Talk:Eadweard Muybridge

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2021 and 18 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Frothine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Murder

Muybridge murdered his wife's lover on October 17, 1874, and got away with it, apparently the last convicted murderer in California not to be punished except by reason of insanity. These facts deserve to be mentioned in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.141.35 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2004 (UTC)

"The Photographer"

Yes, the killing and aquittal do deserve to go into this article−as does the fact that Philip Glass's much-acclaimed 1982 opera The Photographer is based on that incident.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.188.27 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2005 (UTC)

Influences

I think the small list at the end of the article introduced simply with "influences" needs to be looked at. It's not entirely clear to me how some of these figures (Edison and Dickson, especially) are "influenced" by Muybridge. I intend to remove the section/do major cleanup unless someone objects. --Eyrian 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you remove such information you would be deleting some very important facts from this entry. At the bottom of the page is a source, Solnet's book, which is the source for these "influences" that you are not understanding. If you delete the info, I will gladly take the time to add some more info that you might be able to understand.

Just so you know, between the years 1870-80, Muybridge met with most of the giants in the field of motion picture innovation, he even went to France to meet with the Carre Brothers. One of the first people he talked with was Edison, who directly used Muybridge's experimental results as a basis for developing his flipping-motion-picture projector (whatever its called).

as for the other comments...

I dont see why Glass's music would have to be given the same importance to this entry as the Muybridge murder case. I don't think the Glass link should be removed, it is fine and so is the paragraph, but Glass's piece is hardly relevant to Muybridge's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.113.250 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Solnet's book is being used for these sources, it should be used to explain the exact connection. Again, it's fine to keep the influences, I just want to make sure that the connections between them and Muybridge are made clear in the article, which I don't believe they currently are.

Glass's opera about an important event in Mubridge's life seems relevant enough to warrant mention. --Eyrian 02:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical accuracy is a funny thing especially if one is starting with an opinion about the facts. Muybridge's meeting with Edison was reported in the papers of the time (nov 1888?) and Edison's version of the motion-picture patent came 7 years later. According to Solnet's research, Edison's assistants worked extensively from the work Muybridge began (not just chemical mixtures & exposures, but projection methods and even the fundamental vision of how such a device could be made), so it should be a reasonable assumption that the one influenced the other. Clear enough, right? I will take the initiative to look up all the correct dates of their meeting and type them into the entry in a clearly worded manner so that this historical moment can be understood better.

But understand this, if one begins looking at the facts with the opinion that Muybridge did not influence Edison, then one is needlessly directing the discussion away from an historical-understanding and instead into the realm of revisionist history - so like you said, making it "clear" is what needs to be done, but it must be carefully worded so that it does not become too complicated and overly important. Furthermore, Edison himself has gone through great lengths to foster this kind of false assumption about the influence and to acknowlege these false assumptions would probably not be a "clear" way of presenting the info in this entry. So, when I get around to typing in this info, I will not go into such a discussion, I will just provide a simple sentence or two that gives the dates and lets the facts speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.113.250 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sounds great. You should understand, I'm not coming at this from any preconceived notions. I just saw some "influences" at the bottom of the page, which didn't seem obivously connected. Some, merely by virtue of their listed inventions, seemed obvious. But the path from Muybridge to Edison is not as straightforward. I look forward to your explanation. --Eyrian 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

More than two years later this is still shoddy. The "influences" section says e.g. QUOTE Thomas Edison - owns patent for motion picture camera UNQUOTE. Edison is not mentioned otherwise in the text at all. It is absolutely unclear how Muybridge influenced Edison, and if the above waffle is true then it needs to be expanded to a couple of sentences, given a REF tag, and put into the body of the text. "I will just provide a simple sentence or two that gives the dates and lets the facts speak for themselves" is useless. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Terry Ramsaye's book (a history of motion pictures up to 1925), Muybridge did not invent anything. According to this book, Muybridge had an unwieldy and impractical system of strings that the moving animal was supposed to break, setting off the cameras. Results were poor. An engineer named John D. Isaacs came to work with him, invented a clockwork system for taking the photos, and went off to work on other projects, leaving Muybridge to take credit for the process. According to the book, Muybridge showed his photos in France, where they were enthusiastically received. Someone there invented a method for the photos to be projected sequentially, and Muybridge showed his gratitude by also appropriating this process as his own. Kip (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Kip W

