: 2024:, readers expect to see the original portrait by her son, not some modified version from a Knowledge editor 1118: 1060: 1007: 949: 913: 839: 610: 1577:

RfC: Should the infobox use the original photograph of Cameron or a version modified by a Knowledge editor?

1390:, Museum of Modern Art : Distributed in the United States and Canada by D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers, 793: 2459: 2380: 2344: 2259: 1746: 1056: 1052: 945: 941: 831: 772:

are evidently in this group. (Please drop a note on my talk page if there is ever a reply to this note.) -

2763: 2717: 2624: 2240: 2215: 2002: 1193: 1178: 1139: 1102:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1028: 991:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

897:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

885: 645: 109: 30: 2478:- if we start suggesting that we shouldn't use the fixed up image, then we should just chuck the whole 1059:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 948:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 838:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1275:

usually very sharp areas of focus that the 'roundness of form' that Cameron loved is given expression.

2642: 2526: 2178: 2158: 2118: 1847: 1829: 1820: 1808: 1769: 1765: 1700: 1696: 777: 745: 80: 2872: 2686: 2503: 2422: 2236: 1774:: Qono, who started this RfC, made the following posts about the RfC immediately after opening it. 1436: 1428: 1221: 813: 660: 66: 566:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

489:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

286:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2838: 2816: 2586: 2470: 2409: 2375:

Of course they are free to have that preference, but several did not give it as their rationale.

2300: 1846:. A minute after Adam Cuerden's comment in the RfC at 22:31, 27 March 2021, they made those five 882:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1103: 992: 898: 208: 2859: 2738: 2703: 2547: 2484: 2455: 2376: 2339: 2319: 2253: 2198: 2064: 1980: 1931: 1677: 1559: 1518: 1506: 1482: 1452: 1417: 1391: 1316: 1288: 1279: 1165: 1311:

Camera Club of New York; Boston Photo-Clan; Photo-Pictorialists of Buffalo (Society) (1907),

2758: 2620: 2604: 2516: 2443: 2280: 2211: 1616: 962:

http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/features/photo_focus/cameron/related/index.html

473: 384: 162: 1110: 999: 905: 2638: 2521: 2366: 2174: 2151: 2114: 2097: 2044: 2034: 1961: 1876:

use a reproduction (or restoration) as presented by a museum or other authoritative source

1874:. These restorations can be valuable, but in the context of the visual arts it is best to 1856: 1804: 1753: 848:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090710102136/http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/cameron/artanna.shtml

773: 550: 523: 1655:

who has cropped the original, removed spots, increased contrast, and modified the color?

2682: 2664: 2559:

per David Eppstein, mostly. I was pinged here, yes, but it's how I'd !vote regardless.

2499: 1912: 1891: 1825: 1660: 1432: 1386:

Butler, Cornelia H; Schwartz, Alexandra; Museum of Modern Art (New York, N.Y.) (2010),

1296: 1240: 1217: 864:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 809: 371: 270: 1109:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

998:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

904:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2897: 2834: 2812: 2582: 2560: 2405: 2296: 1883: 1803:

As a result, the first few comments are overwhelmingly in support of the "Original".

769: 726: 486: 1330:“During the 1860s, Julia Margaret Cameron's images helped to establish the issue of 2855: 2751: 2734: 2699: 2543: 2479: 2401: 2325: 2228: 2194: 2135: 2070: 1986: 1937: 1683: 1161: 1069:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160811225311/http://mimt.jp/cameron/eng/midokoro.html

254: 236: 2880: 2863: 2842: 2820: 2798: 2771: 2742: 2725: 2707: 2690: 2673: 2646: 2628: 2611: 2590: 2572: 2551: 2533: 2507: 2490: 2463: 2430: 2413: 2384: 2370: 2354:

Editors are free to prefer the Original artwork by her son (as the caption states

