Talk:Josef Jindřich Šechtl

A million images?

We read:

The confiscated part of the archive was significantly censored (from an estimated size of hundreds of thousands to a million to roughly five thousand negatives) and stored in the Regional Archive in Tábor.

Unless your name is Winogrand or Araki, a million negatives is a hell of a lot. I realize that the archive would have spanned a number of photographers and a lot of years, but consider that most of this was taken on sheet film or plates. Really, this is particularly hard to believe. I can easily believe that the stupid regime destroyed the great majority of the work, that it wanted to destroy all of the work, that it had no real reason for doing so (etc etc); but I can't help suspect that the figure of a million (or even mentions of hundreds of thousands) is the result of uncritical recycling of a gross (if understandably angry) exaggeration.

But I could be wrong. OK, persuade me that I'm wrong.

This particular assertion aside, the whole section is going to need quite a bit of specific backup with authoritative sources. (Of course, most, perhaps all of it will be in Czech so I won't actually be able to understand any of it.) -- Hoary 03:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, that mentioning a million can probably be dropped. The estimate was based on three facts:

there is fully preserved archive of Seidel studio in Jindřichův Hradec that is smaller in size and estimated to 200000 (by counting numbered boxes), studio of Langhans (among largest in Prague) is often mentioned to be of size over million (in contemporary sources too) [[1]]. Very rought esitmate on number of negatives made during Šechtl and Voseček studio existence can be based on transaction numbers: negatives made on contract after 1907 are numbered starting from 1 to 70000 [[2]] (modulo typos containing extra digit on the end of list). 457 of those transactions are preserved, out of 180000 photographs digitized. 70000*18000/457=2757111. This is probably upper estimate - I would expect the "ordinary portraits" to be thrown away more often than the photographs of city or architecture that is unnumbered. The numbers was written on the reverse side of photographs and negatives was supposed to be available for reproduction on later time.

The archive was stored in a long passage seen at [[3]].

Would dropping million make it sound better? We can also just settle down on "significantly censored". The archive was in fact lucky - from Langhans studio just roughly 2000 negatives was preserved.

--Honza 10:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dropping "a million" would certainly make the passage sound a lot more plausible, but it doesn't help with another, major problem: that no source is cited for this. It seems instead to be your own calculation, newly presented here. As a calculation, I (personally) have no objection to it; but even though the facts on which it is based (e.g. that the Seidel archive is smaller and is estimated to contain 200,000) may be published and/or commonly acknowledged, the calculation itself appears to be new, and if it is new it would have to be discounted in Wikipedia as "original research".

If on the other hand some magazine of Czech photography or social history or similar had published an article about the archive in which the same claim was made -- whether by the writer or by somebody who's quoted by the writer -- then this could be cited and a description of the size of the archive could legitimately be added. -- Hoary 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any source about original size of this particular archive (except for the aforementioned numbering of photographs published on the archive web and published sizes of other similar archives of other studios). The problem is that little was published about the archive after 1989. I intend to write an paper on digitization project to this year issue of "Historicka fotografie", but that probably won't make it less original research then. I've kept the "significantly censored". Does that seem fine?--Honza 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

Wikipedia can cite what's written in reputable journals. (Of course, if there's any controversy, this should be made clear: "XYZ originally contained hundreds of thousands of negatives<ref>Blah blah</ref>" isn't the only option; there's also "XYZ has been estimated to have originally contained hundreds of thousands of negatives<ref>Blah blah</ref>" and so forth.) The writer of the article in the reputable journal that's quoted and the WP editor who quotes the article may be the same person; if so, the editor should be honest about this in the talk page, as you have been.

I'll return to the article a little later: I'm in a rush right now. -- Hoary 07:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

I think it would be better if the content of the chronology were distributed within the regular, continuous-prose part of the article (as much of it already is), and then deleted: that there should be no separate chronology. (I'm not advocating any deletion of content, merely the redistribution of content and deletion of duplications.) Am I missing some argument to keep a chronology? -- Hoary 01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I find chornology useful as an reference (ie it is easier to look up facts there then read through the continous prose if one is looking for something specific), but if it seems inappropriate, I can keep local copy and we can remove it from the wikipedia. --Honza 20:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a chronology can be a great help. Imagine a hundred-plus-page book presenting the photographic fruits of the Šechtl family business, a book in which there's an essay about each of the two most prominent Šechtls and three other essays: I for one should be grateful for a one- or two-page chronology so that I could keep track of what's what. Or another photographic family. There have been at least five generations of photographers in family Deriaz (worse, two were named Alphonse and two Armand): a book on them would certainly benefit from a chronology. Or again, if WP had an article on each of these five, it might be helped by a chronology of the whole family (cf Rebollo fr's helpful chronologies at the end of his Camerapedia articles on obscure cameras; "Tsubasaflex" is an example).

I'm fairly sure that this article shouldn't have a chronology. But it's harmless enough and I'm not going to remove it. Who knows, I may later change my mind and decide that it benefits this article. -- Hoary 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way. The chronology was written primarily because it was easier to first collect information into it and then write the prose text. I was especially puzzled by the early days section since the three jobs and army service didn't seem to fit into the time interval (the bit I was missing was that Josef Jindřich left service early). So if it is removed as redundant at any time, I won't complain.

