User talk:HaarFager

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for HaarFager. Click here to start a new topic.

Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.

Adding Images In July 2016

Note to self:

Go to the image, click share, choose Embed and choose size.
Copy the give code.
Paste the given code :
<a data-flickr-embed="true"  href="" title="Vivitar 845 Tele Motor"><img src="" width="240" height="160" alt="Vivitar 845 Tele Motor"></a><script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script>

From this get the "image_source" and delete the "s" in "https".
So :
Becomes :

Next is the Image URL itself.
A conversion has to be made and it goes like this : 
- Delete the "s" in "https"
- Substitute '''farm''' for first 2 characters after //
- Take the number behind and put it after '''farm'''
- Remove number and one slash behind
So :
Becomes :

The "image-by" needs the Image Authors name
You normally can get that by clicking on his/her name at the image.
In this case it is : HaarFager (Pro)
However sometimes authors have changed their name in the course of history.
When they have added images before then you have to look up their earlier used names in the Camera-Wiki.
In this case it is : Kenneth Dwain Harrelson

Handy Links

Note to self: New Camera Page Template HaarFager 01:14, 21 February 2011 (PST)


Thanks, I know you did something to prettify the image I added... but I don't know exactly what! But Thanks :) Martinpaling 16:49, 10 February 2011 (PST)

I actually didn't do anything to the image you added. What I did, because you had worked on the page, I saw this recorded in the "recent changes" link on the left of every page and remembered that somebody had added one of my pictures here awhile back and went and looked at it. When I did, I noticed that they had credited it to my screen name from Flickr and I changed it to my real name. If you'll click on the "history" tab at the top of each page, you can see who did what edits and when they did them. If they're good and use the comment box at the bottom of the edit screen like you did, it will even show what edits they did. I always describe what I do so that nothing's secret and anybody can see exactly what changes I was responsible for. So, you can see all these things for yourself. I thought the picture you added was quite good. I still use 110 myself, so I'm interested in it. That's another reason why I thought to check out the page. I saw your message that you would try to do some edits and then saw where you had edited the 110 page. I knew immediately that you must be a fan of 110 as well! Nice to meet you! My name is Kenny and if you'll look on my user page, you can see some of my pictures and they will link back to me on Flickr and you can see my profile and all sorts of things about me. I meet a lot of nice people on wikis like this! HaarFager 20:28, 10 February 2011 (PST)

USC Reflex III

Hello HaarFager. Thank you for creating USC Reflex III, and for adding two photographs to it. Both are yours at Flickr, so if one puts two and two together it's obvious that you are happy for them to appear in However, for the second one this is not the way it seems: the photo has "All rights reserved" and there's no mention there of Could you please add it to the "camerawiki" pool? Thanks. Zuleika 04:10, 11 April 2011 (PDT)

