Generally speaking I tend to take at least 4 images of any plant or animal. Plants are easier of course because they do not tend to hop around or fly off before I can get them in proper focus. The order for plants photos is mostly as follows:
Whole plant;
Flowers if any;
Flower buds if any;
Seed and seed pods if any;
Leaves if any;
Stems and bark.
Some of these are combined of course, viz sorrels - I can take an image of the calyx with the leaves and stems at the same time. I’ve been requested to take habitat shots as well - working on that one.
What do ID’ers prefer when doing bulk ID’s for an order of images so that the ID can get done efficiently and move on? The order as I have it above or some different order? AND IF the habitat shot comes in, does that go last (in many cases it will be duplicated and included for a few obs in the same general area probably)?
I don’t know that there’s any one answer, even for individual identifiers since the characteristics of primary interest vary by photo, but I will say that as an identifier, if I’m feeling tired or less confident on IDs, I tend to gravitate to those that show a clear focused macro image of anything first, it shows me that the person observing cared enough to get it in focus, and knows enough to take the effort to put a good photo first so that identifier effort isn’t “wasted” looking at blurry photos or observations with missing vital characteristics like involucres for Asteraceae for example.
Whole plant photos are great, and I think really important for taxa that already have good ML models for suggested IDs, and to improve those model suggestions, for tree species for example, where many observations are only a single photo of the tree from far away.
Along with focused macro shots, the more distinguishing characteristics you can cram into a single 1st shot the better for me, again so that I know automatically whether it’s going to be likely identifiable or not without having to click and search through all the photos in the ‘identify’ mode. This varies by species, for oaks and manzanitas for example, leaves and MUCH more important than flowers or whole-plant photos, so I prefer seeing that when trying to ID those species.
Taking more than 1 photo already puts you ahead of maybe 80-90% of observers though! :)
On landscape/context shots, these can also be interesting to see 1st, again, mainly for species that already have good ML suggestions for leaf or flower photos, though they are best when not too wide (at least as a first photo) so that I can tell the observer understands that a photo of a tree from 100’ away isn’t always going to be identifiable to species or genus.
I am currently avidly obsessed with identifying Commelinaceae (and have a project foregrounded on such specifically in southern Africa) and have come to realise just how important good photographs are.
Having a close-up view of shoots/stems, leaf sheath, filaments and anthers (flowering parts) is crucial - in some cases to distinguish a subspecies but more often simply to shift from Genus to species level.
Having a habitat/general growth form image is also important but it is something I would personally prefer seeing as a last image - for context - and rather seeing a clear macro shot first. I am sure that for different plants other identifiers might have different preferences. So in general I think your approach of having a combination of images is first and foremost very valuable. As an avid identifier, I applaud your efforts!
Working thru the residue from CNC. Many plants. Mostly damned difficult dicots. If there are multiple pictures for an obs, I look at them all – because it often = multiple sp, please split. Which in turn means, that people who do ID from the first thumbnail, miss that it is MULTIPLE sp.
Think of a page of 30 obs, and then start with your most meaningful photo. For an identifier looking for … dragonflies, or orchids, or lichen or …
I start with the most characteristic photo first. It helps me to drag and drop the other photos to the observation they belong to.
The second one is the overall, followed by different detail.
I would have to agree with @vbjanos although there are times when I don’t know what is the most characteristic photo.
For small plants, eg mosses, I aim for a close up which goes first and finish with an image showing the moss in association with other small plants.
With bigger plants, I tend to do close ups first and the overall plant last. But the important thing is to have both close ups and the whole plant rather than the order.
Also kudos for taking multiple shots. It makes a big difference.
If there is one photo that allows identification, I prefer that first – except that if there’s an especially beautiful or interesting photo, I’d prefer that first. (Interesting? Interaction between organisms or a part that’s important for ID but usually omitted, etc.) It’s easy enough to page through the rest. I prefer habitat last, but I do like to see it. (Remember to take that habitat photo in a way that has the species in it somewhere, even if distant and not identifiable, so the photo meets iNaturalist requirements.)
If the first photo I see is the whole plant and it’s not readily identifiable, I may mentally classify the observation among the zillions that students post of mowed grass or distant unidentifiable trees from landscaping, and fail to give the observation the attention it deserves.
Having multiple photos to work with is so great! (Not so great if they’re all clipped from one short film, so they all show the same organism from the same angle. Or if they’re only two or three close-ups showing different aspects of the flower but no leaves!) Specialized photos are useful for some groups of plants. It’s helpful to group photos by theme, so to speak, such as all details of the flower together, all details of the leaf and its base together, and so forth. If the photos are all there, order is a secondary consideration.