2349: 2330: 2304: 2287: 2264: 2244: 2219: 2202: 2182: 2165: 2122: 2101: 2075: 2048: 2011: 1991: 1965: 1942: 1916: 1895: 1860: 1812: 1687: 1664: 1631: 1455: 1440: 1420: 1300: 1225: 1202: 1187: 1169: 1148: 1132: 1037: 1021: 927: 851: 816: 801: 781: 757: 729: 697: 668: 2022:

Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron

2599: 2273: 1625: 871: 563: 146: 122: 49: 2362: 2147: 2093: 2056: 2040: 2030: 1972: 1957: 1852: 1749: 870:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 694: 676: 651: 463: 361: 260: 152: 2080:

Could you explain how "Qono misframed the issue"? Anyway, the caption states

1605:

so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments

1319: 2779: 2655: 2396:: Restored photos are accepted during featured article reviews: for example 2191: 1953: 1923: 1908: 1887: 1656: 1305: 1292: 56: 1554:

Cameron, Julia Margaret Pattle; Weaver, Mike; J. Paul Getty Museum (1986),

1542: 1251:

of that year and then early in 1866 switching to a larger format still for

1072: 1731:

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#I_think_we'll_be_ready_tomorrow

457: 439: 2235:

more visually appealing, but I don't think that's what's important here.

20: 2361:) over the restoration. Not everyone thinks the restoration is better. 1835:

The five comments from Adam Cuerden though were obviously non-neutral:

283: 2439: 1928:

Well, that's a bit of a red herring, given the photo isn't by her.

182:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 1640:

Should the image of Julia Margaret Cameron used in the infobox be

709: 1556:

Whisper of the muse : the Overstone album & other photographs

1675:

by Cameron. People seem to be in a lot of confusion about this.

2954:

Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles

2833:. Email format is supposed to be first.last@metmuseum.org --- 2227:- I don't think the issue with the restoration is an issue of 2143: 1380:

Susan Kismaric briefly describes a Cameron work with the term

74: 44: 15: 609: 207: 1363:“Her portraits are not presented the way our eye sees. The 39:. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. 1477:

Hirsch, Robert; Safari, an O'Reilly Media Company (2008),

1063:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

952:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

842:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1388:

Modern women : women artists at the Museum of Modern Art

719:

File:Julia Margaret Cameron by George Frederic Watts.jpg

705:

File:Julia Margaret Cameron by George Frederic Watts.jpg

2090: 2088: 2027: 2025: 1844: 1842: 1840: 1838: 1836: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1743: 1735: 1727: 1719: 1711: 1704: 835: 2061:

The photo isn't by Cameron. Qono misframed the issue.

1263:

are sharp, but very selectively, and in examples like

1646:

print as reproduced by The Metropolitan Museum of Art

55:

A fact from this article was featured on Knowledge's

1584:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

562:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 485:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 383:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 282:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2949:

B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles

1653:

