Quality of bird photos on Internet (1 Viewer)

LSB · Oct 7, 2005

As someone new to Digi-scoping and Photography . Its these negative views which really get my down. Havn't you all forgotton something we all were learners once....... I'm the first to admit ive posted some cr*p pics(and still am) but I like to use Bf as an online scrapbook. So in years to come I can look back at my Gallery and laugh (hopefully Ive improved by then) ... :-O

ColinD · Oct 7, 2005

littlestintboy said:
As someone new to Digi-scoping and Photography . Its these negative views which really get my down. Havn't you all forgotton something we all were learners once....... I'm the first to admit ive posted some cr*p pics(and still am) but I like to use Bf as an online scrapbook. So in years to come I can look back at my Gallery and laugh (hopefully Ive improved by then) ... :-O

Hmmm.... Not sure Bird Forum is really meant to be used as your online scrapbook, but anyway, that's a different debate! I could say if negative views get you down, then don't post cr*p photos. I digress.....

The point a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that the issue is whether or not these bad photos should be posted to Surf Birds NOT Bird Forum. Of course we all want to see photos of the latest rarity on Surf Birds, but when there are already lots of brilliant photos of a bird, why does somebody then post a terrible, out of focus, distant and dull "record shot"? And not just one, but sometimes five different versions of the same cr*ppy photo. Thats the only point I'm trying to make. Can we try and keep that in focus at least 3

I realise that we were all learners once, but you learn nothing by posting a poor photo to Surf Birds, because it's the wrong place to learn how to correct your mistakes. You don't get advice on photography from Surf Birds. It's not meant for that.

Now, I quite agree that people should be able to post poor photos elsewhere AND ask for advice in order that they can improve as photographers. However, being the miserable so-and-so that I am, and having a thought for disk space and download implications, there are only two justifiable reasons why I would post a poor quality photo ANYWHERE on the Internet, as follows: 1) there are no better photos available or 2) I'm asking for advice on how to improve, in which case I expect constructive critism.

Why else would I want to post a cr*p photo?

Colin

rka · Oct 8, 2005

ColinD said:
... there are only two justifiable reasons why I would post a poor quality photo ANYWHERE on the Internet, as follows: 1) there are no better photos available or 2) I'm asking for advice on how to improve, in which case I expect constructive critism.

Why else would I want to post a cr*p photo?

Colin

Agree with reasons given. To add a few more:

3) - Assistance with bird ID (what is it?)
4) - ID the bird quiz (can you guess what it is?)
5) - Personal good pic .. even if others view as inferior
6) - Original scenario / uniquely interesting ... even if not perfect
7) - Share experience with another interested colleague

Another concern here is that good vs bad pics are VERY subjective.

I love Nigel Blake's and Laurence Poh's photography. By their inspiring standards, 99.999% of everyone else's bird pics can be considered well below par. Maybe we should only have the 100 or so professional photographers post their pictures and the rest of us could occupy our time by simply having discussions of relatively dubious merit such as the one this thread.

On some occasions I actually enjoy "bad" pictures instead of perfectly composed, perfectly focused "good" ones. I guess I'm in the minority here.

Got to go ... Need to post some photos.

Gashead · Oct 8, 2005

Time for a sweep through the data base here, I think photos on this sites data base that are of poor quality should be removed.

Keith Reeder · Oct 8, 2005

Colin,

as far as I'm concerned the Gallery allowance on BF is exactly a member's "online scrap book" - I mean exactly that - to use as the member wishes within the overall remit of the site.

Again, to use the BF Gallery is not to invite criticism - that's obviously why there's a separate critique forum.

Gashead,

who is going to be the arbiter of what gets kept and what doesn't? It would take a very conceited and self-opinionated individual to volunteer for that role.

While we're on, let's get rid of all postings that contain spelling mistakes and poor grammar - both things that bother me far more than iffy photographs.

Some of the points about Surfbirds might well be valid - I deal with that by not looking at the site: but if people here choose to post images which in the opinion of some on BF are "unworthy", then more power to their elbow, if it makes them happy.

God knows, it's not hard to avoid looking at them if they offend people's sensibilities to that extent...

stevo · Oct 8, 2005

It does make me laugh when on Surfbirds someone advertises awful shots for sale,when all you have to do anyway is right click & save the image to your HD.

