Gallery photo descriptions.

[John]

I have looked at quite a few photos in the gallery lately and am a bit disappointed that on a lot of them there isn't any description on where the photo was taken or any story behind the photo.

I always try to put something to each photo so as it gives the viewer an idea of the conditions or problems etc behind the taking of an image.

IMHO I feel it adds to the gallery if members do put such descriptions to these images but what do the other members think.

John

[eeyore]

I cant say that it particularly bothers me - If people want photographic advice or citique I think it is better in the forum than the gallery - I have stopped giving critique in the gallery even where it is requested as there have been several ocasions where i have subsequently been criticised for "being negative about a perfectly adequate photo" (not I hasten to add by the person who asked for advice but by a third party)

and if people arent looking for advice then IMO the photographic details are of very limited worth, particularly as they are available from the exif data in anycase

and as regards description of where photos were taken if the species involved is common then these are pretty irrellevant while if it is rare many people may prefer not to publicise the location in anycase

[solus]

I can't speak for any other parts of the Gallery, but for the Fungus pics the date, County and at least the general location are very helpful, for example, Limestone grassland; Beech wood on limestone; cattle pasture etc. etc.

Even for rare species, date and County surely wouldn't give much away?

[rolf]

On some occasions it may make a photo more interesting, but as eeyore says, in many cases it will be largely irrelevant.

I would add though, that when rejecting photos submitted by new members, it would perhaps be helpful for the moderator to give a more direct reason as to why a photo was rejected, rather than the present general email which may leave many confused as to why.

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by solus

I can't speak for any other parts of the Gallery, but for the Fungus pics the date, County and at least the general location are very helpful, for example, Limestone grassland; Beech wood on limestone; cattle pasture etc. etc.

Even for rare species, date and County surely wouldn't give much away?

I always state (except where a species or area is vulnerable) where species are found and also try to include details of the habitat in the image.

The date is also included within the EXIF data if you view the image properties (using 'save as')

I think what is important is giving additional information on unknown species .... which we have a lot of!!

I do think many are at least giving a location. A bigger problem is people not knowing exactly what plants / trees etc are growing in the vacinity ... and to some degree, that includes me

This has reminded me of my 'Fungi photography guide' which I promised a year ago! I'll have another look at it for the new season

John

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by rolf

I would add though, that when rejecting photos submitted by new members, it would perhaps be helpful for the moderator to give a more direct reason as to why a photo was rejected, rather than the present general email which may leave many confused as to why.

thats a nice idea but i would suspect it would prove unworkable due to the number of shots that gallery editors deal with on a day to day basis.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

This has reminded me of my 'Fungi photography guide' which I promised a year ago! I'll have another look at it for the new season

you arent the only one FJ I am seriously behind schedule with the macro and landscape advice sheets (among others) that i promised people - for some strange reason my employer expects me to do this thing called "work" for about 8 hours per day , which seriously gets in the way of quality wabbage

[Paul mabbott]

You're probably talking about birds and I certainly don't want 'a story' but, yes, basic information about locality, date and for invertebrates, as well as plants and fungi, size are more than useful - they're essential!

Originally Posted by John

I have looked at quite a few photos in the gallery lately and am a bit disappointed that on a lot of them there isn't any description on where the photo was taken or any story behind the photo.

I always try to put something to each photo so as it gives the viewer an idea of the conditions or problems etc behind the taking of an image.

IMHO I feel it adds to the gallery if members do put such descriptions to these images but what do the other members think.

John

[Paul mabbott]

I don't think it's a matter of making 'a photo more interesting' - time of year, habitat, size of subject are extremely useful for invertebrates and plants and should be included with all submissions.

On the other point - I'm with you - it's constructive to know whether your submission was rejected because (a) it was wrong, (b) it was a rubbish photo or (c) the file lay outside the acceptable physical parameters - the latter often being the case ....

Originally Posted by rolf

On some occasions it may make a photo more interesting, but as eeyore says, in many cases it will be largely irrelevant.

I would add though, that when rejecting photos submitted by new members, it would perhaps be helpful for the moderator to give a more direct reason as to why a photo was rejected, rather than the present general email which may leave many confused as to why.