version that has been altered by a Knowledge editor

1594:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1347:“Had she been dissatisfied with the indeterminate, 874:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1723:Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#I'm_out 316:This article has not yet received a rating on the 1503:Julia Margaret Cameron : the complete photographs 1235: 2001:- we are obliged to be authentic, not artistic. 1848:Knowledge:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notifications 2358:portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron 1880:a special version created by a Knowledge editor 1770:Knowledge:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification 1701:Knowledge:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification 1479:Light and lens : photography in the digital age 852:http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/cameron/artanna.shtml 2400:, also restored by Adam, is the lead image on 860:This message was posted before February 2018. 808:Seems reasonable. Thanks for the useful edit! 1830:Knowledge:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification 1597:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 1523:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 2974:Unknown-importance England-related articles 2398:File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg 2082:Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait 2959:Arts and entertainment work group articles 2934:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in People 1527:) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( 1051:I have just modified one external link on 940:I have just modified one external link on 830:I have just modified one external link on 518: 434: 329: 231: 117: 2782:says it best: this is about what Cameron 1739:Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup#I'm_out,_thank_you 2989:High-importance Women's History articles 1543:https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/904 1476: 1073:http://mimt.jp/cameron/eng/midokoro.html 3024:B-Class History of photography articles 1469: 520: 436: 331: 233: 119: 78: 2355: 2084:by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron 2081: 2021: 1516: 1091: 980: 1826:User_talk:Qono#Julia_Margaret_Cameron 397:Knowledge:WikiProject Women's History 219:the arts and entertainment work group 7: 2999:WikiProject Women's History articles 1747:User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#Too_far_gone? 1236:'Out-of-focus' or 'selective focus'? 556:This article is within the scope of 479:This article is within the scope of 400:Template:WikiProject Women's History 377:This article is within the scope of 276:This article is within the scope of 168:This article is within the scope of 3019:Top-importance Photography articles 2994:All WikiProject Women-related pages 1315:, American Photographic Pub. Co.], 499:Knowledge:WikiProject Women artists 108:It is of interest to the following 33:by Knowledge editors, which is now 3009:WikiProject Women artists articles 2924:Knowledge vital articles in People 2909:Selected anniversaries (June 2023) 2356:Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 621:WikiProject History of photography 502:Template:WikiProject Women artists 14: 2146:recommends that we use the best 1055:. Please take a moment to review 944:. Please take a moment to review 834:. Please take a moment to review 576:Knowledge:WikiProject Photography 3029:WikiProject Photography articles 2984:B-Class Women's History articles 2969:B-Class England-related articles 2939:B-Class vital articles in People 2919:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 2886:The discussion above is closed. 1481:(1st ed.), Focal Press, p. 294, 1081: 970: 579:Template:WikiProject Photography 549: 522: 466: 456: 438: 364: 354: 333: 263: 253: 235: 155: 145: 121: 88: 79: 48: 19: 2132:criteria for a featured picture 1821:User_talk:Cwmhiraeth#March_2021 596:This article has been rated as 417:This article has been rated as 192:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 3004:B-Class Women artists articles 2964:WikiProject Biography articles 2929:B-Class level-5 vital articles 195:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2037:) 02:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 1977:The photograph isn't by her. 764:Source for allegorical photos 758:17:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 618:This article is supported by 570:and see a list of open tasks. 