User talk:Briansmithphoto

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Canon PowerShot S400 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. The Hybrid 04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography

Hi. Please read WP:Autobiography before making any more edits to Brian Smith (photographer). Thanks.

I'll add a welcome template below, which has a number of other useful links. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Briansmithphoto, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Quiddity (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Modine

Hi Brian, assuming you are Brian. Welcome. You are making a few mistakes with your edits to Matthew Modine. First, on an article with as few photographic illustrations as Matthew Modine, it is considered poor practice to wholesale remove another photographer's work to replace it with your own; you should be putting the work into the body if you feel you have a better replacement for the lead photo. Second, the image you are trying to use of Matthew Modine is not superior, by our standards, than the current one: it has a watermark with your name; it is very low resolution; it is an abstract sepia print with what looks like a tear in it. Lastly, you also tried to insert your homepage onto the article, which is considered SPAM per WP:EL. If you have questions, I am available to answer them, but please do not repeat these sorts of edits. I moved your low-res photo into the body, which is the most appropriate place for it. Thanks. -->David Shankbone 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David,

Thank you for the reply.

I ran into Matthew last Friday and he mentioned there was a paparazzi photo on his on his Wikipedia bio that made it look like he had red hair and he asked if I could PLEASE replace the photo with this Sepia photo that shot of him when he was in "Finishing the Picture." I said sure. I took a look at the image this morning that he hated and I see why he didn't like it. It does in fact make his hair appear to be red - which I assure you is not the case...

Before substituting the image I took a look see what size the images are actually displayed on Wikipedia. No matter how large the original image is that you upload, photos are only displayed 260 pixels high so this is actually not low-resolution - rather it is the PROPER size based on Wikipedia's format.

There is indeed a tear in the emulsion of the negative which is intentional and which most people who've seen it consider it to be artistic. While you may not view it as superior by your standards, I have a Pulitzer and I'm guessing you don't, so my standards are probably higher than yours.

Finally, I did not insert my home page into the post - rather I included a reference to an article that I posted about Matthew's latest film "PoliWood" published on my blog - not my website. I do not see any references to "PoliWood" in Matthew's page, so I believe this reference to be constructive.

Thank you,

Briansmithphoto (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Brian[reply]

Hi Brian. I have never been a paparazzo, nor will I ever be. The issue with image size/resolution is not with display, but in reuse. There are many ways that graphic designers use our media and most of the them require higher resolution than the one you are offering. Image concerns run beyond the display in our articles. We're more an educational resource for various uses, so it's important that our articles contain high resolution images; we use low-res when we have nothing else. Whether you have a Pulitzer is not what we are discussing, but the images themselves--it would be better not to have to throw around a credential to brandish yourself, as many of us are accomplished in our own ways. I used to take more artistic shots for the site that were continually removed as "unencyclopedic" - Wikipedia does not favor artistic shots at unique angles and coloring, but prefers full-on, full-color shots. It's not a commentary on your artistic skill nor mine, but on the preferences of this website. Additionally, the presence of your watermark creates an issue that violates a policy (Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images):

Also, user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page. These may be tagged {{Watermark}}.

Regarding the color issue, that's just a question of Photoshop but I can guarantee you that was the color of his hair was the color you see in the photo in April 2008 (all the other colors in the background are accurate as well). You are welcome to expand the article to include PoliWood, but a link to your blog is not the way to go about it (see Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided). -->David Shankbone 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I've restored your photo and removed the 2008 shot. I have Modine shots from the PoliWood premiere, and one in particular, though it needs some photoshop work on the lighting. Once that's uploaded, I will likely restore a proper head shot to the lead, but also place your image back in the career section. Yours is a nice shot, and a nice addition to the text. It's just not as appropriate for a head shot lead, as much as some of your other work I saw. Thanks for the excellent contribution. Best, -->David Shankbone 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the email you sent me

Brian, this message in is reference to the following email that you sent me:

I'm trying to replace a BAD paparazzi photograph of Matthew Modine with a GOOD photograph of him. This is constructive - not destructive.

Brian Smith

If you check my contributions, then you will see that I have been retired since November. During my time here, the extent of my interaction with you was leaving you a warning for your blanking of a page about a camera; the diff is in the warning that I left. I know nothing of this image dispute that you reference in your email, and becoming involved is something in which I have no interest. I am retired, I like being retired, and I would appreciate not being spammed by a user I whom I left one message about basic, undisputable, nonsensical, idiotic, pathetic and immature vandalism. Check on someone before you send them a message 11 months after they left you one, and do not send people completely uninvolved with your disputes messages. Unless the policy has changed, which is something that I never saw in my 2.5 years here so I doubt it, sending indiscriminate messages is a blockable offense. In conclusion, leave me the hell alone. The Hybrid 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Brian-smith-draft-quaid.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Brian-smith-draft-quaid.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine covers

Brian, you're uploading images that aren't allowed to be uploaded. Although you may have shot some of the photos on the covers, the magazine covers themselves are copyrighted and owned by those publications, which makes them incompatible with our licensing copyleft licensing schemes. They also fail fair use coverage. The exception to this is if the magazine covers themselves are notable. For instance, on Demi Moore we have the Vanity Fair covers of Moore pregnant, and the one with her body painted with a suit. Those covers made headlines and are notable themselves. The covers you are uploading do not fall into that category and will likely need to be deleted. Could you please refrain from uploading any more? Thanks. -->David Shankbone 13:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, as warned previously, please refrain from major editing of your own biography article. You can read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to see the guidelines. The article is not there to exhibit a gallery of your work, which I see was why you were uploading the magazine covers. -->David Shankbone 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Editorial Photographers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Editorial Photographers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editorial Photographers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

This is so so southern. violet nese 12:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Matthew-Modine-BrianSmith.jpg

The file File:Matthew-Modine-BrianSmith.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]