Talk:Hidden mother photography

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)
 * I think its relevant because the words are an important part of the book, the Independent calls out Batchen's essay (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)

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)