493:and see a list of open tasks. 391:and see a list of open tasks. 296:Knowledge:WikiProject England 290:and see a list of open tasks. 216:This article is supported by 3014:B-Class Photography articles 2904:Old requests for peer review 1456:06:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 1441:06:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 1421:11:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 1301:17:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 1283:05:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 1133:08:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC) 1022:10:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC) 299:Template:WikiProject England 180:contribute to the discussion 2134:, and what is described as 1249:The return after three days 380:WikiProject Women's History 3045: 2944:B-Class biography articles 2881:11:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC) 2864:02:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC) 2843:03:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC) 2821:02:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC) 2799:02:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC) 2772:19:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2743:17:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2726:16:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2708:10:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2691:08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2674:06:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2647:04:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2629:02:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2612:00:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2591:00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2573:23:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2552:23:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2534:23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2508:23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2491:23:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2464:23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2431:23:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2414:22:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2385:23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2371:22:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2350:22:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2331:22:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2305:10:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2288:16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 2265:11:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 2245:08:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 2220:12:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 2203:11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 2183:10:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 2166:08:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 2123:07:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 2102:00:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 2076:22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 2049:17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 2012:23:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 1992:22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 1966:22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 1943:22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 1917:21:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 1896:21:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 1861:12:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 1813:11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 1688:22:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 1665:20:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 1632:18:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC) 1226:00:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 1203:02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 1188:01:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 1170:21:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 1149:03:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 1138:Revised url substituted -- 1048:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1038:03:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 1027:Revised url substituted -- 937:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 928:03:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 891:(last update: 5 June 2024) 827:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 698:18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 679:18:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC) 669:11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 602:project's importance scale 423:project's importance scale 318:project's importance scale 2979:WikiProject England pages 2811:a negative and so on.