I feel we are reaching little-o notation grade just for sake of objection here. I am not even sure if taking pictures of extinct specimen in a museum is something which could be considered an observation in iNaturalist. But maybe it is, who knows.
I’ve added a photo or two that I edited because I’m a photographer and when I would see something that caught my eye I’d snap it. I had some interesting shots I took stored in my phone previous and was curious what they were so I posted. I never altered the image to any degree that would change the natural appearance of the image to any large degree just slight alteration in mood or tone. In fact a lot of camera phones add some sort of vibrancy to a photo automatically. I get what you mean totally and actually if I do have my nice camera out I don’t touch the image and will just upload because it makes sense!
2 Likes
absolutely. I’ll try to elaborate on my personal view which does not overlap 100% with iNaturalist’s
but tries to stay true to the definition of Natural history which should be the range of a pNaturalist (p for paper based)
T. Eisner: “The close observation of organisms—their origins, their evolution, their behavior, and their relationships with other species”
altered, for me, means that either you physically take the specimen and you change intentionally its appearance (paint it, physically alter it et similia) going beyond what is strictly required to show/store its features (sections for fungi etc) or, in case of photography you get a picture and you significantly alter the colors (e.g. turn BW, or tweak the colors to make it look different).
Just imagine to behave like a man/woman of science would do. Maybe you’ll do it wrong but it won’t be that wrong
And then, no one here requires to include in the picture a color reference - but from this to remove RG channels and just leave B there is some difference!
In the example of the drawing on a mushroom I don’t feel it is a particular way of engaging with nature- it’s just using nature for me. And saying oh, it’s just a fungus, the micelium is alive is correct but neglects the attitude. which brings along some callosity and moves the limit of what is felt acceptable.
And then think of it: the time you spend to carve the basidia of a mushroom you might have spent it to look and document another living being just a metre away. Just stop. Pick a 1 square mt. Observe. You’ll find something if you are in the woods.
It’s a matter of drawing a line somewhere for me. There cannot be none.
To summarize, i would not like to see around, for instance
- mushroom turned into a drawing board
- splattered, painted, insects
- painted, gutted, amputated animals
- tree chopped down to better show leafs and count the rings to show the age
Sensitivity is quite depending on the individual. I was thinking of that reading, above, the comment of a botanist who felt annoyed for a plant needlessy eradicated. And I understand we share the same view even if I am a common nothing. Interacting precisely with him in an obs, to proof that a plant was not bulbous, instead of eradicating it I eroded the ground with water just as much was required to snap a pic (and mulched back once done). Was that a rare specimen? Nope. Ranunculus. Loads in my place
I’d like to see more of things done according that sensitivity.
The remaining people, for me, can go on its own way - I do not expect to hammer experiences into their mind. But I am sure that there is no experience they can viceversa give to me in the other direction. I walked past that, and it has been a journey.
Snowflake? Maybe. But I have seen so many changes in the natural world around me in my short lifespan that now I tiptoe.
Still I’d enjoy a filter to cut that stuff out.
As pointed out by @tiwane it’s not a phenomenon right now, hope it won’t spread, I believe it is valuable talking about this and keeping and eye on the matter.
Enjoy iNaturalist! It’s an amazing platform, which accomodates an amazing diversity.
2 Likes
I know what you are on about edolis - just some tangential thinkers about in here. If I am trying to identify something and think I might know the family, for instance, I might browse all photos in that family for a region. So if “artistically” modified photos come up first (perhaps because they have been faved once or twice) it is harder to figure out what is going on. If such a flag existed it could automatically sort those images to the end of the list. But as mentioned already, these images are relatively few so the cost-benefit ratio is too high.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.