Thanks, Zach.
I went back to the project, and it still linked to the Discover Earth Discord. Maybe it takes a few minutes to update?
Anyway, because of your message, I DID find the Macromania Discord. I made some videos of me joining the server, as well as me leaving the Discover Earth server (to show @ItsMeLucy how easy it is to leave a Discord server).
I have to run right now, but I will post the videos later.
Agreed, and just for reference, here’s iNat’s official guidance on choosing taxon photos:
https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000184018-what-guidelines-should-i-follow-when-choosing-taxon-photos-
And a gentle reminder.
For taxon pictures we have history.
Who added that picture? Who removed it? And replaced it with …
Taxon pictures are visual taxon info. Photography focused is irrelevant, not even secondary.
We need to be able to see the necessary info.
I find that a short sighted and unwelcoming attitude. Noted.
Why short sighted?
Or unwelcoming?
iNat is for engagement with nature. It neither sets out to be, nor claims to be, a photography project. Every site has its own guidelines and rules (including those that ARE for photography)
PS you may find this other thread interesting
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/taxon-photos-of-difficult-to-id-species-full-shots-or-close-ups-of-specific-features/58829
I don’t think she wanted to deterr you from working on taxon pictures. Just that on iNaturalist it is not important to have a visually stunning picture for the taxon but one that clearly makes things visible that make one taxon unique and distinguishable from others (if possible at all)
you can of course combine both the asthetical appearance with a clear view of identifying features. But if you have to choose one or the other, it will be the taxonomic view that is more important.
It is short sighted and unwelcoming because photography is a hobby with wide participation. Many photographers develop an interest in macro photography, and from there develop an interest and appreciation of what they are photographing.
In my case, it has led to a fundamental change in my attitude towards the natural world (and insects in particular), leading to fundamental changes in my gardening practices, use of pesticides, support of conservation societies and seeking to become educated.
However, I still remain a photographer and simply don’t have any interest in submitting observations with “bad” photos, however useful they might be. I can pretty much guarantee that my photos show more detail than the vast majority of observation photos, even if they don’t include the bits that an expert might want to see. How would I even know what those are? If I don’t put my photography entirely in the service of iNaturalist, then I shouldn’t bother?
The thread you referenced emphasizes that there is room for both aesthetic and id-focused photographs. I choose to focus on the former and was simply seeking to connect with others who have a similar focus, the focus you deem “irrelevant”.
I have no intention of modifying taxa photos on my own, I had no idea that was even possible.
That was not about aesthetics. It was about taxon specialists seeing their details versus identifiers getting an idea of the ball park.
We will agree to differ.
You could start a project for Photographers in iNat. You are certainly not the only one who is, or was, a Photographer first and an iNatter second. @tiwane on his blog posts often brings us a maz ing photos! For example
https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/101168-a-swimming-isopod-way-down-south-observation-of-the-week-11-6-24
We are answering the question you started with
Is it possible you are all talking about different things?
Diana is clearly talking about taxon photos, both the one photo that pops up along initial suggestions and the few additional ones that Identifiers, such as Diana, reference when working.
But for those of us who are Random Observers just trying to identify our own photos, all the photos from all the Observations are reference photos, depending how we sort them.
For example, if I see what I know is a Spider in my garden (I am weak at Spiders), and I believe it to be a Jumping Spider but I am not sure, I go to look at the About page for Salticidae, Jumping Spiders. Here is what I see on the About page.
That compilation is very cool and tells me some are hairy and some less so and they come in all sorts of colors but it doesn’t really help me because my spider does not look like any of those, so I click that View More in the greyed out lower right of the ninth quadrants (where Bobby Brady would be).
That opens up alllllll the Photos of Jumping Spiders and before I do anything, I am going to narrow the photos using location (definitely) to show photos of Jumping Spiders near me, alive (possibly), life stage (possibly) and Quality Grade (definitely).
When I do this for Jumping Spiders, only using the Quality Grade (Research) and Location (Yuc, MX), here is what I see:
And that feels a lot more like the Jumping Spiders I see in the garden and makes me feel more comfortable saying, “It is not just a Spider, it is a Jumping Spider!”
All this is to say your photos will be reference photos, just to different groups and in different ways. They do not have to be the taxon photos, which truly, IMO the specialists* should set.
Do not feel put off. There is room at iNaturalist for everyone who appreciates nature, @clausgiloi. :)
*Just not me. This much I know.
In this case you can pretty much ignore the whole conversation about what makes good taxon photos.
Your observations are yours, and as long as you label them properly (like, don’t post a photo of your cat and call it a snake), you can use them however you want. People will see and enjoy your photos, consult them for reference, and use them to identify your observations if they are suitable for that. If they’re not, that’s fine, they may be suitable for something else!
Something else you might be interested in, if you haven’t done it already (a lot of photographers have), is learning about the different types of licenses you can choose for your photos. If they are excellent, even beautiful photos, then some people will absolutely be interested in using them to create artwork, or to illustrate articles, or in all the other ways that beautiful, interesting photos can be used. People absolutely use iNaturalist to find photos for that kind of thing, but it’s up to you what you want to allow.
Thanks for your response… I do understand the controversy regarding most appropriate images for a taxon… I’m happy to leave that to others.
I have a fairly liberal license asking only for attribution.
Thanks, I really had no idea how the photos that show up when a given taxon is searched are chosen… I’m genuinely surprised that it works the way it does. I’d be happy if my photos were chosen by someone else, but would not be likely to autocratically substitute my own photo, even if I thought it was better.
Aesthetics were specifically mentioned in the first post of the thread: “Many people think that the taxon photos should be aesthetically nice, full-body photos of adults, which look nice and make it clear what the taxon generally looks like in the field, but aren’t very helpful for identification. Others feel…”
I did receive a (surprising) answer on how taxon photos are chosen, but your comments about the irrelevancy of photography went beyond that, and is in conflict with the thread you referenced, in that some do believe that photo aesthetics have a role in taxon photos.
What makes an organism photo aesthetically pleasing is sharpness of the image, good contrast and color balance, lack of “clutter” obscuring the subject, and a natural pose if an animal. All can make characteristics needed for ID more evident. Not always, but often.
Have you joined the iNaturalist Discord server, @clausgiloi? There’s a channel there for sharing and discussing photography, in addition to other iNaturalist- and nature-related ones. Here’s a link if you or anyone else want to join. https://discord.gg/YZMQpUv7
Thanks for the invite. I had tried with an earlier link but had no success, but it worked now. Thanks!
