What was wrong with my picture

speckled wood · #1 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 09:21 AM

I uploaded a picture of a Buzzard on Monday, as far as I could tell the picture was within the relevant criterea, however I received a messaged stating that it had been removed from the database. I uploaded another Buzzard photo yesterday again it was within the file and pixel criteria but again it has not appeared in the gallery ... I am puzzled quality wise it was not briliiant but it did demonstrate use of a Cosina 100 to 400 zoom lens at its limits and was similar in quality to another pic (taken with a Bigma) that was allowed to be placed in the gallery.
Therefore what was wrong with my picture? As far as I can see other than being taken with a cheap lens .... nothing.

RobSutton · #2 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speckled wood

I uploaded a picture of a Buzzard on Monday, as far as I could tell the picture was within the relevant criterea, however I received a messaged stating that it had been removed from the database. I uploaded another Buzzard photo yesterday again it was within the file and pixel criteria but again it has not appeared in the gallery ... I am puzzled quality wise it was not briliiant but it did demonstrate use of a Cosina 100 to 400 zoom lens at its limits and was similar in quality to another pic (taken with a Bigma) that was allowed to be placed in the gallery.
Therefore what was wrong with my picture? As far as I can see other than being taken with a cheap lens .... nothing.

Hi there - frustrating I know. How about putting one of them of into the forum section of the gallery and pasting into your forum message so we can all have a look and make our own minds up?

CordlessDave · #3 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speckled wood

I uploaded a picture of a Buzzard on Monday, as far as I could tell the picture was within the relevant criterea, however I received a messaged stating that it had been removed from the database. I uploaded another Buzzard photo yesterday again it was within the file and pixel criteria but again it has not appeared in the gallery ... I am puzzled quality wise it was not briliiant but it did demonstrate use of a Cosina 100 to 400 zoom lens at its limits and was similar in quality to another pic (taken with a Bigma) that was allowed to be placed in the gallery.
Therefore what was wrong with my picture? As far as I can see other than being taken with a cheap lens .... nothing.

It is a bit difficult helping you find out what might be wrong with your pictures without actually seeing them could you as someone has suggested post them to the forum or email one to me. I am no expert but i could give you an honest view.

Rainbowmum · #4 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speckled wood

I uploaded a picture of a Buzzard on Monday, as far as I could tell the picture was within the relevant criterea, however I received a messaged stating that it had been removed from the database. I uploaded another Buzzard photo yesterday again it was within the file and pixel criteria but again it has not appeared in the gallery ... I am puzzled quality wise it was not briliiant but it did demonstrate use of a Cosina 100 to 400 zoom lens at its limits and was similar in quality to another pic (taken with a Bigma) that was allowed to be placed in the gallery.
Therefore what was wrong with my picture? As far as I can see other than being taken with a cheap lens .... nothing.

Hmmm, well I hope it was not removed beacuse you used a cheap lens!
I do hope you can post it somewhere on WAB. I for one look forward to seeing it

speckled wood · #5 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 09:53 PM

Here is one of the "rejected" shots uploaded as a forum image
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...d09_324357.jpg

StuartDH · #6 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 10:02 PM

Hi speckled wood,

I hadn't seen the picture the first time round, but I have to admit that I wouldn't have entered it into the gallery. Unfortunately, on my screen at least, the image is very dark and very grainy and it doesn't meet the minimum standard requirements that we've put in place for the gallery.

As a quick guide, we've put together this page to help give members some idea of the things that we're looking for when images are submitted

Add Your Own Photographs to the Gallery

Sorry for any inconvenience

Stuart

Airehead · #7 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 10:31 PM

My recent photo of a leaping salmon was rejected. I know it was not technically good but there is no other picture of a salmon. I assumed that an important feature of the gallery was to build as complete a set of records as possible and that it was not specifically for professional photographers. It seems to me that the only record of a particular species/event is of more value than a thousand and one pics of, e.g., a Red Admiral.

Rainbowmum · #8 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speckled wood

Here is one of the "rejected" shots uploaded as a forum image
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...d09_324357.jpg

Well I am not a professional photographer (is that what the gallery is for?) but I actually really like that and am glad you posted it!

Airehead · #9 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartDH

Hi speckled wood,

I hadn't seen the picture the first time round, but I have to admit that I wouldn't have entered it into the gallery. Unfortunately, on my screen at least, the image is very dark and very grainy
Stuart

I sympathise with Speckled Wood. This pic is indeed as described by StuartDH but it is to me a more living picture than some of those fairly recent pics of birds in flight which are so perfect in their detail that they are robbed of all movement and look entirely unreal.

There are other considerations than technical perfection, but if that is what is wanted I shall just stop bothering.

speckled wood · #10 (**permalink**) 22-11-2006, 11:04 PM

Thanks Rainbowmum, Airehead, rob and others. I managed a series of shots but it was late afternoon the light was poor and the lense's autofocus was having to work hard but for a lens costing less than half the price of the Bigmas etc I thought that it did quite well for a first Buzzard shot with that lens and I had also seen another Buzzard shot on the forums (admittingly "unidentified) and taken with a Bigma (another first shot for the Bigma user) that did not seem any better. I hope to progress to something better but the lens has shown itself to be better than I expected and I suspect that there are quite a few people out there left thinking that they have to have these other very expensive lenses to take photographs. The fact that a cheap lens can at least do some of the business might be for some the chance to be able to afford a usable DSLR setup that will meet their needs, and which they might have thought that they could not afford.