Ramsaye's book includes a brief foreword written by Edison. Hardly an unbiased source. Despite Edison's claims to the contrary and his partisans' denigration of Muybridge (which continues to this day, judging by the above), the record shows that Edison was certainly aware of Muybridge's work before he and Dickson (who did most of the actual inventing) turned their attention to the nascent field of motion picture technology. Muybridge partisans claim that he approached Edison to discuss the possibility of combining his moving pictures with Edison's phonograph, sparking Edison's interest, but was rebuffed by the latter, who was never very keen on collaborating as an equal or duly sharing credit for an invention. 66.81.241.47 (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem in description of horse pictures

The article states that the horse photo was to answer if more than 1 hoof is on the ground at once and then goes on to discuss the (apparently not asked) question regarding all the hooves being off the ground at once. Which is it? It then goes on to answer the apparently asked question. However, I think the 'all hooves off the ground' area needs to be clarified somehow. Monty2 08:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody obviously decided to argue with the article inside the article and so you're left with such loose ends! According to Stanford Magazine, though, Stanford's position was that all four hooves were airborne (there's even a name for this, "unsupported transit"), so it doesn't look like this is a "trivially observed" question as the older text had it. I think we can take the university's magazine as reasonably definitive, since they likely had access to his papers in writing it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Great find, thanks for the source. The only other place I've really seen this observed was James Burke on one of his shows, I believe Connections, and he went with it being 'all four off the ground' question. Monty2 01:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So because the movie played on the web page indeed shows one hoof on the ground at a time, the question arises at what point this was considered a conjecture and at what point a finding. I authored the "one hoof" correction because I read the incorrect version elsewhere. And I too remember James Burke report the version I consider incorrect. I may have read the correct version in an old [Scientific American], and don't ask me to cite it!

Some of the citations for "Unsupported transit" that I Googled say "trot", which is a different gait than "gallop". It is entirely possible that two controversies were afloat. All-hooves-up is indeed difficult to see in a trot, but the Muybridge film of a trotting horse pulling a wheeled vehicle indeed reveals it.

The fact remains that you can watch a horse at gallop and see all four hooves off the ground at the same time, without the need to invent any cameras, so the persistence of these inconsistencies regarding Muybridge's work is disturbing. --Phlip—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.205.11 (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this part of the article is that you say they were trying to prove that the horse's hooves were off the ground during a *trot*, yet the film shows the horse *galloping*. So why is the horse galloping if they were trying to prove a trot? What were your sources for this statement? Dailycyclist 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BIG PROBLEM: the original question was about trotting, not gallop! There was no question about all hoofs leaving the ground in gallop, that can be seen without a camera. Gallop pictures are everywhere, but the original trotter series was published in Scientific American at that time. Inaccuracies like this give Wikipedia a bad name. Please fix the whole section, thanks. Petrus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.65.255.1 (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a further problem with this section. It is stated that the trip-wires were triggered by the horse's hooves but this can't have been the case in the gallop because the horse would have jumped clean over many of the wires and triggered others with its back legs. These problems would also, one assumes, occur while trotting. So, where were the trip-wires really placed? Somewhere around chest-height would seem most logical but does anyone have an actual source? Dricherby (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Trot/gallop problem still not fixed!!! The original question was about prize trotter Occidental, and there are pictures of him trotting. Those are the very first animal locomotion pictures Muybridge took to settle a bet of $20000 (huge amout at that time). The problem is that the gallop pictures are much more well known and the original newspaper clippings telling the news have not been scanned to Internet. The original pictures were published in Scientific American the same year. Somebody needs to dig up the Scientific American issue in a library, I have seen it in the seventies, but now the issue has disappeard from our university library. Untruth, repeated in the net enough times, turns into truth! Petrus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.215.242 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Came here after reading about how Mongol archers would time firing their arrows to the moment when their galloping horse had all four feet off the ground and I thought "wait, I thought no one knew that until Muybridge!". After looking at various sources (e.g. this article from American Museum of Natural History exhibition) it's clear that the controversy was indeed about whether a horse left the ground during a trot, as discussed here, with a secondary curiosity about what position a horse leaves the ground in a gallop. I have updated The Horse in Motion to reflect this. For what it's worth, to me this main Muybridge article appears to be clear and accurate about all this. I'm assuming edits have been made in the 9 years since the above comments and we can probably call it case closed. —Sir Tobek (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Many sources mention gallop, but the real issue was regarding trot. There, it's difficult (impossible?) to see that all feet are off the ground with the unaided eye. Muybridge proved it. --Janke | Talk 09:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Modoc War

The Modoc War took place in southern Oregon and northern California, and had nothing to do with the railroads. Gentgeen 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't want a dispute about nationality.