--- 817:06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC) 782:04:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC) 617: 595: 544: 482:WikiProject Women artists 451: 416: 349: 315: 248: 215: 140: 116: 2888:Please do not modify it. 1671:Note: The photograph is 1591:Please do not modify it. 1558:, J. Paul Getty Museum, 802:21:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC) 730:08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 654:00:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) 403:Women's History articles 302:England-related articles 2312:: Seriously, the photo 2039:expanding on my !vote, 1044:External links modified 933:External links modified 823:External links modified 559:WikiProject Photography 2914:B-Class vital articles 2790:Ser Amantio di Nicolao 2324:Has about 7.8% of all 2069:Has about 7.8% of all 1985:Has about 7.8% of all 1936:Has about 7.8% of all 1682:Has about 7.8% of all 1335:beautiful to her eye.” 1053:Julia Margaret Cameron 942:Julia Margaret Cameron 832:Julia Margaret Cameron 787:Ceylon is not in India 714: 614: 505:Women artists articles 212: 134:Arts and Entertainment 27:Julia Margaret Cameron 2314:ISN'T EVEN BY CAMERON 1905:The Photographic News 713: 613: 211: 171:WikiProject Biography 95:level-5 vital article 2113:is more authentic.-- 1313:American photography 872:regular verification 659:original research. - 582:Photography articles 1586:request for comment 862:After February 2018 279:WikiProject England 2795:Lo dicono a Signa. 2451:The New York Times 1121:InternetArchiveBot 1010:InternetArchiveBot 916:InternetArchiveBot 867:InternetArchiveBot 717:Recently the file 715: 615: 213: 198:biography articles 104:content assessment 2571: 2480:featured pictures 2474: 2229:original research 1872:original research 1614: 1611:non-admin closure 1564:978-0-89236-088-8 1511:978-0-500-54265-1 1487:978-0-240-80855-0 1396:978-0-87070-771-1 1382:‘selective focus’ 1265:Prayer and Praise 892: 804:Penelope Coleman 748:comment added by 636: 635: 632: 631: 628: 627: 517: 516: 513: 512: 433: 432: 429: 428: 328: 327: 324: 323: 230: 229: 226: 225: 73: 72: 43: 42: 3036: 2792: 2761: 2718:Alanna the Brave 2671: 2662: 2607: 2563: 2529: 2517:User:PraiseVivec 2487: 2468: 2448:restored version 2444:Lucy Diggs Slowe 2347: 2342: 2329: 2285: 2278: 2074: 2060: 2051: 2003:Michael Goodyear 1990: 1976: 1941: 1927: 1628: 1608: 1593: 1568: 1567: 1551: 1545: 1539: 1533: 1532: 1522: 1514: 1497: 1491: 1490: 1474: 1413:selective, focus 1399: 1322: 1194:Michael Goodyear 1179:Michael Goodyear 1140:Michael Goodyear 1131: 1122: 1093: 1088: 1085: 1084: 1029:Michael Goodyear 1020: 1011: 982: 977: 974: 973: 926: 917: 890: 889: 868: 794:Penelope Coleman 760: 584: 583: 580: 577: 574: 553: 546: 545: 540: 537: 526: 519: 507: 506: 503: 500: 497: 476: 474:Biography portal 471: 470: 469: 460: 453: 452: 442: 435: 405: 404: 401: 398: 395: 374: 369: 368: 367: 358: 351: 350: 345: 337: 330: 304: 303: 300: 297: 294: 273: 268: 267: 266: 257: 250: 249: 239: 232: 200: 199: 196: 193: 190: 176:join the project 165: 163:Biography portal 160: 159: 158: 149: 142: 141: 136: 125: 118: 101: 92: 91: 84: 83: 75: 52: 45: 23: 16: 3044: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3035: 3034: 3033: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2808:interpretations 2797: 2788: 2756: 2665: 2656: 2605: 2569: 2532: 2527: 2485: 2345: 2340: 2328: 2317: 2281: 2274: 2073: 2062: 2054: 2038: 1989: 1978: 1970: 1952:- I agree with 1940: 1929: 1921: 1686: 1634: 1626: 1589: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1565: 1553: 1552: 1548: 1540: 1536: 1515: 1512: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1488: 1475: 1471: 1465: 1397: 1385: 1365:selective focus 1349:selective focus 1332:selective focus 1310: 1238: 1157: 1125: 1120: 1086: 1082: 1061:this simple FaQ 1046: 1014: 1009: 975: 971: 950:this simple FaQ 935: 920: 915: 883: 876:have permission 866: 840:this simple FaQ 825: 789: 766: 743: 740: 708: 685: 641: 581: 578: 575: 572: 571: 538: 532: 504: 501: 498: 495: 494: 472: 467: 465: 419:High-importance 402: 399: 396: 394:Women's History 393: 392: 385:Women's history 