The picture in question is one that is not appropriate for the Camerawiki pool. It is not a picture of a camera, therefore I did not add it. HaarFager 05:54, 11 April 2011 (PDT)
I think that the camerawiki pool contains other pictures that aren't of cameras (or of lenses, exposure meters, etc), so I don't think that this matters. However, my understanding of Flickr is very limited, so I hesitate to say more than this about that matter. But if readers click on the dog photo, they arrive at this Flickr page, which, as far as I can see, doesn't indicate any permission for the photo to be used at, and indeed (thanks to "All rights reserved") implies that it can't. Again this doesn't matter much, because it's pretty clear that the person who added it there is the person who links to it from here. However, the contradiction helps give the impression to newbies and others that doesn't take copyright seriously. Ignoring "All rights reserved" is not something that should seem to encourage. How about changing the license to Creative Commons non-commercial? Zuleika 06:32, 11 April 2011 (PDT)
I went over and changed the license on the photo in question. I think I got the right one that allows it to be here. HaarFager 07:27, 11 April 2011 (PDT)
Yes, it's fine now. Thank you! Zuleika 07:39, 11 April 2011 (PDT)
In general I strongly discourage "sample photos," unless they reveal something quite specific about a particular camera or lens. It is not news that an older camera is still able to make photographs; and this isn't a vanity site for our own photography. In the rare cases where a sample photo does illuminate an article, it is fine to add it to the Flickr pool. You can see some examples of this in the articles cross processing, Widelux, Lens#Distortion etc. --Vox 07:52, 11 April 2011 (PDT)
I added the sample photo for none of the reasons you cited; simply to demonstrate how the camera performs. Since I couldn't find out anything about this model anywhere else online, I figured there might be others wondering how it performs and what pictures taken with it looked like. Of course it isn't to demonstrate that an old camera still works and it isn't vanity to want to provide specific information about a camera's lens; in this case the quality and abherations of said lens. I could have added an image taken by somebody else, but there weren't any to be found. You'll note that I've only written and contributed to articles about cameras that I'm familiar with. There's a good reason for that. If I don't know something about a particular camera, I don't have anything to add, so I don't. Generally, I strongly recommend sample photos for some of the more rarer and non-common cameras. And the reason I do is because if you'll look at most any manual that comes with a camera, there are usually sample photos to show what pictures taken with the camera look like. There's a reason those are there and I like to think it's because people want to know how the camera performs as well as what it looks like. I know I certainly do. I also like to think of Camera-wiki like an online manual for cameras. If manuals have sample photos, why shouldn't this site? Just my thoughts, though. If what little I do know isn't really needed, then I can't be very helpful here. Sorry about any problems I may have caused. HaarFager 09:17, 11 April 2011 (PDT)
Probably the most effective way to show camera/lens performance is to add an external link at the bottom of the article, going to an "original" size image on your Flickr stream that is at least 1000 pixels wide. With an image size 240 pixels wide, it's not very easy to discern differences between cameras. Unfortunately our pages just don't have room for larger photos, on top of all the other information we'd like to include. This is why it is my opinion that sample images only are helpful when they show something very obvious at that smaller scale. There are certainly other sample images scattered around the wiki; but I am skeptical what real information they're providing. The USC Reflex III image is a bit of a gray area, because you can see a trace of corner blur; but basically all I'm saying is to use restraint in adding them unless there is a clear rationale why they're needed.--Vox 10:25, 11 April 2011 (PDT)
That is a very good point about using the links at the bottom for this kind of thing. And I can see how it would be better doing it that way for the reasons you described. You've convinced me and sorry about how I sounded. I'm the least vain person in my family so the "vanity" thing must have set me off. Sorry about that. I work and have worked on a lot of Wiki pages, and it seems to me that the method of usage we have building up here is the most effective of any of them I've seen. And nobody ever degenerates into silly little arguments like on the other wikis I am affiliated with. Thanks for that, too. I really think it important to show the capabilities of the camera, but maybe if I linked to the set on Flickr that shows this picture along with a couple others would be better for those interested in such matters. I'll have to go in and alter the photo rights to each one. Thanks for the help again! HaarFager 13:15, 11 April 2011 (PDT)
I apologize too that my earlier comment came off as a bit abrupt. Sometimes I'm distracted in the middle of something and forget to give "the long version" of the explanation. Thanks for understanding and being flexible about it. --Vox 13:58, 11 April 2011 (PDT)

Kodak EK2 Was looking for more specific EK2 branded camera photo not the Handle, but that's okay. --Tkmedia (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2012 (PDT)

Sorry about that! It can be removed, if need be. HaarFager (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2012 (PDT)

Adding reference to source address for camera-wiki pool

Hello Kenneth,

Just saw your question for Tkmedia.

To get the correct reference to the camera-wiki pool just add the following to the source address :


So, for example your image of the Kodak No. 2A Brownie Model B. Source address is :

Camera-wiki pool source address is :

Another thing are the image rights. For above image you used wp which is short for with permission (all rights reserved). However, i noticed that your actual Flickr image shows only attribute (some rights reserved). In that case you have to fill in creative commons at the rights line. The most often used rights are : |image_rights= with permission |image_rights= non-commercial |image_rights= creative commons

Best Regards, Hans Kerensky

Thanks, Hans! That's the information I needed! I finally figured it out and have correctly added the image I wanted to that new page. Kenny HaarFager (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2014 (PDT)

Hanimex Snap Shooter 115

Would the Hanimex Snap Shooter 115 ([1]), a disc camera, be worthy of a page on this wiki? It was made in Hong Kong, so I expect it was a re-badged model of a camera known by another name, but I don't know which. I would start the page myself, but since I recently had several articles I started deleted over on Wikipedia, I am afraid to start an article that might not be considered worthy. The camera itself is simple: fixed-everything, and doesn't use a battery (film is advanced is a clever way: after pressing down the shutter button to take the photo, simply let the button come up again and that mechanically advanced the film). It used flip-flash. The manual includes the following amusing statement: "FOR UNITED KINGDOM, the following warning applies: DO NOT USE IN ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS". The manual also states that it has a "universal-focus system" (meaning fixed-focus, 4 feet to infinity). According to the manual, the shutter is 1/200 second (1/70 second in flash mode). Based on the box and manual, it seems to have been sold in several countries (since the box has information in both English and another language, and the manual uses several languages). I ask you, since you are the only person I even vaguely know on here HappySwordsman (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2015 (CST)

I say go ahead and create it! Each camera should have it's own unique page and that's what they're trying for on this site, so go ahead and create it and add as much info as you know. Someone else may know even more about it and will be able to add more information about it someday. Kenny HaarFager (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2015 (CST)