Just for context, note that Josef Jindřich is second of three generations of photographers in Šechtl family. First, Ignác Šechtl already has a page, I would like to expand into GA too once this one is finished (I wonder what we should concentrate on next here BTW). Last generation is Josef Šechtl and Marie Šechtová, so ther are two Josefs too. Thanks for all the work! --Honza 14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do what you want to do ... but if you're interested in entirely unrelated Czech photographers, I'll note that Josef Sudek has a very inadequate article and that Karel Cudlín's could surely be better too. First, however, let's continue to improve this article. -- Hoary 14:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Josef Sudek definitly deserve a better page, I will try to find time for that. However my overall plan is to write articles as I learn about photographers while preparing the exhibitions, so Karel Šmirous will probably come next. He did important research in the area of autochrome printing (and among the autochromes preserved in Czech Republic, he is about the most notable author), so I think he deserves more publicity than he had so far.

Concerning this article, I am trying to figure out more about Leica work and exhibitions/awards right now. If you have suggestions for improvements, they are very welcome. --Honza 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

graphies

We read:

After finishing lower high school in Tábor, the boy was particularly interested in chemigraphy (a method of printing photographs). In 1891 (at the age of 14) he started to work as a trainee in the polygraphic factory of Jan Vilím in Prague. [my emphases]

Chemigraphy is redlinked. One popular meaning of the word in the early 20th century, I learn via public-domain ancient "Webster" and Google, was of a non-photographic process. What does it mean here?

The most obvious meaning of polygraphic is related to polygraphy in the sense of lie detection. Surely that isn't meant here. But what is meant?

Neither word appears in the index to the Oxford Companion to the Photograph (not that this is a specialist work in photochemistry or photo finishing).

I'm wondering if one of these terms, as used here, is a too-direct translation of a German or French term for a process for which English used an entirely different term. But of course I could be quite wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

might be. Chemigraphy is (I believe) term used in Czech lands for any kind of photographic printing used for publishing (as opposed to hand made photographic prints on photographic papers). Polygraphic factory was IMO also just publishing company, I will try to look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.18.126 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

state control and a feudal/socialist guild system

I'm interested to read the following:

During the life of Josef Jindřich, photography changed from a job that could be taken up and practised fairly freely to a regulated craft: first for portrait photography in 1911, and later in 1926 (despite the protests of many amateur photographers) it was declared a full-scale craft, requiring apprenticeship and a permit to practice. In 1948, the new communist government socialised all services, including photographic studios. The Šechtl & Voseček studio was turned into a syndicate and nationalized in 1951 and, as a former tradesman, Josef Jindřich Šechtl was granted a small pension (200 Kčs per month).

I'd never have guessed that the Czechoslovak(ian) government would have done this in 1926, although this may in part reflect my ignorance of that government.

However, it's surprising to read this paragraph in this article, particularly as it comes after:

This information comes from Pavel Scheufler's monograph and thus it should be reliable. Citing http://www.scheufler.cz/Chronology-1839-1918/scheufler-8-p70.html

Portrait photography decreed as a trade 12. November - decree No. 226 of the imperial code decreed portrait photography (photographing portraits) as a trade. Any other type of photography continued as a free trade.

In 1891 (at the age of 14) he started to work as a trainee in the polygraphic factory of Jan Vilím in Prague. After two years, in 1893, he changed jobs to work as a photographer in the studio of František Krátký in Kolín. Krátký's studio specialized in stereoscopy and publishing photographs as educational tools,[1] allowing Josef Jindřich to further develop his interests in photographic printing.[2] His certificate of a completed apprenticeship, written in 1906 by his father Ignác Šechtl, also certifies his studies in the Šechtl & Voseček studios in the period 1892-1895, apparently in parallel with his jobs in Prague and Kolín.

While it's not utterly clear that JJS's apprenticeship explicitly covered portrait photography, it does seem that he was apprenticed in photography. Just how did the changes of 1911 and 1926 affect JJS? And how are their effects on JJS relevant to the effects on JJS of the socialization of 1951?

I've a hunch that this might be amplified and, together with a lot of other interesting material, could flourish in an article that might be titled Photography in Czechoslovakia (and no I don't mean the Czech Republic). -- Hoary (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

the 1911 and 1926 changes probably had relatively little effect on JJS himself, since he had apprenticeship and was performing portrait photography all those years. In 1920's he was more active in fine-art photography than ever before, making bromoil prints and other "purely" fine-art works and actually selling them. One of motivations probably was the disucssion on whether the photography is art of craft. Also JJS was running relatively large studio, so the regulations had effects on his employees. Article on history of photography in Czechoslovakia would be defnitely great, however I don't feel really confident enough in the topic. Good overall timeline till 1918 is at http://www.scheufler.cz

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Josef Jindřich Šechtl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007190933/http://www.scheufler.cz/Fotografove/Sechtl-Josef-Jindrich/scheufler-fotograf.html?photographer_id=102 to http://www.scheufler.cz/Fotografove/Sechtl-Josef-Jindrich/scheufler-fotograf.html?photographer_id=102

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Edvard Beneš with wife.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)