370: 365: 363: 344:High‑importance 343: 341:Women's History 301: 298: 295: 292: 291: 269: 264: 262: 197: 194: 191: 188: 187: 161: 156: 154: 131: 102:on Knowledge's 99: 89: 12: 11: 5: 3042: 3040: 3032: 3031: 3026: 3021: 3016: 3011: 3006: 3001: 2996: 2991: 2986: 2981: 2976: 2971: 2966: 2961: 2956: 2951: 2946: 2941: 2936: 2931: 2926: 2921: 2916: 2911: 2906: 2896: 2895: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2873:Guitarjunkie22 2866: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2824: 2823: 2801: 2793: 2774: 2745: 2728: 2710: 2693: 2676: 2649: 2631: 2614: 2593: 2575: 2565: 2554: 2536: 2524: 2510: 2493: 2466: 2433: 2423:David Eppstein 2416: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2333: 2323: 2307: 2290: 2267: 2247: 2222: 2205: 2185: 2168: 2148:quality images 2125: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2068: 2014: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1984: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1935: 1898: 1864: 1863: 1833: 1819:Also relevant 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1758: 1757: 1741: 1733: 1725: 1717: 1692: 1691: 1681: 1637: 1635: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1580: 1578: 1575: 1570: 1569: 1563: 1546: 1534: 1510: 1499:Julian Cox in 1492: 1486: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1405: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1395: 1374: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1357: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1341: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1328: 1327: 1325: 1323: 1276: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1115: 1114: 1107: 1076: 1075: 1067:Added archive 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1004: 1003: 996: 965: 964: 956:Added archive 934: 931: 910: 909: 902: 855: 854: 846:Added archive 824: 821: 820: 819: 788: 785: 765: 762: 739: 736: 734: 707: 701: 684: 683:Unsourced info 681: 672: 671: 661:Ashley Pomeroy 640: 637: 634: 633: 630: 629: 626: 625: 616: 606: 605: 598:Top-importance 594: 588: 587: 585: 568:the discussion 554: 542: 541: 539:Top‑importance 527: 515: 514: 511: 510: 508: 491:the discussion 478: 477: 461: 449: 448: 443: 431: 430: 427: 426: 415: 409: 408: 406: 389:the discussion 376: 375: 372:History portal 359: 347: 346: 338: 326: 325: 322: 321: 314: 308: 307: 305: 288:the discussion 275: 274: 271:England portal 258: 246: 245: 240: 228: 227: 224: 223: 214: 204: 203: 201: 167: 166: 150: 138: 137: 126: 114: 113: 107: 85: 71: 70: 53: 41: 40: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3041: 3030: 3027: 3025: 3022: 3020: 3017: 3015: 3012: 3010: 3007: 3005: 3002: 3000: 2997: 2995: 2992: 2990: 2987: 2985: 2982: 2980: 2977: 2975: 2972: 2970: 2967: 2965: 2962: 2960: 2957: 2955: 2952: 2950: 2947: 2945: 2942: 2940: 2937: 2935: 2932: 2930: 2927: 2925: 2922: 2920: 2917: 2915: 2912: 2910: 2907: 2905: 2902: 2901: 2899: 2889: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2867: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2849: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2809: 2805: 2802: 2800: 2796: 2791: 2785: 2781: 2778: 2775: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2760: 2753: 2749: 2746: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2729: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2714: 2711: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2694: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2677: 2675: 2672: 2670: 2669: 2663: 2661: 2660: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2635: 2632: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2609: 2608: 2601: 2597: 2594: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2579: 2576: 2574: 2570: 2568: 2562: 2558: 2555: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2540: 2537: 2535: 2530: 2523: 2518: 2514: 2511: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2494: 2492: 2489: 2488: 2481: 2477: 2472: 2471:edit conflict 2467: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2440:this original 2437: 2434: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2417: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2392: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2348: 2343: 2337: 2334: 2332: 2327: 2322: 2321: 2315: 2311: 2308: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2291: 2289: 2286: 2284: 2279: 2277: 2272:per above. ~ 2271: 2268: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2251: 2248: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2223: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2206: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2169: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2126: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2109: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2089: 2086: 2085: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2072: 2067: 2066: 2058: 2053: 2052: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2026: 2023: 2018: 2015: 2013: 2010: 2007: 2004: 2000: 1997: 1993: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1974: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1939: 1934: 1933: 1925: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1899: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1884:unencylopedic 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1866: 1865: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1849: 1845: 1843: 1841: 1839: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1799: 1797: 1795: 1793: 1791: 1789: 1787: 1785: 1783: 1781: 1779: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1773: 1772:/Campaigning) 1771: 1767: 1766:WP:CANVASSING 1762: 1755: 1751: 1748: 1744: 1742: 1740: 1736: 1734: 1732: 1728: 1726: 1724: 1720: 1718: 1716: 1712: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1697:WP:CANVASSING 1690: 1689: 1685: 1679: 1676: 1674: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1652: 1647: 1645: 1638: 1633: 1630: 1629: 1622: 1618: 1612: 1606: 1598: 1595: 1592: 1587: 1582: 1581: 1576: 1566: 1561: 1557: 1550: 1547: 1544: 1538: 1535: 1530: 1526: 1520: 1513: 1508: 1504: 1496: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1473: 1470: 1457: 1454: 1449: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1398: 1393: 1389: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1366: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1350: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1281: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1180: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1112: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1079: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1049: 1043: 1039: 1036: 1033: 1030: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1018: 1013: 1012: 1001: 997: 994: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 968: 963: 959: 955: 954: 953: 951: 947: 943: 938: 932: 930: 929: 924: 919: 918: 907: 903: 900: 896: 895: 894: 887: 881: 877: 873: 869: 863: 858: 853: 849: 845: 844: 843: 841: 837: 833: 828: 822: 818: 815: 811: 807: 806: 805: 803: 799: 795: 786: 784: 783: 779: 775: 771: 770:Alice Liddell 763: 761: 759: 755: 751: 750:173.49.91.204 747: 737: 735: 732: 731: 728: 724: 720: 712: 706: 702: 700: 699: 696: 691: 688: 682: 680: 678: 670: 666: 662: 657: 656: 655: 653: 648: 647: 646:Alchemist0405 638: 623: 622: 612: 608: 607: 603: 599: 593: 590: 589: 586: 569: 565: 561: 560: 555: 552: 548: 547: 543: 536: 531: 528: 525: 521: 509: 496:Women artists 492: 488: 487:women artists 484: 483: 475: 464: 462: 459: 455: 454: 450: 447: 446:Women artists 444: 441: 437: 424: 420: 414: 411: 410: 407: 390: 386: 382: 381: 373: 362: 360: 357: 353: 352: 348: 342: 339: 336: 332: 319: 313: 310: 309: 306: 289: 285: 281: 280: 272: 261: 259: 256: 252: 251: 247: 244: 241: 238: 234: 221: 220: 210: 206: 205: 202: 185: 184:documentation 181: 177: 173: 172: 164: 153: 151: 148: 144: 143: 139: 135: 130: 127: 124: 120: 115: 111: 105: 97: 96: 86: 82: 77: 76: 68: 67:June 11, 2023 64: 63: 58: 54: 51: 47: 46: 38: 37: 32: 28: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2887: 2868: 2851: 2807: 2803: 2783: 2776: 2747: 2730: 2712: 2695: 2678: 2667: 2666: 2658: 2657: 2651: 2633: 2616: 2603: 2595: 2577: 2564: 2556: 2538: 2512: 2495: 2486:Lee Vilenski 2483: 2475: 2456:Innisfree987 2450: 2435: 2418: 2402:Carl Nielsen 2393: 2377:Innisfree987 2357: 2335: 2320:Adam Cuerden 2318: 2313: 2309: 2292: 2282: 2275: 2269: 2260: 2255:Dennis Brown 2254: 2249: 2232: 2224: 2207: 2187: 2170: 2160: 2159: 2153: 2152: 2139: 2127: 2110: 2083: 2065:Adam Cuerden 2063: 2016: 1998: 1981:Adam Cuerden 1979: 1949: 1932:Adam Cuerden 1930: 1904: 1900: 1867: 1818: 1802: 1763: 1761:FURTHER NOTE 1760: 1759: 1694: 1693: 1680: 1678:Adam Cuerden 1672: 1670: 1650: 1643: 1639: 1636: 1624: 1604: 1596: 1590: 1583: 1555: 1549: 1537: 1502: 1495: 1478: 1472: 1453:Jamesmcardle 1448:satisfactory 1447: 1418:Jamesmcardle 1412: 1404: 1387: 1381: 1373: 1364: 1356: 1348: 1340: 1331: 1312: 1289:Jamesmcardle 1280:Jamesmcardle 1272: 1269:specifically 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1158: 1155:recent edits 1119: 