Talk:Rephotography

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Old lenses versus new

We read: Older lenses were softer than their modern equivalents, and usually of a larger aperture,....

I'm very surprised.

First, yes, older lenses of focal length X for frame (negative, slide) size Y and of aperture Z were in general softer than the modern equivalent for X Y and Z. But I think this is simplistic given that a lot (not all!) of what is rephotographed was first done in medium or even large format and is redone in small format. Even a first-rate modern lens for 35mm (or CCD) has trouble competing with an old one for 4×5.

Secondly, something here seems plain wrong: lenses of focal length X for frame size Y are not slower than they used to be, and if you consider lenses commonly used for good images of a certain viewing angle irrespective of frame size, the maximum aperture is now usually larger. The Inos II (early 1930s) had an f4.5 105mm lens (though it would have been stopped down if at all possible); the Fujica G690 (1968) had an f3.5 100mm lens (ditto); both of these cameras are "6×9" (i.e. 56×84 or whatever); 100mm at the actual frame size for "6×9" is the same angle of view as 43mm on 24×36; the recent Pentax 43mm lens is a much faster f1.9. -- Hoary 08:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computational rephotography and the virtual earth with old photos

Two important details are missing from the main page. I don't have good knowledge on the subject. I forgot about the name of the virtual Earth with old pictures compared to the present Earth. Where it is? Hmmm... Anyway. Good to let us know about what I feel that is missing on this article. Cheers. --TudorTulok (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The founding work in this style?

I was very surprised to see Mark Klett's great work described as "The founding work in this style". I know I would not want someone to make grandiose statements about my work, as it would make me look like the grandiose one. Webb et al ~Repeat Photography~ has a brief history of rephotography that could easily flesh this article out a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.199.3 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Date Links

Many links of this article are broken. Can anyone update with new source material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOrangeUnicorn (talk • contribs) 00:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why just between 2 images?

Many photographers revisit a view every few years or so, but multiple times, with far more than just 2 images. 2603:6011:A400:8A82:F01E:2D75:EB26:EADC (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]