Category talk:Photographs by camera

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Category talk:Camera type)
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion request[edit]

I find this a very, very strange Category. What is the point of this? --Walter 18:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seems, that the deletion request failed. Tag removed. --Ulenspiegel 21:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/04#Category:Camera type for the discussion. Dbenbenn 00:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC) (Archive link updated. --MagnusA (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC))

Automatical category[edit]

Is it possible to add Category:Camera type automatically according to EXIF metadata? If yes, link should be directly in metadata column. --Snek01 10:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be even nicer to have automatic searches for this purpose. So categorization would not be necessary anymore for this purpose. Or is it already possible? --Afrank99 16:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

+1 - if one has such a meta category anyway it would be most useful to have a tool which automatically extracts the category information out of the photograph's meta data itself. I noticed for example that the photos I uploaded are not in the corresponding category of the camera - and I will not go and add those photos manually... ;-) --katpatuka (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Category is nice, but needs work[edit]

I happen to like this category. It's just a shame that the subcategories aren't automatically populated according to EXIF metadata as suggested above. I see three problems with the current ad-hoc manner of this categorization:

  1. Very few photos are actually put into these subcategories.
  2. The subcategory names are at odds with the names of the subcategories of the Digital compact cameras and Canon cameras, etc., categories. Personally, I think it's a bit silly to have subcategories for specific camera models there, whereas here it makes sense.
  3. There's an inconsistent naming convention for these subcategories. There are few that start with the word "With", but most don't. Right now there's both a Canon Powershot G3 subcategory and a With Canon PowerShot G3 subcategory. If the Camera type category is to stay (which I hope it does), something should be done about this. (If anything, it makes sense for all of the subcategories here to start with the words "With" or "Taken with".)

--Pomakis 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know - Is there any way to rename a category (which really means all of its references) with one operation rather than having to visit and change every page that references it? Doing this could immediately solve issues 2 and 3 above. --Pomakis 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to be bold and have made the decision that the subcategories of this category should (ideally) be named "Taken with <cameraType>". I really think this makes a lot of sense. As you can see, I have taken some preliminary measures in that direction. I have also merged the two G3 categories. --Pomakis 21:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete category revisited: Totally wrong information from this auto category[edit]

photo taken in 2006 by a Canon Powershot?

This auto categorization is baloney, and is creating junk information in Commons. If the advocates of this category want to keep this, I think it should be shut off entirely until users can selectively turn it off when it is providing false information as in this case.

It is a photo obviously taken near the end of WWII, but the category reports it was taken with a Canon Powershot who-cares-what-model. There will be many cases of such photos of photos on commons, but the problem is that for me to correct the erroneous information, I have to strip the exif info out of the file then re-upload.

Ok maybe someone cares about this category. Personally, I don't care if there are such arcane categories like this. What I do care about is when the info on Commons gets dodgy because of it.

Is it more important to have this than maintaining the accuracy of information on commons?

-Mak 16:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, this isn't an automatically-populated category. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, I suspect that the above photograph was taken with a Canon PowerShot camera in 2006. It was likely a photo of a photo, but so what? It's still correct information. It's quite rare for an EXIF header to incorrectly specify the type of camera (unless it's intentionally spoofed), so if this category were automatically populated, I suspect it would be quite accurate (albiet large).

-Pomakis 17:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

When you don't know what you are talking about, there are alternatives to typing. Knowledge can be increased by asking questions. Like, where is the syntax [[Category:Taken with Canon PowerShot S110]]? Can't find it? Try this- Hit preview. Hmmmm... The cat is not present on preview. Think it is buried in the templates? Try removing everything on the Image page and saving. Hmmm....

There is no question how this deceptive information came into being. The caption clearly states that this is a US Navy photo that is on display in the Tokyo National Science Museum. Certainly, someone visiting the museum made a copy of the photo using a Canon Powershot. If you told someone simply "I took this picture", would they acquire the correct meaning? In the same way, did PHGCOM "take" this picture of the Nakajima Kikka? Well, no more than I "took" the picture if I scanned it on a flatbed.

You assert that the category information is correct. If that is so, that would be fair for me to take a picture of an Ansel Adams photo and claim that it was "Taken with [my] Canon Powershot S110"? No? Technically, sure, it is accurate.