The guy did most (all?) of his work in the US. You can say he was british or american or both. (as A canadian I am well aware that many of my contrymen spend a good part of their carreers in the US, and the americans do tend to claim them.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmacd123 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Of course you don't, that's why you brought it up , right? The fact is, if anyone of note even looks at Canada from the US, the Canadians claim them as their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.35.211 (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

hello

wikipedia is not censored for minors, so that picture of the woman...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.9.11 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Wikipedia is not censored for anyone. What do you mean to insinuate with "..." ? MURGH ^disc. 03:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a sequence of pictures of a naked woman spanking a naked boy in the online Getty images archive that the poster above seems to be referring to. It may be controversial but is certainly notable, it’s probably a one-of-a-kind photo, especially by one as famous as Muybridge. Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Florado's age ?

How is it that Eadweard and his son died the in the same year but only five years apart in age?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.13.202 (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer, I think, is that the article is clearly totally wrong on this. --24.199.89.159 03:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully corrected now... --Rividian (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The 1893 Chicago World's Fair

I want to provide a better rendition of Muybridge participation to the World's Columbian Exposition. I complete the mention about the "disks produced for the phenakistoscope, a parlor toy used to view short motion sequences". Jean Fex (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

A list of his works would be lovely. 24.161.161.194 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Indians

Muybridge photographed the Tlingit in 1868, "To Alaska with government military force, visits Ft. Wrangell and photographs Tlingit Indians." (Fleming/Lusky, p. 242, source: Ralph W. Andrews, 1964 and David Mattison, 1985).

• On the Modoc War, 1872, -73 (Paula Fleming/Judith Lusky, The North American Indians in Early Photographs, p. 46): "Both Louis Herman Heller and Eadweard Muybridge took photographs during the conflict, creating for the first time an almost complete record of an Indian war..." M. was employed by the US government (Heller not). "It is possible that the government hired Muybridge to justify the army' s poor field performances against the Modocs" (Fleming and Lusky credit: Peter E. Palmquist. P. has published 2 essays, 1977, 1978 on M. and Louis Heller as reporters of the Modoc war).--Radh (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"No portraits" seems wrong

The article states that:

“ He [Muybridge] is not known ever to have made a photographic portrait, though group shots by him survive. ”

I recently went to the Corcoran Gallery's excellent and extensive exhibit of Muybridge's work. Although they're clearly a small minority of his work, there are a number of solo, formal portraits shown in the exhibit. I specifically recall portraits of his wife Flora, of a local San Francisco actress, and of himself. I believe there were others of athletes and dancers as well. Also shown in the exhibit were his "business cards", which were essentially photographs of collages of his work, including many portraits (he specifically advertised "celebrity portraits" on them, as I recall).

So Muybridge definitely made many portraits, perhaps to pay the bills if nothing else. Am I misunderstanding this sentence in the article? If not, it should be removed or altered. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

English or British?

Wikipedia doesn't have a consistent policy on how to define this. Which of these options should it be? "... was an English photographer who spent much of his life in the United States." "... was a British photographer who spent much of his life in the United States." 129.174.161.41 (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Used Today

Is it really accurate to talk about the "flexible perforated film strips" that are "used today"? What about digital video? Sithman VIII !! 04:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference

[1]Letter to the editor Nature from B. Laufer who wrote Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty (1909) RPSM (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The ‘horse lawsuit’

What was it about precisely, and why did he lose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.86.185 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Year of death in the article should show 1904 not 1944

The paragraph that talks about him being hit by a car says it happened in 1944, but he died in 1904. Probably a typo. Jaruz (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That paragraph is talking about his son, Floddie who was 69 when he died. The 1944 date is correct. - X201 (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Different person here, still discussing the same idea though. But wasn't the date in 1946 when it happened not 1944, I believe thats what many other sources are telling me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.221.182 (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Floddie's tombstone shows April 16, 1874 to February 2, 1944. 69.113.151.63 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)corpho

Google

On 4/9/12, Google gave him a google thing in honor of him; however, since the article is protected, I'm unable to edit the article. Can somebody make this edit please? --96.242.163.228 (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not relevant to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.14.125 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Eadweard"?????