Cheers Steve.

gw4aurora · Oct 8, 2005

I have stated before the only reason I would upload a pic to Birdguides, Surf Birds or RBR would be if I found a rarity and had sole access to the bird and site.
I'm still looking.

Chris.

ColinD · Oct 8, 2005

Keith Reeder said:
as far as I'm concerned the Gallery allowance on BF is exactly a member's "online scrap book" - I mean exactly that - to use as the member wishes within the overall remit of the site.

Again, to use the BF Gallery is not to invite criticism - that's obviously why there's a separate critique forum.

Sorry, I disagree

Keith Reeder said:
Some of the points about Surfbirds might well be valid - I deal with that by not looking at the site: but if people here choose to post images which in the opinion of some on BF are "unworthy", then more power to their elbow, if it makes them happy.

Fine, but if you post cr*p expect critism. Simple as that. Oops sorry, I forgot, here on Bird Forum we're all lovey dovey and nobody is allowed to make any cricical comments. Sorry again. You are quite correct in everything you say.

Colin

Adey Baker · Oct 8, 2005

Keith Reeder said:
who is going to be the arbiter of what gets kept and what doesn't? It would take a very conceited and self-opinionated individual to volunteer for that role.

While we're on, let's get rid of all postings that contain spelling mistakes and poor grammar - both things that bother me far more than iffy photographs.

Some of the points about Surfbirds might well be valid - I deal with that by not looking at the site: but if people here choose to post images which in the opinion of some on BF are "unworthy", then more power to their elbow, if it makes them happy.

God knows, it's not hard to avoid looking at them if they offend people's sensibilities to that extent...

Keith,

Although the title of this thread actually states Quality of Photos on the Internet, it's obvious from the first post that Colin is referring to one aspect of Surfbirds and he's had to emphasise that point again and again.

You state that you don't look at the site - if you did, you'd see the following:

PLEASE NOTE: On a periodic basis, we will delete older shots of particular birds that we have many duplicates of. This is not a permanent archive so make sure you save copies to your own discs or hard drive.

Therefore, some 'conceited and self-opinionated' individual already does do the job.

The fact that you would like to get rid of all postings (not just poor-quality repetitive ones) with spelling mistakes and bad grammar completely destroys your argument! (OK, I realise your post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but you get the point, I hope!

)

The beauty of the Surfbirds gallery is its immediacy - you can put the photo of a rare bird on as soon as you can get to an internet connection - so I suppose there's always going to be some iffy shots going on.

Other websites require you to submit your photos for consideration, for instance, the newspage of my county's ornithological society, which only has about a dozen of the most recent sightings, has to be edited otherwise an over-enthusiastic poster would displace good shots before anyone would have the chance to see them! The upshot of this is that you're only ever going to submit good photos in the first place - unless you're the only one with a 'record-shot' of a recent rarity.

Keith Reeder · Oct 8, 2005

Hi Adey,

I know that Colin's first posting refers to Surfbirds, but several subsequent postings by various contributors widened the scope of the discussion to include this website, and the point I'm trying to get is that - regardless of the situation at Surfbirds - different criteria apply on BF.

My point with getting rid of postings with spelling and grammatical errors is that - if we're going to start any sort of quality-based pogrom on images which some self-appointed arbiter has declared "unfit" - why stop with images?

I don't really see it destroying any arguments, it is the argument...

For what it's worth, I think the idea of submission for consideration is a great idea in the right circumstances, but - for BF (which I reiterate, has been included in the ambit of the discussion) - the gallery on here exists to make members who contribute to it happy, not to satisfy the quality requirements of those viewers who might regard poor images as nothing more or less than a waste of their bandwidth.

Keith Reeder · Oct 8, 2005

Colin,

let me see if I get this:

the fact that there is a gallery and a specific critique forum where people choose to seek criticism doesn't say anything to you about the likelihood that there is a different intended use for each?

OK...

You then say:

ColinD said:
Oops sorry, I forgot, here on Bird Forum we're all lovey dovey and nobody is allowed to make any cricical comments. Sorry again. You are quite correct in everything you say.

which sounds just like the kind of sarcastic reaction that people sometimes resort to when for example, they've received unwelcome or unwanted criticism.

Hmmm...

So you reserve the right to criticise other people, but nobody can criticise - or even just politely disagree - with you?

I have difficulty reconciling that.

Adey Baker · Oct 8, 2005

Yes, most threads do widen to other areas, don't they!

