Picture posting lottery

[cybershot]

Whilst I fully agree with the final decision of the photo editors about their interpretation of the rules, in my experience I have found that this is subject to the luck of the draw with regard to individual editor's interpretation of 'elaborate borders' and 'titling'. For example I recently had this image rejected:



Whereas this image was accepted:

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...RW_8265_RJ.jpg

A quick glance at the thumbnails in my gallery will make it quite evident why I am somewhat perplexed.

David

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by cybershot

Whilst I fully agree with the final decision of the photo editors about their interpretation of the rules, in my experience I have found that this is subject to the luck of the draw with regard to individual editor's interpretation of 'elaborate borders' and 'titling'. For example I recently had this image rejected:

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...eacrw_1384.jpg

Whereas this image was accepted:

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uks/5...RW_8265_RJ.jpg

A quick glance at the thumbnails in my gallery will make it quite evident why I am somewhat perplexed.

David

the second one isnt displaying for me - but i can see why the first was rejected as the pink border adds nothing to the shot, and the picture itself isnt fully sharp.

I am also slightly puzzled as to why if you fully agree with the gallery editors right to interpret the rules, you then start a thread questioning them.

All our editors are volunteers and work extremly hard for the site , and my advice to you and to all members would be to be grateful for this , accept the decisions as read (of course there are variations in interpretation from one editor to another - they are only human), and if you feel that you really must question a decision do it privately by pm.

[cybershot]

Sorry about the second image: I was experiencing trouble linking the images to the forum and ran out of editing time.

It is frustrating when this type of image, which takes some time to put together, has long been accepted and admired on site and then is rejected. I was looking for some consistency.

[matt_xyz]

our upload instructions make it quite clear that we don't want 'elaborate borders'. This is stated on the actual upload page below the big orange banner. Sometimes if editors are having to work through a very long list of uploads, many of which will have ignored some of our clearly stated guidelines, we may be prone to missing some of these problems.

As a general rule, to maximise chances of acceptance, please refrain from including borders and titles. You may well find examples of bordered and titled images in the gallery, but some are less obtrusive than others. As I say, it is safest to leave them out altogether.

Matt

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

our upload instructions make it quite clear that we don't want 'elaborate borders'. This is stated on the actual upload page below the big orange banner. Sometimes if editors are having to work through a very long list of uploads, many of which will have ignored some of our clearly stated guidelines, we may be prone to missing some of these problems.

As a general rule, to maximise chances of acceptance, please refrain from including borders and titles. You may well find examples of bordered and titled images in the gallery, but some are less obtrusive than others. As I say, it is safest to leave them out altogether.

Matt

Thanks Matt I do appreciate all the work that goes in and raising these issues is not meant in any way to be disrespectful: I'll play it safe in future. I think you'll agree that a vast proportion of my gallery shows that I wasn't questioning the policy for the sake of a one off incident.

[StuartDH]

I actually brought up the topic of borders with the editors the other day as it seems that borders are gradually getting bigger, more colourful, a few more stripes, wiggly lines, textured, smaller images inside the borders of less than 800x600 (the one above is 800x534), fancy graphics/fonts etc.

We decided to originally allow borders if they were very minimalist and discreet and didn't detract from the main image. Personaly, I don't like borders as it changes the gallery into being more about art than reference. When art creeps in then it all becomes a question of taste and that gets even more difficult to moderate.

That's why a similar rule applies to edited images, in that they can be enhanced to make them clearer, but not edited to add or take anything away.

All very subjective and ultimately the decision of each of the gallery editors, but maybe it would be easier if we went back to no borders at all.

Stu

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

All very subjective and ultimately the decision of each of the gallery editors, but maybe it would be easier if we went back to no borders at all.

Stu

I would back this. I played with borders for a short while, but soon realised they did nothing for the image, except make it smaller.

[galanthus]

I love playing with pics/prints re borders and fiddly bits, however, this is predominantly a site for people who like to see pictures of nature. To be honest I like the content of the pics not the presentation. I agree that the editors work very hard as it is and no borders at all is surely the easiest option.

[eeyore]

and of course if you just want to post some to show other members how clever you are at adding borders - there is always the forum images gallery which is unmoderated.

[Boddie]

I think borders do nothing for the image. In my opinion I would abolish them altogether. They serve no prurpose for WABs galleries and the information that so often accompanies them can be provided in the fields that you fill in when submitting an image

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by Boddie

I think borders do nothing for the image. In my opinion I would abolish them altogether. They serve no prurpose for WABs galleries and the information that so often accompanies them can be provided in the fields that you fill in when submitting an image

Thanks for adding to the sensible and relevant comments.

[Boddie]

Don't mention it

[supapinocchio]

Originally Posted by Boddie

I think borders do nothing for the image. In my opinion I would abolish them altogether. They serve no prurpose for WABs galleries and the information that so often accompanies them can be provided in the fields that you fill in when submitting an image

I go along with your comments. Although I am a new member to WAB I have been interested in photography for longer than I care to think about. I have noticed that with the advent of digital imageing, club photography is becoming more a shop window for peoples' ability to come up with more and more elaborate borders, detracting in a lot of cases from the image which they are supposed to enhance.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Boddie

I think borders do nothing for the image. In my opinion I would abolish them altogether. They serve no prurpose for WABs galleries and the information that so often accompanies them can be provided in the fields that you fill in when submitting an image

I agree, with one exception - in some circumstances a thin black line (e.g 0.5pt) arround the edge of the photo can make it stand out from the page - this is particularly true if the background is a very similar colour to elements of the picture.

however this isnt relevant to the wab galleries as the galery software takes care of this aspect so in our case - i would say, yes lets remove all abiguity and give members the consistency cybershot was asking for by banning borders from the moderated galleries all together

[jerryh]

Well-designed borders make for a more artistic image, and I agree that this is not appropriate for the WAB wildlife galleries.
However, what about the landscape galleries? Admittedly, bordered images are still in the minority here, but landscape photography is traditionally a more artistic form and these galleries would, I think, benefit from allowing borders.

Jerry

[eeyore]

while i agree that landscapes can be more artistic - i think the art should be in the picture composition, exposure etc , frames are just a distraction and IMO dont add anything to any type of picture (except for the thin line mentioned above)

even hanging on the wall i preffer to see photos in clip frames rather than fancy ornate ones

[Boddie]

I think it would be easier to just say no to all borders.

Otherwise people just push the boundaries and they end up looking hideous