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by eeyore

you arent the only one FJ I am seriously behind schedule with the macro and landscape advice sheets (among others) that i promised people - for some strange reason my employer expects me to do this thing called "work" for about 8 hours per day , which seriously gets in the way of quality wabbage

Yes, those 8+ hours can be a real pain Travelling, say 2 hours ... Then there's my book(s) ... another 2 hrs ... WAB about 3 hours ... Cooking / eating and talking to family (whose names I can never remember ) about 2 hours ... Caring for the garden, feeding the fish and topping up the bird feeding station about 1 hour ... Then there's my quick sherry about 2 hours .. and of course 4 hours sleep ... that's 24 hours Who's fed the cat

Blimey, I need to see someone, but unfortunately I don't have the time

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by rolf

I would add though, that when rejecting photos submitted by new members, it would perhaps be helpful for the moderator to give a more direct reason as to why a photo was rejected, rather than the present general email which may leave many confused as to why.

Quite simply, it's the time required to do this! Gallery editors and Moderators just do not have the time to reply on an individual basis. The rules and criteria for image submission are quite clear and reminders are often given.

One must also remember that the people moderating images are also contributing their own material as well as ensuring the site is running effectively in terms of content and guarding against spammers and the like.

Other essential help is available within the reference section, the ‘Photography Critique and Advice’ forum and individuals like Eeyore who have provided excellent photo technique guides.

John

[rolf]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

[size=0]Quite simply, it's the time required to do this! Gallery editors and Moderators just do not have the time to reply on an individual basis. The rules and criteria for image submission are quite clear and reminders are often given.

One must also remember that the people moderating images are also contributing their own material as well as ensuring the site is running effectively in terms of content and guarding against spammers and the like.

Other essential help is available within the reference section, the ‘Photography Critique and Advice’ forum and individuals like Eeyore who have provided excellent photo technique guides.

John[/size]

Yes, point taken about the time factor, but the suggestion was to perhaps supply more detailed/specific rejection information to new members only, surely a small percentage of submissions.

I wonder how many have made two or three abortive submission attempts and resultantly given up as a bad job.

[John]

Originally Posted by rolf

Yes, point taken about the time factor, but the suggestion was to perhaps supply more detailed/specific rejection information to new members only, surely a small percentage of submissions.

I wonder how many have made two or three abortive submission attempts and resultantly given up as a bad job.

I hate to point this out but this is a bit of thread hijacking as it has nothing to do with why I started the thread.

John

[rolf]

Sorry John, I should know better , but it was originally just thrown in as an aside.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by rolf

Yes, point taken about the time factor, but the suggestion was to perhaps supply more detailed/specific rejection information to new members only, surely a small percentage of submissions.

I wonder how many have made two or three abortive submission attempts and resultantly given up as a bad job.

Without wanting to take johns thread further off track I'll just point out that I am always happy to look at new folks photos and to give advice on how to get them accepted (particularly if it spare our hard working admin team some work) - I am neither an ed or a mod , but I have been arround long enough to have a fair idea whats needed

As I said higher up I prefer to do this by email as i have been clobered by ill informed and unfounded criticism when doing it on the boards , if you have anything you would like me to look at feel free to drop me a pm and I'll pm you back with an email address.

[Nettle Runner]

I agree with you, John.
I like a story that explains some aspect of wildlife. It can mean that the member has not just taken a picture, but observed some aspect of nature.
Also, when one covers a local patch, it is noticable how different parts / plants on the patch become popular with wildlife at different periods / seasons.
Over the Easter weekend, I was finding that last years hotspots were quite, but was delighted to discover an unusual new source. Horse troughs. Not the old fashioned stone troughs of yesterday, but the modern plastic ones with a regulated water supply, and even large buckets.
Regular inspections produced a surprising range of small bugs (and even one spider in distress). After rescuing, the little fellows would stay around for quite awhile, recovering and drying off, before eventually flying or crawing away. This gives an excellent oportunity for close-up photography.
Yes, lets give more thought and creativity to our discriptions.
Les