Shouldn't it be "Edward"? I've never heard of the name "Eadweard" in my life... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.221.141 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Explanation for spelling is in the article - old English form.Parkwells (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012

The date of death is wrong as written in the section "Stanford and the galloping question". In the last sentence, it should be written 1904 instead of 1944. 24.48.111.127 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"In 1944 he was hit by a car in Sacramento and killed.": He died in 1904. Therefore, 1944 should be replaced with 1904. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoktay (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see no death date in the "Stanford" section. The section following it has a death date, but as I said in the post a couple of place above this one, that is not talking about Eadweard Muybridge, its addressing his son, Floddie, who DID die in 1944. - X201 (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Videography didn't exist until after his death

from the section, "Stanford and the galloping question", the fourth paragraph states, "This series of photos stands as one of the earliest forms of videography." and I think it is an incorrect statement. The Websters Dictionary says "Videography is the practice or art of recording images with a video camera". The definition of Video is, "Television" and the definition of Television is "an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible light rays and audible sound", again from Websters Dictionary. So, I don't think "videography" is the correct term for what Muybridge was doing. Rather, I think the correct term is "cinematography". Smash591 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smash591 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree; relation to "cinematography" noted in next pararaph; videography deleted.Parkwells (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Location of work

By all accounts, Muybridge worked mostly in the US as an adult, so why the insistence on saying "North America"? California was a state by 1850, Oregon was a US Territory. He worked briefly in Alaska, but the preponderance was within the US. Parkwells (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC).

According to the article, he went to Alaska after it was acquired by the US, so thar should count too. Wschart (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Stagecoach accident

Thank you, User:Parkwells for adding more material about Muybridge's stagecoach accident. It clearly was a significant life event, knocking him off-kilter for several years, and likely changing his entire career. The note about Shimamura's comments is definitely noteworthy, and he appears to have written about it in an interesting-sounding paper which I unfortunately don't have access to. It lends possible insight into Muybridge's impulsiveness and emotional instability, his later murderous actions, and his abrupt changes in career direction. Could you tie in Shimamura's comments more solidly, with more footnotes and possibly some strategic quotations? This is just a modest suggestion, if you have the time and the access to the background material. Thanks for your efforts to improve the article, while defending it from vandals! --Reify-tech (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will see what I can find. I have the Solnit book, not the Shimamura paper, but she likely has specific cites to it.Parkwells (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

She refers in her footnotes to an unpublished paper of Shimamura. As her book was published in 2003, she may have read his paper before he published it in 2002.Parkwells (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Found a url for the paper, but it won't download more than the cover. May just use Solnit's quotes from her text.Parkwells (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was very happy to see the URL, and I was able to download the entire paper, and to print it out. It's well worth reading, and presents a coherent chronological narrative; I found the details recounted there to be fascinating. It does vary in some details, for example that it says that Muybridge's wife Flora did divorce him before she died. It's not clear whether the Shimamura paper is correct in this, as this assertion is not referenced specifically, and it is not at all essential to his overall thesis. Some other sources should be checked to confirm or deny this minor claim. Anyway, the overall paper is fascinating, including a retelling of the Phineas Gage case, and its similarity to Muybridge's. Try to download it again, and maybe it will work. If all else fails, send me your email address privately, and I'll send you my copy of the file, or I'll get it to you some other way. Again, thanks for your work, which is contributing a lot to improving the Wikipedia article. --Reify-tech (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Legacy... Citation required

This is about my contribution's citation requirements: »In Buenos Aires (2009), graphic and typographic designer Victor Garcia created "MotionBats", a family of symbol fonts based on some of Muybridge's photographic sequences.[citation needed]«

Sources to confirm this are the following Webpages: Designer's Webpage: http://www.victorgarcia.com.ar/english/t_motionbats.html Directory of Latin American Tipography: http://d-t-l.org/tipografias-detalles.php?id=291 Creative Review design magazine (Great Britain): http://www.creativereview.co.uk/feed/october-2009/20/motionbats http://www.creativereview.co.uk/images/2009/10/motionbats_01_0.jpg MyFonts (USA)" http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/victorgarcia/motion-bats/ Thaks, Tipogarcia (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