I do mostly plants. I tend to put the closest-up shots first, then move through the intermediate-distance ones, then finally to the context / habitat. That usually winds up putting the most impressive shot first, with the others providing additional details. Sometimes I modify this, though, and put the shot first that I think makes the observation easiest to identify. Sometimes I also modify the order if the CV is providing an ID that I don’t agree with for what would be the first photo.
I’ve wondered the same thing myself, thank you for asking it! I’ll say that personally, a close up shot of the reproductive parts (if present) and any nearby leaves is easiest for me at first glance.
I really like your list, but I’d like to add- underside of the leaf! The underside can be distinctive (Smilax glauca) or sometimes just a really great way to showcase leaf veins, especially on shinier leaves where it may be harder to work out what’s going on. Personally, I put that photo as well as my environment establishing shot at the very end of my obs.
On a bug (and fungi) related note: if your plant is small, and there’s something wrong with it; discoloration, warping, etc; a shot of that damage can be awesome, even if you don’t post it separately for ID! When I go leaf miner hunting, I look through other people’s obs of the host plant and go from there. It’s really handy when someone includes photos of damage!
When observing, I try to recall the taxonomic keys I have used and try to get photos of the characters used there. Of course the characters vary from simple “tree vs shrub” to more complex “palea present or absent”. I usually try to get at least one photo that shows part or parts of the organism that are like no other organism and put that first. For a Coconut, that would be the fruit. There is nothing like a coconut. For a Pine tree, I hold a fascicle of needles against a cone and hold that up with trunk and bark in the background. That’s my “money shot” and goes first (provided all are in reasonable focus). I usually put the habit and habitat photos at the end. For many wildflowers, a good closeup of the calyx and corolla will immediately distinguish the species for someone who knows the genus and I put that first.
I agree with others who suggest trying to facilitate and quicken the identification process.
I read through or skimmed many of the comments. One very big consideration missing is: to the best of my knowledge, the CV still is taught on the FRST photo only. There was comment awhile ago that the 2nd photo was going to be use one day but I’ve not heard anything further. Any way, I’d guess that this an important consideration about sequencing photos? Am I wrong?
The CV can be taught/trained on any of the photos from an observation, regardless of order. What you’re thinking of is that, when someone uploads an observation and queries the CV for that observation specifically, it only considers the first photo in its decision
Not gonna lie, I usually put the prettiest photo first and the most relevant for identification second. If any of my leaf mine photos can be considered “pretty”, that is. lol
I take a lot quite a lot of insect pictures. If I have a nice still subject, I think back to my old technical drawing lessons and try to get a ‘3rd angle orthographic projection’, that’s three shots: side-on, front-on and top down. Sometimes I’ll try for a fourth, rear-end-on angle as well. Usually there’s one angle that just seems to convey the most useful information. For moths, beetles hover flies an many others, that’s top-down. For butterflies it’s often side on. Those will be my first (or perhaps only) photo. Of course, this rarely works out perfectly as most subjects move around and you just have to take whatever you can get.
For birds, I find a single side on shot is usually enough for an ID, so the closest to that will be photo number one.
For the first photo, I try to use one in which the subject takes up a reasonable portion of the frame without too much visual interference from other organisms (i.e. possible to see at a glance which organism is meant) and gives a good sense of what it is, even if not all relevant details are visible (so for plants, usually the whole plant or a largish portion such as a branch, not a close-up of a single leaf or single flower).
An exception to this is for escaped garden plants, where I prefer to use a wide context photo that clearly shows that the plant is in a location not intended by humans; I find that this somewhat reduces the likelihood that they will be reflexively marked as “captive” by users cleaning up observations of garden plants.
Thank you all, this is really good food for thought. And @agapantha@DianaStuder@sedgequeen underside of leaves yes! (which of course I keep forgetting to do, just like checking the map on CV suggestions, grrr). I’ve tried taking a few habitat shots, but those require work still. I used to work with the whole plant shot first, but sometime son windy days those are a bit blurry, so I’m starting to change over to using a proper shot of something decent on the genus like the flower and then adding the other photos in some sort of preferred order. Working on a quick reference order once I’m caught up with cropping.
I’m not sure how it is taught, but it definitely only uses the first photo when making a suggestion on the laptop. So I do split them out again if I get gibberish or if I want to make doubly sure. And then it goes to plants or insects if there is really nothing.
Yes I’ve started doing this as well, I find that having decent location data also helps.