I have posted quite a few observations over the 6 months since I found and joined iNaturalist. My primary focus is photography… I do mostly macro wildlife photos and of course like to know what I have photographed and I’m very grateful for all the IDs I have gotten.
I only post observations with photos that meet my personal asthetic standards. My goal is to contribute to the pool of reference images (while of course staying consistent with the wider goals of iNaturalist).
I have searched, but is there a subgroup within iNaturalist for photography-focused observers?
Also, what is the process by which “reference” photos are selected?
Anyone can select reference photos for a taxon, but ideally it will be done by someone who knows what the relevant characteristics are for identifying the species/genus to make sure that the photos selected will show those characteristics. That being said, I’ve added reference photos for a lot of plant taxa which had only one or two photos, even if I wasn’t familiar with the species. I try to make sure the photos show flowers, fruits, leaves, habit, etc. - rather than just 12 slightly different photos of pretty flowers, as I’ve seen before. I think there are various posts on the forum with thoughts about photo selection, if you’re interested in searching for others’ opinions.
I don’t have an answer to your question but I do have a suggestion…I have often seen very lovely photographs on iNaturalist but because the user might be more focused on getting a pretty picture often there aren’t enough identifying features to get a good ID.
Like a great close-up of a bumble bee from the front but then we can’t see the abdomen, wings, etc to make a research grade ID.
So I suggest when taking those beautiful pictures get different angles and maybe read up on some of the guides on how best to photograph certain species.
I often find myself saying to people ‘do you have any other photos from different angles, even if they are poor?’ Personally I usually try to put the best photos first, but if I only have bad photos from other angles I still include them for the sake of getting an ID.
I’m not sure what a ‘photography focussed subgroup’ would involve. You could create e.g. a macro photography project. You could use that to share advice and build a community around that interest. I would certainly love to be a better macro photographer!
There is an iNaturalist group on Flickr but it doesn’t seem to be very active (latest discussion posts 4 years ago). Flickr has tons of more photography-focused groups though since its primary focus is photo sharing. It has changed back and forth a bunch of times due to changing ownership. Free accounts have had changing limits on how many photos you can have and going beyond that requires a monthly subscription.
Flickr and iNat are integrated with each other for easy import though, both for observations and for taxon pictures. I used Flickr before I knew about iNat, so I started out on iNat by importing all my Flickr photos. Many of them were of the “pretty picture” kind without much thought given to identifying features, so a lot of those older observations are probably never going to get a species ID. I have totally changed the way I photograph all things nature based on my iNat use over the years with a much stronger focus on identifying features.
I found that some of my Flickr pictures had been picked up as taxon photos back in the early days. There is an easy way to pull taxon photos from Flickr. However, since I’ve imported many of them as iNat observations, I’ve tried to change them over to the iNat version wherever I notice these.
This was true until recently, but now you have to have your email confirmed, a certain number of verifiable, observations, and a certain account age before you can do so, this is in response to trolls that were purposely selecting photos of the wrong species, and photos of badly damaged roadkill, as taxon photos
I agree. I often find beautiful photos that I can’t identify because it may be a flower that requires photos of the leaves, stem, arrangement of leaves on the stem, even the underside of the flowers or leaves, to identify to species.
Sometimes I conclude that a particular observer really cares more about making a beautiful record of what they have seen, than about getting observations to RG., and that is a legitimate use of iNat.
But since you state that your goal is to contribute to the pool of reference photos, you should try to take multiple photos, especially of plants or insects.
Your observations need to be identifiable to species to become valid reference photos.
You can always put the best photo first, so that it is the thumbnail seen by IDers scrolling through hundreds of observations.
As you use iNaturalist more, you will notice/meet people who are experts in certain areas. You can send them messages and ask what kind of photos you should take. I did that with fungi/mushrooms and dragonflies/damselflies.
Specifically for fungi/mushrooms: Take a general profile photo of the whole mushroom. Take a photo of the underside where the stem meets the cap. If the mushroom is at the base of a tree, take a photo that can serve to identify the tree. I was told that, if the cap is fully open, the mushroom has fulfilled its purpose and spread its spores. So, knocking it over to get an underside view is not a problem. In fact, one mycologist told me to kick the mushroom after taking photos (Be sure to check your images on your camera to make sure you got good images before kicking.) This will help spread the spores farther.
Dragonflies/damselflies: Get as many angles as you can. For damselflies, often a close-up of the tip of the abdomen is extremely helpful.
Reference images come from taxa level research grade observations.
To get your observation confirmed to that level, usually takes an overall photo and close-up of details needed for identification. A lot of times size matters, so a photo against a ruler or other size reference is helpful.
If you only include wildlife photography style pictures, adding detailed description and measurements can get the observation identified. The key to the genus lists what details are needed.
Alternative reasoning based on the taxa treatment can work too, at least it leads to interesting conversations.
Thank you for your response. I only post pictures that meet a certain personal standard, and I accept that leaving out photos that don’t meet that standard may form an obstacle to my observation reaching RG status. That is something I’m willing to accept. That said, about 45% of my 600+ observations are identified to RG status this far.
Just to clarify; photos do not need to be research grade. They don’t even need to be on iNat; They can also be imported from Flickr, EOL or Wikimedia Commons.
AFAIK, for scientists who are familiar with iNat and want to use it for research, and also for experienced identifiers, RG is not a gold standard of anything. They will “clean up” a taxon by going through research grade IDs and correcting them. RG is more like a suggestion.