My point here is that this Category information cannot be corrected without going to a lot of trouble. Until the human subject matter expert can correct the fubars that computer generated information will always propagate, the feature should be turned off.

-Mak 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a bit confused now. I see that "Taken with <cameraType>" is now automatically added to the bottom of each photo that has an EXIF tag. This is relatively new, since this didn't happen the last time I uploaded my own photos. However, these automatic category additions don't seem to be catching; that is, the category pages themselves aren't being populated with the automatic additions. Somebody must be experimenting with this mechanism, but it's not quite right yet.

If this kink gets worked out, then I think we'd have a fairly reliable system for categorizing photos by camera type. Once things are working correctly, the existing specific category references should probably be taken out (over time...) so that photos that were manually added to these categories aren't added twice (although maybe Wikimedia is smart about this and will only add the entry to the category once anyways, so maybe it's not a big deal).

With respect to the correctness of the EXIF "camera model" field, I understand what you're saying, but the fact is that this EXIF information already exists in these photos, and is even shown for each photo in the "Metadata" section. This categorization therefore isn't adding any information; all it is doing is allowing people to use that information to find other photos tagged with the same field value. We can argue about the philosophical correctness of what it means to be "taken with a Canon PowerShot S110", but I think that's pointless.

-Pomakis 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not interested in philosophizing.

  • Fact. The Nakajima Kikka Jet photo above was not taken in 2006.
  • Fact. The Nakajima Kikka Jet photo above was not taken with a Canon Powershot.
  • Fact. Users cannot remove the factually incorrect information without editing the metadata, which is a feat not possible by mere mortals. Just try. That's counter to one of our most fundamental principles.

This "feature" is adding Baloney into commons and does not belong until the Baloney can be corrected by everyday folks.

No philosophizing. Just fact.

-Mak 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "facts" arn't. In order,

  • The image known as Image:KikkaNavyBase.JPG on Wikimedia Commons was taken in 2006. (Very probably) It is an derivative work of a photograph, now in the public domain, taken many years earlier.
  • The image known as Image:KikkaNavyBase.JPG on Wikimedia Commons was taken with a Canon Powershot (Very probably). It is an derivative work of a photograph, now in the public domain, taken with some other camera.
  • Users on Wikimedia Commons cannot modify any information in the image files without modifying the image files, which is, according to you, "a feat not possible by mere mortals". I wonder who does all the requests for rotation, cropping, color balancing, etc, we have on Commons? Gods? The EXIF metadata is simply another part of the content of the image files, all of which can be altered only by modifying the files.

Furthermore, I have seen no additions of processed meat product being added by this feature.

As for making it clear the source, and limitations, of the EXIF data - i.e. adding notes to the Camera type category (and subcats) explaining what the EXIF data is, and isn't - that sounds like a great idea. Thanks for provoking a discussion that encouraged it. JesseW 18:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Category rename?[edit]

I think this category should be renamed. A name like Category:Images by camera would be more descriptive of what the category contains. Maybe there are an even better name? / 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Or Category:Photos by camera? / 08:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Subcategory naming[edit]

At the moment, naming the subcategories of Category:Photographs by camera and Category:Photographs by lens is somewhat inconsistent. Per-model categories are named as "Category:Taken with..." (e.g. Category:Taken with Nikon D50, Category:Taken with Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L USM) and I think this does not need to be changed.

However, for per-camera brand/family categories there are at least three naming schemes:

There is also some inconsistency whether the word "cameras" is included in the category name or not (Category:Photos taken with Canon, Category:Photos taken with Casio cameras). I think we should have only one naming scheme, and I vote for "Category:Taken with..." for the following reasons:

  • the shorter the better
  • Today most of the cameras are able to capture video as well.

The word "cameras" would be used if needed for disambiguation (e.g. if the same company manufactures both cameras and mobile phones with a camera). --Apalsola tc 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC) --Apalsola tc 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Any solution is fine with me, as long it is standardised for the whole range. Makes life easier. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree for lenses as quality lenses are used for quality photos. Not sure about the naming: do we want to mix video and photos from the same camera in a single category ? (I don't think so, see Category:Videos by video camera, sooner or later, one will have subcats for other types of photo's; panoramics, night views, IR, 3D, panoramics, B&W ...). --Foroa (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Made a formal discussion of it, too big consequences to discuss here, in my opinion. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)