1116: 1095: 1089: 1080: 1077: 1050: 1047: 1008: 1005: 984: 978: 969: 966: 939: 936: 914: 911: 886:source check 865: 859: 856: 829: 826: 790: 767: 744:— Preceding 741: 738:The Luminist 733: 722: 716: 692: 689: 686: 673: 649: 642: 619: 597: 557: 480: 418: 378: 277: 217: 169: 110:WikiProjects 93: 60: 34: 26: 2869:Restoration 2852:Restoration 2777:Restoration 2759:Finnusertop 2748:Restoration 2731:Restoration 2713:Restoration 2696:Restoration 2679:Restoration 2652:Restoration 2634:Restoration 2621:Tagishsimon 2617:Restoration 2596:Restoration 2578:Restoration 2557:Restoration 2539:Restoration 2513:Restoration 2496:Restoration 2476:restoration 2436:Restoration 2419:Restoration 2394:Restoration 2336:Restoration 2310:Restoration 2293:Restoration 2212:PraiseVivec 2208:Restoration 2171:Restoration 2128:Restoration 1695:NOTE about 1384:on p.73 of 1261:Summer Days 1253:Summer Days 573:Photography 564:photography 530:Photography 65:section on 62:On this day 31:peer review 29:received a 2898:Categories 2831:here it is 2639:HawkAussie 2522:Smallbones 2175:Cwmhiraeth 2154:Isaidnoway 2115:Droid I am 1805:Cwmhiraeth 1464:References 1257:The Return 1128:Report bug 1017:Report bug 923:Report bug 774:SusanLesch 2683:Mike Peel 2528:smalltalk 2500:Smirkybec 2446:with the 2442:photo of 1433:Samatarou 1320:0097-577X 1245:selective 1241:Samatarou 1218:Samatarou 1111:this tool 1104:this tool 1092:|checked= 1000:this tool 993:this tool 981:|checked= 906:this tool 899:this tool 810:Naturenet 703:New file 189:Biography 129:Biography 98:is rated 57:Main Page 2835:Possibly 2813:Possibly 2804:Original 2768:contribs 2700:— Maile 2583:TJMSmith 2561:Eddie891 2406:Mirokado 2297:Pincrete 2270:Original 2250:Original 2237:Volteer1 2225:Original 2188:Original 2111:Original 2017:Original 1999:Original 1950:Original 1868:Original 1651:modified 1644:original 1519:citation 1172:vcolsen 1117:Cheers.— 1006:Cheers.— 912:Cheers.— 746:unsigned 727:Dcoetzee 639:Untitled 36:archived 2856:Thriley 2735:Ipigott 2544:Kingsif 2195:Sea Ane 1901:Comment 1429:Emerson 1416:(1862)” 1273:between 1162:Vcolsen 1057:my edit 946:my edit 836:my edit 600:on the 535:History 421:on the 293:England 284:England 243:England 100:B-class 59:in the 2784:looked 2600:Bilorv 2515:- per 2341:Silver 2161:(talk) 1878:, not 1764:about 1627:buidhe 106:scale. 2752:WP:OR 2363:Some1 2346:seren 2138:, is 2136:WP:OR 2094:Some1 2057:Some1 2041:Some1 2031:Some1 1973:AKeen 1958:AKeen 1853:Some1 1750:Some1 1648:or a 723:right 695:AKeen 677:AKeen 652:Ericd 87:This 2877:talk 2860:talk 2839:talk 2817:talk 2780:PamD 2764:talk 2739:talk 2722:talk 2704:talk 2687:talk 2643:talk 2625:talk 2606:talk 2587:talk 2567:Work 2548:talk 2504:talk 2460:talk 2427:talk 2410:talk 2381:talk 2367:talk 2301:talk 2241:talk 2216:talk 2199:talk 2192:Qono 2190:per 2179:talk 2119:talk 2098:talk 2045:talk 2035:talk 1962:talk 1954:Qono 1924:Qono 1913:talk 1909:Qono 1892:talk 1888:Qono 1857:talk 1824:and 1809:talk 1754:talk 1713:at 1661:talk 1657:Qono 1642:the 1560:ISBN 1529:link 1525:link 1507:ISBN 1483:ISBN 1437:talk 1392:ISBN 1317:ISSN 1306:Qono 1297:talk 1293:Qono 1259:and 1222:talk 1166:talk 1096:true 985:true 814:Talk 798:talk 778:talk 754:talk 665:talk 413:High 178:and 2659:Pam 2326:FPs 2283:333 2276:HAL 2144:MOS 2071:FPs 1987:FPs 1938:FPs 1745:at 1737:at 1729:at 1721:at 1684:FPs 1673:not 1094:to 1071:to 983:to 960:to 880:RfC 850:to 592:Top 312:??? 2900:: 2879:) 2862:) 2841:) 2819:) 2787:-- 2770:) 2766:⋅ 2757:– 2741:) 2724:) 2706:) 2689:) 2645:) 2627:) 2610:) 2589:) 2550:) 2506:) 2462:) 2429:) 2412:) 2383:) 2369:) 2303:) 2261:2¢ 2258:- 2243:) 2233:is 2218:) 2201:) 2181:) 2142:. 2121:) 2100:) 2092:. 2047:) 2009:✉ 2006:✐ 1964:) 1915:) 1894:) 1859:) 1811:) 1663:) 1623:) 1619:· 1588:. 1521:}} 1517:{{ 1439:) 1299:) 1224:) 1200:✉ 1197:✐ 1185:✉ 1182:✐ 1177:-- 1168:) 1146:✉ 1143:✐ 1035:✉ 1032:✐ 893:. 888:}} 884:{{ 812:| 800:) 780:) 756:) 667:) 533:: 132:: 2875:( 2858:( 2837:( 2815:( 2762:( 2737:( 2720:( 2702:( 2685:( 2668:D 2641:( 2623:( 2602:( 2585:( 2546:( 2531:) 2525:( 2502:( 2473:) 2469:( 2458:( 2425:( 2408:( 2379:( 2365:( 2299:( 2239:( 2214:( 2197:( 2177:( 2117:( 2096:( 2059:: 2055:@ 2043:( 2033:( 1975:: 1971:@ 1960:( 1926:: 1922:@ 1911:( 1890:( 1855:( 1832:. 1807:( 1768:( 1756:) 1752:( 1699:( 1659:( 1621:c 1617:t 1615:( 1613:) 1609:( 1531:) 1435:( 1295:( 1220:( 1164:( 1130:) 1126:( 1113:. 1106:. 1087:N 1019:) 1015:( 1002:. 995:. 976:N 925:) 921:( 908:. 901:. 796:( 776:( 752:( 721:( 693:- 663:( 624:. 604:. 425:. 320:. 222:. 186:. 112:: 69:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index