Talk:The Pond—Moonlight

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Merge

Since this article is barely any longer than the section of the same name in Edward Steichen and mostly word for word, wouldn't it be better to just redirect this page to the Steichen article? Samatarou (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, it's probable the article was created after the photograph was sold for a (then-)record price. That is, the image is notable on its own. This article is also linked to from the "List of most expensive photographs." Perhaps a better solution is to edit down the description in the Steichen article, and let this one stand more on its own. Hal (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fake?

I'm very sceptical that Steichen really took this by moonlight. If the disk is the full moon rising/setting, then the light illuminating the scene must be coming from the sunset/sunrise behind the photographer. He took a very similar photo of sheep called "Pastoral - Moonlight" (which is better than the pond image IMHO) which has a more convincing feel but still must be relying on the sun for much of the light in the scene I think. Samatarou (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you'd think so. But without citations, that's probably WP:NOR. Hal (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]