A new trend?

[deer boy]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Like a picture of Tom Huddlestone or Keano!!!!!!!!!!

Yes indeed




Leave Keano alone Liverpool

[ron1863]

I can see the point of placing pictures on some threads e.g. members gardens and the photography section for critical advice but I must admit that it's never really bothered me.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

yes but we have the archives section now? thats where most of my stuff goes. I think getting a picture into the gallery should be something for a photographer to work towards, honing skills, perfecting technique, composure, depth of field etc until you reach gallery quality...rather than getting your first efforts whacked straight in there and losing that push to improve because you are 'already' gallery quality in .............

It took me a long time to work out that some people on here were interested (perhaps primarily) in things like layout and quality of pictures. To me, the purpose of the gallery was to demonstrate various species for the purpose of identification or to illustrate some ecological point so I put very few pictures into the "proper" gallery but am not too concerned about their quality, certainly not their layout &c - just that they demonstrate a species which otherwise wouldn't be there. If a better picture turns up then I'm happy to have mine deleted.

I do, of course, put things in the archive gallery when I'm seeking assistance or illustrating some point on a thread.

So, nowadays, I recognise that there are all sorts of reasons for up-loading pictures but my main reason is to provide identifiable examples of various species. Take away that facility because the picture is slightly sub-standard from an aesthetic or technical point of view and the gallery becomes worthless for me ...

[JennyS]

i think the gallery really should only be for something special..saleable/magazine/gallery/calender and above all photographically perfect shots....(or there abouts)

And there was me thinking that a big reason for the Gallery was to provide good quality reference shots to illustrate and help identify species.......

How does 'saleable' come into it - I didn't realise that was a part of WAB, or 'photographically perfect' either.

[deer boy]

Originally Posted by JennyS

How does 'saleable' come into it - I didn't realise that was a part of WAB, or 'photographically perfect' either.

I don't think he means selling pictures but that if there good enough to sell then they would be good enough for the gallery

[Dan Salter]

i think the problem here is the word 'gallery' itself which to me means an area/building/ display or whatever to show off 'top quality' photos.(or art/sculptures etc)

So the WAB 'gallery' in my head should have been purely for the best of the best...

i agree about the species id part totally but think this should be a seperate area under 'species identification photos'...not using the word GALLERY.

and the reference to saleable pictures was just to explain the sort of quality i was talking about....a picture you would be happy to buy and hang on your wall...there is a big divide between id shots, species shots etc and what i would call top wildlife photography shots....WAB appears to have equal numbers of memebers of both camps most of whom cross over...there are those who know loads about photography but very little about what animal/bird/ insect they are actually shooting....but the work they produce would be gallery fit...and there are those who know nothing about photography but everything about the species they are shooting. who produce excellent 'ident shots' but you wouldnt hang them on your wall..and of course the lucky few who posess both sides of the equation...im still struggling to make it into either camp let alone both...ha ha
If this was my site (which it isnt) i would have the ARCHIVES for species photos, ident shots and all the other stuff....and WILDLIFE GALLERY for the creme de la creme of the best photos members have produced.
anyway...i think im on a losing battle here as it seems to be only me who knows what im trying to say ha ha...ill just shut up now.

[Dan Salter]

Originally Posted by deer boy

I don't think he means selling pictures but that if there good enough to sell then they would be good enough for the gallery

Exactly mate.

[cherrybee]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

ill just shut up now.

Good
Just joking Dan

[NickCantle]

I know what you mean Dan

[mh68]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

i think the problem here is the word 'gallery' itself which to me means an area/building/ display or whatever to show off 'top quality' photos.(or art/sculptures etc)

So the WAB 'gallery' in my head should have been purely for the best of the best...

i agree about the species id part totally but think this should be a seperate area under 'species identification photos'...not using the word GALLERY.

and the reference to saleable pictures was just to explain the sort of quality i was talking about....a picture you would be happy to buy and hang on your wall...there is a big divide between id shots, species shots etc and what i would call top wildlife photography shots....WAB appears to have equal numbers of memebers of both camps most of whom cross over...there are those who know loads about photography but very little about what animal/bird/ insect they are actually shooting....but the work they produce would be gallery fit...and there are those who know nothing about photography but everything about the species they are shooting. who produce excellent 'ident shots' but you wouldnt hang them on your wall..and of course the lucky few who posess both sides of the equation...im still struggling to make it into either camp let alone both...ha ha
If this was my site (which it isnt) i would have the ARCHIVES for species photos, ident shots and all the other stuff....and WILDLIFE GALLERY for the creme de la creme of the best photos members have produced.
anyway...i think im on a losing battle here as it seems to be only me who knows what im trying to say ha ha...ill just shut up now.

I understand what youre getting at Dan. Only trouble would be that the higher the criteria required for an image to be accepted into the gallery, the more people would think their images werent good enough,even if they were. People are unsure now whether to upload pics or not, if the standards were heightened further then i`d imagine it may reach the stage where very few shots were submitted at all.

