Proposal: Better Image Desired Category (1 Viewer)

[pbono]

Now that Opus is approaching the remarkable achievement of almost 7000 species with photographs, I think it is time to add a new category called "Better Image" or "Better Image Desired". We moderators should go through the Opus pages and add the category to all species where the photo is out-of-focus or too small to be useful or ???

I realize that this is a judgment call, but, if we can get a list of all species for which the current image is not sharp (as we can with Missing Images), we can start looking to upgrade the quality of the pages.

I know I personally have posted framegrabs of rare or hard to photograph species. I'd love to see my images replaced by sharp photos. Maybe we are missing some images coming into the gallery just because we are so focused on filling in the pages with no images.

Peter

 

[wintibird]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'm going through the passerines slowly and I often find pages with rather bad pictures but there are already better ones in the gallery. I might even propose two categories:

• Better image desired (only a record shot available)
• More images desired: when there is only a shot of a male in a sexually dimorphic species or when a species is highly geographically variable.

André

 

[pbono]

More categories

Andre--

I'm generally in favor of more categories, but I think they need to be "actionable". That is, you get the list of species for the category and you know what to do. So,

Category: Better Image Desired
Category: Male Needed
Category: Female Needed (for sexually dimorphic species)
Category: Subspecies Needed (for visually distinguishable subspecies)

The first is mostly straightforward, although there might be differences of opinion about whether an image is "good enough".

The second two are straightforward.

The fourth category might be tougher, because it requires one to know whether the subspecies are in fact considered visually distinguishable. HBW would probably help in these cases, along with the regional guides for the species in question.

Peter

 

[Richard Klim]

I'm no photographer. But is there not a danger that BirdForum Opus will seriously discourage future contributions if submitted photographs are potentially immediately tagged with 'better image desired'?

Richard

 

[pbono]

Response to Richard Klim

Richard--

While I understand (and even share) your concern, I think this is more of a theoretical problem than one we will encounter.

That's why I suggested that we be conservative in marking species with the "Better Image Desired" category.

If we limit ourselves to makring those images where the bird is out of focus or very small, I doubt that the photographer will be discouraged.

Remember, if the photographer is a professional, he already has to decide whether he is willing to share a less-than-perfectly-sharp image. So, if he does share such an image, I doubt that he would be unhappy to see his image replaced by a better image.

In the case where the photographer is an amateur, I guess it's possible that a few egos might be "bruised", but I speculate that most contributors of "record" shots have a strong enough ego to not be offended if their image is replaced by a better one. After all, this already happens in Opus.

My proposal is NOT CREATING ANY NEW POLICIES. It's just designed to allow us to conveniently find those species for which we have already noticed that a better image is indeed desired.

Furthermore, if this category exists, then we can even encourage photographers who might otherwise be reluctant to upload a record photo to mark their own image with the new category, thereby indicating that even they would like a better image to be found.

Even now, I sometimes hesitate to upload a "poor" image because I don't want to discourage someone from uploading a better one for Opus. If I could mark my own image with this category, I would feel "less guilty" about submitting a "record" photo.

Peter

 

[Ecuadorrebel]

I hope you don't mind me adding a comment as I am not a moderator but I have been contributing to OPUS lately, more in the locations section than in the bird section. I replaced a photo of a bird today because the original was out of focus and very flat. I hesitated to do it because I don't want to step on anyones toes or get anyone upset. The photo was from 2002 so I thought an update would be in order. I was looking to see if I had photos of birds where no image were recorded in OPUS. As a photographer I know how protective one can be of their photography. However, if I posted a photo that I did not feel was up to my standards because there was no other available, I would certainly want someone to replace it. I don't like people to see my bad work.

There is a disclaimer in the help section that states that any page may be edited or images replaced at any time. People who post should be aware of that. If I post an image that I don't like I would definitely want it replaced. However, if I had an image that I thought was good and it was replaced I would wonder if someone was looking for a by-line more than wanting to help. And the problem is, there are those out there who think that there "garbage don't stink". That is where you might run into problems.

I agree that if an image is badly out of focus or too small, then there you might get away with asking for new images with little backlash. But anything beyond that is going to be a judgement call. But no matter how you do it, there is bound to be someone who gets their feelings hurt.

Don't know if this helps but I thought I would give a photographers point of view.

 

[pbono]

Good points

Steve--

First, everyone is welcome to comment; not just moderators.

Second, as you point out, Opus already has the problem you are describing (the potential sensitivity of replacing one image with another); so, we cannot avoid the problem by not adding new categories.

Third, would you have been more confident about replacing an image if that image had already been tagged as "Better Image Desired"? I know I would.

Also, if an image has been so tagged, this would give "dissenters" (that is, those who think the image is good enough to be retained) to voice their concerns. In this way, we might come to consensus on whether the current image needs to be replaced when an appropriate photo becomes available.

I know that, when I find an exceptionally good photo for a species that already has a good image in place, I leave the original image and add the new one. I rarely delete existing images on Opus pages; I usually add the new (and distinctive) image to the page. If the new image is "obviously" superior to my eye, I might change the order of the images on the page. I also try to retain even "poor" images if they show different subspecies or geographically widely separated populations.

Over time, as Opus gets a photo of EVERY SPECIES (!!), it will be these additional images that will be increasingly valuable for people who use Opus as a resource.

Peter

 

[njlarsen]

I personally think that so many different categories (as proposed in post three) might be too complicated and additionally, a mixed category (better or additional photos needed) might do less damage to a sensitive soul ...

Even http://birdforum.net/opus/Western_Marsh-Harrier has only one image of a flying bird even though they are different male and female and juveniles are yet again different.

Niels

 

[Ecuadorrebel]

Thanks for the feedback Peter.

Yes, I would have been less apprehensive about adding the picture if the remark "Better Image Desired" had been present. The only reason I replaced the image was that the original was pretty obscure and showed very little detail. I think that if I had left the original image it would have eventually been removed at a later time as it wouldn't have added anything to the page.

I agree that a note posted on the page could encourage more input. As Niels mentioned, a comment like "better or additional photos needed" would be less threatening. However, if the page already has an excellent photo I would think it best to just ask for additional photos where male/female or subspecies vary significantly.

I think that it is good to be getting better photos on the pages as I sometimes refer to them when I am trying to identify a bird. A poor image can just add to the confusion.

 

[Marmot]

As someone who probably added a thousand or so images when it was the database I might as well say my bit.

When it was the database we could only add one photo which was normally the male or whatever photo was available sometimes a grainy image was the only option. I would have loved the option of the male/female/juve/morph/subspec. which is now open to Opus.

Surely the "better photographs needed" is not necessary and it is up to the opus editors to look through the other images tab on them to choose which shows the plumage distinguisihing markings etc. What may be considered by the photographer as a stunning example of the bird is not necessarly the one that is the correct one. During my time I even had to change photographs which were from well known photographers on here to others which showed the id to a premium. It also may cause upset or embarassment if someone thinks they have got a better photo puts if forward for this "better images" category and then not included.

I spent hundreds possibly thousands of hours looking for new species and upgrading photos in the database, so surely it could be organised between the group to either choose a letter or type to go through and check them all which is what I used to do.