Talk:Hidden mother photography

Photography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too much detail about Nagler's book

Given this is an article about a general photography topic, I think it should not include the overly detailed information that Nagler's book has "words by Geoffrey Batchen and the Biennale's curator, Massimiliano Gioni". -Lopifalko (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think its relevant because the words are an important part of the book, the Independent calls out Batchen's essay[1] (we could consider using the quotation from him about the symbolism of effacement) and Gioni curated the Biennale at which the images were exhibited. Most of the press about hidden mother photography stems from Nagler's book, which isn't covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, so I don't feel it's excessive detail. If you feel strongly about it then we could take it out, but I prefer to keep it myself. Mortee (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good start

But 3 desiderata:

1. In an article of photographic history, we have no identifying captions for the illustrations, giving the maker's name (and if you don't know, say 'unknown'), city, year (or at least decade), the medium and format, and the institution owning the object (or 'private collection'). I mean, huh?

2. What country is this article about? Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republics? The U.S.? Is this subject found in 19C photographs in Europe or elsewhere, as well? That'd be interesting to know.

3. From their color, I'd say the illustrations show 2 tintypes and 3 CDVs. Well, having mentioned the media in which hidden mumsies are known, show us at least 1 daguerreotype, ambro, etc. And if you can find one, a mother hidden by the mat, illustrating the object both with and without it. I've seen 1 or 2 astounding examples of that phenomenon, in me time.

For that matter, how about a cabinet card? Salt print? Stereo view? (That'd be something.) An Andy Warhol? (Nah; leave him out. Some motha's ought to stay hidden.)

Jimlue (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]