Mark H

[Susie]

Who chooses what is a "best" photo, Dan?

[NickCantle]

Hmm, another good point.

[jennyb]

I sort of agree with Dan and I am one of those who is guilty of no longer uploading to the gallery - just the archive. So, sorry DOX you are not alone!

Firstly, I think the gallery should be for the best photos. However, in the absence of superb photos for a particular species, I think it should be possible to let standards slip for the sake of including something that is missing from the gallery.

I no longer upload to the gallery for several reasons:

1) I think that is is a mistake that WAB does not allow us to delete images if and when we want to. I understand that for archive images, it would be a problem deleting images linked to threads, but I would prefer to have full control over any of my images in the gallery which are my property.

2) Do we really want hundreds of photos all of the same species in the gallery? I think I have saturated the gallery with my green woodpeckers, Roe deer and muntjacs. There is a limit to the number of poses you can get. I would not upload any more of these to the gallery unless it was something quite different (and since I can't delete any, I cannot replace them with better photos as I take them).

3) I would upload other images if I found that there were none in the gallery or if I felt mine were better.

4) I can't spend huge amounts of time on WAB. If I upload to the gallery to ask something in a thread, then I would have to wait hours or even days before my image was accepted to link to the thread. I'm afraid if I have something to say, I need to say it now because at my age, I will have forgotten what I wanted to say in an hours time! That means I have to use the archive.

Jenny

[Dan Salter]

Originally Posted by Susie

Who chooses what is a "best" photo, Dan?

Im talking wolfhill quality.

I may not have the gear or the skills but i can tell a quality/technically perfect and artistic photo from an average one.

and i dont know who the mods are for the gallery but if my idea ever happened clearly the mods need to be technically brilliant and a good judge of whats good or bad...no disrespect but currently so much bad gets let through it makes me wonder?

[Dan Salter]

Originally Posted by Susie

Who chooses what is a "best" photo, Dan?

and to be honest no one chooses....the picture puts itself either in or out!! there are technical tick boxes for a photo...lets take 'sharpness' as an example...
its not down to me or the mods or whoever...its down to the skill of the photographer and the image itself.

[NickCantle]

Oh God, it's all going to go mental from here

Consider my towel thrown in. I'm out of here...

[Dan Salter]

and i was supposed to shut up!! ha ha i think your right Nick...maybe i should dissapear and go and watch big brother.

but just to finish...dont get me wrong there is a place for all types of photo's on wab...grab shots, id shots, species shots and wildlife photography.....there should just be a definitive seperation to gallery shots and the others.

over and out.

[agrumpycow]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Oh God, it's all going to go mental from here

Consider my towel thrown in. I'm out of here...

That's why I haven't even begun (until now) Methinks this thread is going to get difficult..............................

PS my view is WAB is not first and foremost a photography site, therefore a photo should not have to be top notch to get in the gallery. There are plenty of websites out there focussing on photography, this focusses on wildlife, which incidentally isn't always picture perfect itself.
Let's not make the gallery here an elitist place for those with the better equipment and more experience than the majority here and celebrate the fact that the British wildlife and environment is beautiful and should be celebrated no matter how perfect a photo is

[Susie]

Well, obviously I am going to disagree with you, Dan, although I do understand the point you are trying to make.

I think the set up of the gallery and the archive are spot on for their respective purposes. I frequently search the gallery as an aide to identification and the set up suits me as it is.

If it weren't for the fact that it would create additional work for the administrators and mods I would suggest a further gallery purely of highly commended images which I think would attain the standard of the elitist gallery that you have in mind. To have a picture in there would be meritorious indeed

[NickCantle]

Well, I left my spare towel here- I have to disagree with Dan. I think the gallery is good as it is. As Claire identified, I don't think the gallery should be elitist. I enjoy all of the images on the site, end of.

[Dan Salter]

Originally Posted by Susie

Well, obviously I am going to disagree with you, Dan, although I do understand the point you are trying to make.

I think the set up of the gallery and the archive are spot on for their respective purposes. I frequently search the gallery as an aide to identification and the set up suits me as it is.

If it weren't for the fact that it would create additional work for the administrators and mods I would suggest a further gallery purely of highly commended images which I think would attain the standard of the elitist gallery that you have in mind. To have a picture in there would be meritorious indeed

see thats my problem...unless im clicking the wrong buttons when you 'upload' you choose gallery or archives....but when you want to browse and view you can only click 'gallery' which seems to be mixed in with all the tosh?

I think your idea is a good one susie.

and in answer to that grumpy cow...yes...'sharpness' was one example and maybe a bad one, i respect not all wildlife photography is 'technically perfect' but there is a difference between say, intentional soft focus for mood/effect and an out of focus image through the photographer being rubbish no?

[Jez]

Now I understand the problems of holding a Photo competition on WAB, which at the time I thought would just be a bit of fun to do. Now I'm not so sure It could work