I would add that on the same day I managed to get an indistinct distant shot of a small bird in the top of a tree with the same lens, far worse even than the Buzzard shot but enough for me to see that the bird was a Nuthatch rather than a Treecreeper.

glsammy · #11 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airehead

I sympathise with Speckled Wood. This pic is indeed as described by StuartDH but it is to me a more living picture than some of those fairly recent pics of birds in flight which are so perfect in their detail that they are robbed of all movement and look entirely unreal.

There are other considerations than technical perfection, but if that is what is wanted I shall just stop bothering.

This site and it's images are for educational use amongst others, and has to follow strict guidelines to maintain it's charitable status, it is NOT an artistic or photographic site. Arty or out of focus shots are not for here, if you want that type of shot you've come to the wrong place.
The images should be clear, detailed, in focus and with the subject matter filling the frame, not just a black speck against a pretty background for instance.
These are the simple rules that guide us. Sorry if these basic guidelines offend you.

speckled wood · #12 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glsammy

This site and it's images are for educational use amongst others, and has to follow strict guidelines to maintain it's charitable status, it is NOT an artistic or photographic site. Arty or out of focus shots are not for here, if you want that type of shot you've come to the wrong place.
The images should be clear, detailed, in focus and with the subject matter filling the frame, not just a black speck against a pretty background for instance.
These are the simple rules that guide us. Sorry if these basic guidelines offend you.

So I assume the same applies to "UFO" shots, shots of girlfriends, boyfriends, relatives? .... the same rules for everyone

matt_xyz · #13 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speckled wood

So I assume the same applies to "UFO" shots, shots of girlfriends, boyfriends, relatives? .... the same rules for everyone

I can absolutely assure you that the same rules are applied to everyone. I can't image why you would think that were not the case.

The shots you mention above would have been submitted by members to the forum gallery which is unmoderated (in much the same way as you submitted your Buzzard shot yesterday).

Matt

speckled wood · #14 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

I can absolutely assure you that the same rules are applied to everyone. I can't image why you would think that were not the case.

The shots you mention above would have been submitted by members to the forum gallery which is unmoderated (in much the same way as you submitted your Buzzard shot yesterday).

Matt

[quote=glammsy]This site and it's images are for educational use amongst others, and has to follow strict guidelines to maintain it's charitable status, it is NOT an artistic or photographic site. Arty or out of focus shots are not for here, if you want that type of shot you've come to the wrong place.
The images should be clear, detailed, in focus and with the subject matter filling the frame, not just a black speck against a pretty background for instance.
These are the simple rules that guide us. Sorry if these basic guidelines offend you.

Glammsy[quote]

Example here .... amusing no doubt but is it relavant to this site and is it following "Strict" guidlines

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...006_680358.jpg

and there is also the "UFO" shot in the Carsington Water Thread.

Rainbowmum · #15 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 09:43 AM

[quote=speckled wood;72590][quote=glammsy]This site and it's images are for educational use amongst others, and has to follow strict guidelines to maintain it's charitable status, it is NOT an artistic or photographic site. Arty or out of focus shots are not for here, if you want that type of shot you've come to the wrong place.
The images should be clear, detailed, in focus and with the subject matter filling the frame, not just a black speck against a pretty background for instance.
These are the simple rules that guide us. Sorry if these basic guidelines offend you.

Glammsy

Quote:

Example here .... amusing no doubt but is it relavant to this site and is it following "Strict" guidlines

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...006_680358.jpg

and there is also the "UFO" shot in the Carsington Water Thread.

Snort...maybe there is a ladybird on that phone box???

matt_xyz · #16 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 10:07 AM

It seems I need to repeat myself. The 'amusing' images you refer to above were uploaded to the UNMODERATED forum gallery. You can upload images of any quality to this gallery (and the unidentified gallery) because they are unmoderated and their purpose is to simply to put images into threads.

Your grievance seems to be with the standards we apply to our MODERATED galleries (i.e. the standard wildlife galleries). You can therefore pull as many examples as you like from our unmoderated galleries but they entirely miss the point.

We have many, many, examples of people praising the quality of our wildlife galleries and hence we apply a minimum quality standard to all images uploaded to these galleries. The standards we apply are not particularly strict and we accept dozens of images every day from individuals with a wide range of photographic equipment and experience.

Matt

glsammy · #17 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 10:08 AM

[quote=speckled wood;72590][quote=glammsy]This site and it's images are for educational use amongst others, and has to follow strict guidelines to maintain it's charitable status, it is NOT an artistic or photographic site. Arty or out of focus shots are not for here, if you want that type of shot you've come to the wrong place.
The images should be clear, detailed, in focus and with the subject matter filling the frame, not just a black speck against a pretty background for instance.
These are the simple rules that guide us. Sorry if these basic guidelines offend you.