To me it looks like Muybridge is very important to Garcia's life and career, but not vice versa. The MotionBats symbol fonts are not so notable that they need to be included in Muybridge's biography. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In the previous entry I have provided sufficient documentary sources that allows to verify the authenticity of the data provided far away of any reasonable doubt. I think that your comparisons does not respond to a genuine interest on the authenticity of the submitted information but rather, they seems to be oriented to state some personal tastes –as far as I understand– outside the interests of this medium. I do not agree with the terms of your comment and asks for the reinstatement of my duly credited contribution, only reliable requirement needed to legitimate their inclusion.Tipogarcia (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Given your WP username, I cannot help but suspect that you are the creator of this font. If so, I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP's polcies on conflict of interest, self-promotion, self-publishing, etc. Additionally, since "MotionBats" does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own WP page, I doubt it would be notable enough to include here. HCA (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

From all your considerations and suspicion -as you call them- the only argument seems to contain an explanation, is your latest one. This does not mean that I share it, but I can understand the reasoning for it seems a little less arbitrary than the preceding. Written by Binksternet words above are clearly ironic and disparaging towards any personal qualities of the creator of "MotionBats". Curiously, personal comments such as are opposite to the WP's own policies that you invokes. I will not insist, not worth it.201.253.85.8 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, does not seem fair that the data about "MotionBats" is censored unsubstantiated conclusive. The recorded is an artistic duly accredited fact, and to judge the appropriateness of its inclusion in this space, should rely on the opinion of experts in the disciplines of art and/or design, knowledge that the two previous commentators can not be attributed. An encyclopaedia is about multicultural knowledge that is based on verifiable facts. Specialists, not just good intentions, should evaluate the relevance or intrinsic qualities of the facts presented. The interest in content is the more justified the larger, rich and diverse the collected information. It is not through arbitrary restrictive acts as collective knowledge is constructed. On these assumptions, I have the hope that the information has been registered, then documented, and finally censored, is reviewed by people with the knowledge and skills to judge an artistic fact associated with Muybridge's work, as is proposed.Tipogarcia (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Historic American Buildings Survey

File:Historic American Buildings Survey Nelson Collection, McCoy Label Co., S.F. Circa - 1876 VIEW DURING ERECTION - U. S. Sub-Treasury and Mint, 608 Commercial Street, San HABS CAL,38-SANFRA,17-3.tif seems to be by him. any history of his work with them?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Muybridge did indeed photograph the first (and still standing) S.F. Mint building under construction. A very large collection of Muybridge's photographs, including, IIRC, several views of the Mint, is available online via the Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. 66.81.220.16 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I just double-checked. Seven such photos are currently available online from that source [2]. Scroll a bit less than halfway down the inconveniently very long list to find them. Here [3] is a direct link to the first in the series; alas, there is no "next" option for easy access to the rest. 66.81.220.16 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eadweard Muybridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140602093549/http://www.corcoran.org:80/helios/index.php to http://www.corcoran.org/helios/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130518231002/http://www.kingston.gov.uk:80/browse/leisure/museum/museum_exhibitions/muybridge.htm to http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/leisure/museum/museum_exhibitions/muybridge.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Image error?

The moving image labeled "A phenakistoscope sequence of a couple waltzing" appears to be left-right mirrored. Note which hand the man has raised as he turns with the lady. Not only is it incorrect dance form, it is reversed from the still image of the wheel immediately above. The disk is apparently viewed in a mirror, so I suppose it may be correct, but perhaps that could be noted. Gilmore.the.Lion (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eadweard Muybridge. 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/20130518231002/http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/leisure/museum/museum_exhibitions/muybridge.htm to http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/leisure/museum/museum_exhibitions/muybridge.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Galloping horse movie stored on DNA

Should this information be included in this Wikipedia article?

The DNA of a living organism has been used as a medium for video storage. Using Muybridge's movie of the galloping horse Annie G., a low-rez video was stored in and retrieved from, for the first time, in the DNA of live organism.

