Equally as has come up in another thread do not over-ID from even good quality pictures. If the required features cannot be seen in the pictures to go below a genus then don’t go below a genus. Even more if the required features cannot be seen without dissection don’t go below a genus or appropriate sub-group above species for ANY photograph.
3 Likes
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/whats-the-worst-pic-you-uploaded-to-inat/40286?u=maite39
This is the place where you can upload your poor quality photos.
2 Likes
I’ve taken some crappy photos of birds that were still identifiable because the range of possible species was fairly limited. I’ve taken some pretty good photos of insects that weren’t identifiable below family, sometimes genus, because the characteristics needed to get to species weren’t visible and can’t be without a macro pic of some tiny feature. Not every organism lends itself to an easy ID, even with a pretty good pic. Just the reality.
11 Likes
If picture quality is technically limited but your quality standards assure the object is at least identifyable to a reasonable place in the family tree of life, why not posting it? You then apply better standards than many others do, the more if you additionally describe your observation in the comment field.
Pending the species, it can be ID’d even to the end. I have a picture of a bright orange bird shape spot which astonishingly to me has been agreed by three other users to be Foudia madagascariensis because of unique color, size and location. But if somebody came and tell me it could be an escaped canary, i would not oppose.
2 Likes
In addition to my tendency to use my camera at distances it’s really not good for, I’m developing a tremor in my hands – very slight so far, but it sure doesn’t help the quality of my photos. (I may end up getting a monopod/trecking pole, but not yet) But I love posting to iNaturalist and intend to keep it up. So, you can reasonably expect to post better photos than mine anyway, a lot of the time. Post stuff! If your photo as has accurate date and place and has some minimal hope of being identified, go for it!
8 Likes
Here is a good example of a good photograph that the species still cannot be ided beyond family. I only got a front angle on the Robber Fly and seeing some of the side is necessary to get to species. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/133585618
1 Like
As long as it’s at least somewhat identifiable I believe it’s worth uploading, I have plenty of observations that aren’t very high quality photos but they are still useful data :)
1 Like
I don’t agree with this because it is patently false for bird photos. You cannot buy a camera for 100 USD that will get anything more than blob birds. A point-and-shoot with about 50x zoom is the mere beginning about those are now running about 700 USD, and are still pretty poor for waterfowl or shorebirds that aren’t even that far away. I do agree that blob photos are pointless, but let’s be real, a lot of amateurs cannot afford the gear necessary to appease reviewers on any site depending on what one is trying to capture, especially not these days, as they go up in price.
4 Likes
It’s certainly true that for bird photography you really have to invest in some gear that is not cheap if you want to get IDable photos of subjects that are at distance and/or elusive. I went many years without photo’ing birds much until I finally gave in and had the extra cash to buy some good telephoto lenses and a new SLR camera. But not everyone can afford to do that. I certainly couldn’t for many years.
2 Likes
This is yet another iteration of the inherent conflict between iNat’s two goals of encouraging people to connect with nature and providing data. On the forum, we tend to get disproprtionately more users who prioritize the latter – as shown by the fact that this thread is only the most recent one on the same theme. We have had many threads lamenting the “poor quality of observations.”
Let us remember the OP was expressing a very different feeling:
Some of the replies seem to imply that this person shouldn’t be here.
1 Like
I do not agree with you. A bad photo with written contextual evidence is sometimes better than no observations at all.
But I do consent in having seen lately too much evidence in our region for certain users not understanding the scope of an observation or of how giving evidence. This paired sometime even with the same lack of others in confirming ID’s.
There is an obvious lack of or unwillingness to training.
That the system is then guiding other users into interpersonal combat of downrating entries is not helping and not broadly accepted by users for reason.
1 Like
This is a slight tangent, perhaps, but have others noticed “observations” that seem to be photos of something in a book or on a screen? I am relatively new here and have just started looking at the Unknowns to see if I can assign high-level IDs (I have no expertise but figure I can earn my keep here by at least sorting butterflies from mammals).
This one seems to be a picture of a picture on a tablet: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/308258901
These three also seem to be pictures of a computer screen:
I had at first ID’d one as Birds but then noticed that it wasn’t simply a poor picture, but rather a picture of a picture, so I withdrew it. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/308193636
New user (started yesterday) Finding their way on iNat. User name - Liceo - is a school ?
I left a comment - Please upload your own pictures of what you see
Checked if the pictures are scraped from the internet - not this time - otherwise you can flag for copyright.
1 Like
I wonder if similar cases might be people trying to use this like a Google Image search or similar, just wanting to know what the organism is. Which of course just fills the site with useless images. I later came across a photo of a floral arrangement. Maybe there needs to be a better “getting started” intro for new users.
1 Like
Flower arrangement is Not Wild.
If the ‘Flowers’ are from a factory, not nature, then it is Homo sapiens.
Casual either way.
1 Like
I have seen yucca palms posted in central Europe too 
.
If a guided introduction while uploading first observations would be made obligatory to new users, it should do no harm but limit such consequences.
Maybe something like discobot, guiding through the first five observations and explaining general objectives of I-Naturalist.
Nothing against having this coaching AI assisted and mark it is as such to reviewers.
2 Likes
But in answer to the original question, there is a situation where a picture of a picture is allowed, although not ideal: when someone takes a picture of the image on their viewfinder. There have been some discussions of why people do that.
2 Likes
The picture below is qualitatively good! Just tell me where the “blob” is.
But I cannot exclude that in the last millenia, there might once have been a White-throated Dipper on this point of the creek.
From that perspective, any blob plus a good story would be a thousand times better than this observation from this very active observer. Intention matters more than capability and money.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/308388426
P.S. I decided to refuse reviewing ID’s from that direction. It’s pointless to exchange with people who apparently know and have everything.
2 Likes
Tempted to ID it as American Flamingo.
3 Likes