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 is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
I reworded to remove "gait" which was oddly placed. If you read the rest of the sentence, you will see that 1:40 is a time, 1 minute and 40 seconds, meaning how fast the horse would travel a mile at that speed. Montanabw(talk)23:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if the cameras are places 69 cm apart, and the horse is travelling at 36km/hr, that means each picture is roughly 70ms apart, not 1/1000th of a second... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.222.203 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the sentence based on Edward Armitage's 1883 Thematic Divisions of Images, pg. 176, "The word "instantaneously" does not at all represent the rapidity with which the negatives were taken. It was calculated that the time for each operation was under 1/2000 th part of a second. The interval between the production of the negatives was one twenty-fifty of a second, which if multiplied by twelve, will give about half a second for the completion of the series." -- ToE14:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering the same thing. The "Development" section does detail two separate experiments. Is the picture in the infobox from the first experiment, and the animation from the second? This should probably be made clear in the descriptions somehow. ~Mable (chat) 08:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that the horse in the infobox has a longer tail. Also the rider's position is much more upright and he isn't wearing a jockey's cap. Tigerboy1966 08:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
why does the article say June 15th, but the caption on the picture says June 19?[edit]
The text of the article says the date is June 15th, 1878, but the caption of the photograph, as shown in The Horse in Motion high res.jpg, says June 19th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickybobpat (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article and many recent sources chose the Sally Gardner series as the subject for the famous June 15 media event. It was actually the Abe Edgington series that was successfully shot and published (see picture at the top of the article). Muybridge and Stanford did try to make a series with Sally Gardner next, during the same event, but the accident with the breaking strap ruined the results (although the negatives were shown to journalists and helped to convince them that the recordings were genuine). Muybridge tried another session with Sally Gardner on June 19th, of which the results were published as the cabinet card which has the right date.
I'd like to rewrite the problematic parts of this article sometime, but I'll have to look up the original sources. It's a drag to see how much of the myth and misinformation has warped the ideas about these influential photographs, to the point that sources that seem quite reliable have repeated a lot of nonsense. Joortje1 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sallie Gardner at a Gallop → The Horse in Motion – The new title The Horse in Motion was the title printed on the series of cards that is the subject of this article. The old title Sallie Garner at a Gallop is a recent name given to just one of these cards (or to GIF animations of its images). The card that does depict "Sallie Gardner" does not seem to stand out in the series, or the article fails to relate any reasons why it would stand out. The term "gallop" was not used in the printed texts on any of the cards, and it is unlikely that Muybridge or Stanford would have liked it in a title for their work. The term "gallop" was probably dismissed by them, for reasons stated in the related book The Horse in Motion that was published under auspices of Leland Stanford (see https://archive.org/details/horseinmotionass00stilrich/page/100 p. 100-103) Joortje1 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