Link http://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/devices/scientists-store-video-data-in-the-dna-of-living-organisms

204.38.4.80 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eadweard Muybridge. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blogs.sfweekly.com/exhibitionist/2012/04/sf_fire_department_museum_find
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216072337/http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node%2F1620 to http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node%2F1620
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708002238/http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/search/controller/collection/rbm-m36.html to http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/search/controller/collection/rbm-m36.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103000220/http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?36949 to http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?36949

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Location problem

The article currently states that "In central Texas, Muybridge suffered severe head injuries in a violent runaway stagecoach crash which injured every passenger on board, and killed one of them.[17][18] Muybridge was bodily ejected from the vehicle, and hit his head on a rock or other hard object. He was taken 150 miles (240 km) to Fort Smith, Arkansas, for treatment (his earliest memories post-accident were there), where he stayed three months . . . "

There is nowhere even on the northernmost or easternmost Texas borders closer than 200 miles from Fort Smith. Waco, probably the northernmost city that might be considered "central Texas," is 372 miles away.

If anyone has a bio on hand, could you check to fix the location of the crash, or the mileage, whichever is incorrect?

--Kcatmull (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Florado? Floredo?

I've noticed there are a good few reputable-seeming sources online that show the spelling of Floddie's birth name as Floredo instead of Florado. Is it possible Floredo reflects how his name was pronounced [fluh-REY-doh]? His headstone shows Florado, so that seems to be the correct spelling (not sure who commissioned the headstone, though, or when it was put in place) but I'm curious why there are so many instances of Floredo in articles, books, etc.69.113.151.63 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)corpho

Names used in article

In my edits and additions I worked with whatever name Muggeridge/Muggridge/Muygridge/Muybridge personally used at the time of the described actions, as written in the original sources that I usually refer to (or at least as known from contemporary documentation). Of course many people prefer to see his name only in the familiar "Muybridge" form and therefore changed the original versions (and probably will keep changing them).

In some cases, the only way to be sure that a wikipedia entry is accurate depends on using the right name. For instance: a mention of the name Muygridge in Californian newspapers could concern his brother Thomas, without stating a first name. Technically, if such news messages are described on wikipedia somewhat like "It was reported that Muygridge did this" they would be totally correct (and would reflect a likely misinterpretation that would also exist at the time of the original source), while "It was reported that Muybridge did this" would be false. Of course if the entry actually turns out to be about another person, it should be deleted or changed.

Also, using the right name enhances the narrative. It's weird to read something like "Muybridge did this. Muybridge did that. He then started using the name Muybridge." (somewhat similar to what actually remained in the article after someone edited my writing). This can be fixed by just removing a sentence about the name change in biographic parts (it was already detailed in a separate section after all). More importantly, changing everything to "Muybridge" is also a bit like consistently referring to young Anakin Skywalker as Darth Vader (or to Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker); that would be more confusing than having to get used to the different names that someone used during very different stages of his life, wouldn't it?Joortje1 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to use the name variant Muybridge was using during the specific times being described. In connection with that, is there any documentation of the name he was using when he arrived in the US for the first time, an an immigrant in New York City in 1850? Immigrants often took the occasion to change their names upon arrival, or had their names changed by immigration authorities. It would be informative to find documentation of what name he used, as noted in official records. Reify-tech (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

omission in "Legacy and Representation in other media"

"Moments Captured" - book by Robert J. Seidman published in 2012 by Overlook Press, NY. I have just finished this book of fiction based on the life of Eadweard Muybridge. The "Author's Note" reads: "There are many ways to illuminate history. Fiction is one. Moments Captured is a work of fiction generously based on events in the life of Eadweard Muybridge, the pioneering nineteenth-century photographer, but it certainly does not intend to be a faithful biography. I have taken liberties with the chronology of the artist's career and have omitted and invented characters in his circle." Ken Hatcher 98.121.168.170 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Historical Landmark

The California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County points to this article for the landmark: Development of Motion Pictures. Please use the Template:Infobox historic site to update the article with the following citation #1 and citation #2. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How exactly can Muybridge (a person) be considered a "historic site"?

Why do you ask others to do this update? Another conflict of interest if you'd do this yourself? Or just a way to make a quicker buck if you plant a lot of similar requests, rather than do the real work?

Since I looked into the specifics before I had a look at your user page to see if there was any explanation for your weird request, here's my 2 cents:

Since the Eadweard Muybridge page adresses his whole life, wouldn't it be better to link that CHLiSCC page to the page The Horse in Motion, which specifically deals with the Palo Alto experiments?

Your citations refer to the Palo Alto stock farm, for which Palo Alto Stock Farm Horse Barn seems the closest fit on wikipidia, but it already has a more specific infobox. Joortje1 (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Great! I've added the request to update the Palo Alto Stock Farm Horse Barn article. Thank you for looking into this and finding the real place for the landmark. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)