Glammsy

Quote:

Example here .... amusing no doubt but is it relavant to this site and is it following "Strict" guidlines

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...006_680358.jpg

and there is also the "UFO" shot in the Carsington Water Thread.

Every example you've given is in the forum Gallery which is UNMODERERATED...That means us moderators have no control over what is put there. That forum was put into the system to allow the unusual or poorer image so an image can be identified or to support a forum post.
Not one of them are in the main Galleries, neither was the the UFO shot in the Carsington Thread. It seems no matter what we can't win. We're asked to allow more images in a special area for the reason mentioned above, we allow that and then get this aggravation for doing so.

Do you think we enjoy rejecting images? Do you think we do it for the fun of it? We reject images that do NOT FIT THE GUIDELINES. End of story.

RobSutton · #18 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 10:14 AM

Hi again - I think the shot in question was actually a fair attempt at a difficult subject. Shooting a dark bird in flight against a bright sky is difficult to get right. Comparing it to other shots in the bird Gallery it's clearly not as good as the best, it's as good as a lot of others and better than some. Moderation must be difficult for things which are 'nearly there' perhaps an answer would be to have a 'nearly there' section of the gallery where people who's submissions were deemed 'nearly there' would be re-invited to re-submit the shot to receive some feedback on technique. It would then be up to us to ofer that feedback.

The feedback I would give would be:

looking at the shot I suspect it was originally a very dark image and that some lightening and contrast increase has taken place on the computer and it was also probably a crop from a bigger shot. Both of these are likely to increase the 'graininess' of the shot. Perhap a better approach would have been to overexpose the image as you take it, you would lose detail in the sky but the buzzard would come out better (I'm not sure what experience Speckled Wood has and I hope I don't appear patronising).

If education is important then encouraging people by providing some positive feedback is a good way of doing it. Obviously moderators can't do this, the rest of us can. I would certainly be more than willing to help if I can. I'm only an amateur photographer but have quite a lot of experience (learnt on a Zenit E and Kodachrome 25 - no latitude for errors there) and think I can take a good shot - have a look at my gallery submissions if you want.

It would be a real shame if anybody became alienated because of something like this.

matt_xyz · #19 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobSutton

It would be a real shame if anybody became alienated because of something like this.

it would be an even bigger shame if the gallery editors got so hacked off with having to explain every decision that they all quit.

Is it too much to ask that individuals are actually grateful for the time and effort that we put into maintaining and organising such an excellent gallery?

To those who query our (low) quality guidelines I ask one question; would you bother to look around an utterly unmoderated gallery where individuals make mass uploads of very low quality images? I know I wouldn't.

There are many, many images in the galleries that are not of a particularly high photographic standard (many of my own for instance). We are therefore not being elitist. We simply ask for a minimum quality standard so that the gallery is a pleasure to look around and if a Google search throws up a WAB image, the individual's first contact with WAB is a pleasurable one.

Frankly, I don't see how such a reasonable requirement can alienate anybody.

Matt

RobSutton · #20 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

it would be an even bigger shame if the gallery editors got so hacked off with having to explain every decision that they all quit.

Is it too much to ask that individuals are actually grateful for the time and effort that we put into maintaining and organising such an excellent gallery?

To those who query our (low) quality guidelines I ask one question; would you bother to look around an utterly unmoderated gallery where individuals make mass uploads of very low quality images? I know I wouldn't.

There are many, many images in the galleries that are not of a particularly high photographic standard (many of my own for instance). We are therefore not being elitist. We simply ask for a minimum quality standard so that the gallery is a pleasure to look around and if a Google search throws up a WAB image, the individual's first contact with WAB is a pleasurable one.

Frankly, I don't see how such a reasonable requirement can alienate anybody.

Matt

Sorry Matt but I think your response unfair.

Iwas trying to take a positive line on this, with a helpful suggestion.

I was not questioning the role of moderators, but looking at a way of providing encouraging comments for those people who have taken shots that you, as a moderator, had deemed not to have quite made it and that you don't have time to comment on individually.

My comment about alienation applies equally to you as a moderator as to those whose shots are rejected.

matt_xyz · #21 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 10:57 AM

I wasn't responding to you particularly Rob, but to the 'debate' in general. I realise you were trying to offer constructive advice. My grievance is with those who constantly criticise and question the work we do. It inevitably makes us wonder why on earth we bother. (Bear in mind that SW's comments above are the tip of the iceberg - all the other criticisms we get come in the form of PMs)

Matt

glsammy · #22 (**permalink**) 23-11-2006, 11:38 AM

Rob, your comments are not the problem, and you general tone and suggestions I've no problem with. As for your suggestion, there already is a Gallery for such images, and Speckled Woods image is sitting there now, that is the Forum Gallery. From here the user can ask for any help they like in the Photography forum area.
I do support fully what Matt said, how do you think we editors feel when we see such comments as quoted above and supported by users? We don't get paid for what we do, we do it for the love of the site and the subject, we're not here to knock anyone down, but we have a roll to play in maintaining the main galleries to a reasonable level.
I'm saying no more on this thread.