Reading the first post again, though, Colin never suggests any sort of pogrom (blimey!) to remove any poor-quality shots - he just wonders why anyone would bother posting them in the first place when there are already good quality shots of the bird in question to look at.

Keith Reeder · Oct 8, 2005

Hi again, Adey,

it's not Colin's original point I'm commenting on though - it's the subsequent postings to the effect that there should be some sort of rigorously-applied quality control on here.

Adey Baker · Oct 8, 2005

Incidentally, as well as the bit that I quoted above, Surfbirds also say this in their guidelines to what to post:

Please use your best judgement when uploading photos. A dozen photos of the same bird (although it may be exciting to you) may seem a little excessive to others. Try and limit yourself to 1 or 2 of your best pictures of any individual bird (usually the most exciting ones that there are no photos of yet). If there are already photos of a particular bird, just limit yourself to one photo. Try and decide what you think will be interesting to others.

LSB · Oct 8, 2005

quote ColinD
Hmmm.... Not sure Bird Forum is really meant to be used as your online scrapbook, but anyway, that's a different debate! I could say if negative views get you down, then don't post cr*p photos. I digress.....

Excuse me but this is a PUBLIC FORUM I will post what I like when I like...Thank you very much. :storm:

IanF · Oct 9, 2005

Just to clarify the situation as regards Bid Forum Gallery and Database.

Every member has a generous allocation of free to use web space to post photos. As long as the photos comply with the posted Forum/Guidelines any suitable photo can be uploaded.

There are varying 'qualities' of photo in the Gallery. This site is for members of all levels of experience and budget! Some photos will always be better than others even from the same person as exprience is gained and equipment improved. What may be a less than perfect shot can easily be someones pride and joy and in some cases the only photo of that species.

The purpose behind the Database from it's inception has been to show as many of the Worlds species as possible. Some photos are superb quality, some not so good. A poorer quality but identifiable bird photo is still better than none at all. The Database is an ongoing project with better quality photos repalcing poorer quality ones as and when they are uploaded. Several Database Moderators constantly update photos - though I dare say some newer ones do get missed - there is a specific forum for notifying new photos for the Databse as well. The search links still enable all Gallery photos of that species to be viewed which I find is a useful feature to compare plumage and sex variations.

Surfbirds still has a role to play - but I think that it's purposes are different to those of Bird Forum and shouldn't really be directly compared.

jacksnipe · Oct 9, 2005

well said!

Alastair Rae · Oct 10, 2005

littlestintboy said:
Excuse me but this is a PUBLIC FORUM I will post what I like when I like...Thank you very much. :storm:

As long as you don't upset the moderators, that is.

CornishExile · Oct 10, 2005

Bluetail said:
My whinge (and I think Colin's too) is specifically to the "Stop Press UK Rarities" pages of the Surfbirds site, which can be littered with often dismal photos of the same bird. Most of the recent photos there are of super quality, but browse back through the older pages and you'll soon get sick to death of seeing the Spurn Lesser Grey Shrike, to name but one.
http://www.surfbirds.com/cgi-bin/gallery/display.cgi?gallery=gallery9&start=1

If the photos were all of high-quality I wouldn't mind how many were posted (within reason, anyway).

There's a Kestrel down there on Spurn that couldn't agree more with you. He was sick of the sight of all those crappy 'record shots' of the shrike too, so hung up his Leica R1 and did something practical about it. We should learn from that!

ce

postcardcv · Oct 10, 2005

I do agree that Surfbirds and Birdguides suffer from having some very poor photos which does distract from the good ones. If the poor photo is the only one of a given bird then I see no problem with it being on there, but when good shots are already online it does seem crazy. I do take photos and often don't put mine on these sites as I know that they are not of a good enough quality.

I do however find it even more annoying when one person uploads 4+ photos of the same bird. If the ID is really tricky then it's one thing, but I really don't need to see four or five similar shots of the same wryneck, hoopoe, etc...

I do think that it's reasonable to post your own photos in the the gallery here, whatever the quality. It is interesting to see how poeple using this site develop and improve over time (I know that I have).

Quality of bird photos on Internet (1 Viewer)

Me

Well-known member

ttbirds

Well-known member

Watch the birdie...

Well-known member

In eclipse

Well-known member

Member

Watch the birdie...

Watch the birdie...

Member

Watch the birdie...

Member

Me

Moderator

Well-known member

London birder

rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn!

Super Moderator

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread