While this is a good reason and you should definately mention it, especially if you can back it up with some data, it was just not an idea I had in mind when encountering iNat on my own. I was not aware of how much the data collected here can indeed be useful to science when I stumpled in here. So this was just not a reason to get me started here, but it contributes to keeping me here
3 Likes
I have been an amateur wildlife photographer for 20+ years before iNat came around.
Some positives:
- iNaturalist gives me a place to share my photos.
- iNaturalist also gives me an opportunity to think more about my photography. Sometimes I used to only shoot the artistic shot, but iNat forces me to think about catching the diagnostic shot as well.
- My photography will be seen by many, many more people than almost any other mechanism of distribution. I will live forever (on iNat - at least until this “internet thing” gets replaced?).
Some potential down sides:
- Copyright issues. Even if you post a photo as being copyrighted (mine are all CC by NC though), not everyone respects those boundaries. However, this isn’t really any different than displaying your work anywhere else on the internet now. If you don’t want people using your photos, don’t post them on the internet?
- Contrary to number 2 above, sometimes iNat leads me to take the “boring” diagnostic shot and not wait for the artistic shot?
I thought I would add here that there are many recordists on iNat for whom similar thoughts apply. I have been recording frogs for decades, and now I can share those recordings and document the data by posting frog recordings. I only have 266 recordings of species on iNat (mostly frogs and toads) but others have thousands of recordings or recordings of thousands of species!
I’m sure the same principles exist for recordists - an opportunity to share and document.
4 Likes
I went the opposite way… I started with photography but years later I realised I enjoyed much more the actual observation than the photography itself. But don’t tell them that! 
I started as a photographer (mostly landscapes infused with natural lighting, very fond of filtering lights through canopy before reaching mosses on branches or ferns. It was my niche). It was before digital cameras, so quite technical and, to be frank, once on paper, most often a bit disappointing. Then I wanted to photograph underwater, so I started diving. Turned out I enjoyed much more the diving itself than photography.
One thing that I liked about iNaturalist, and I think wildlife photographers will appreciate, is that you have control over your copyrights.
Then as I used a bit more iNat, I started talking some pictures only for iNat and others just for me (more aesthetically pleasing but low ID value). So nowadays, now I’ll have the following priority:
- Look at the specimen attentively. Be on the moment.
- Take an identifiable shot (can’t trust my memory) and for iNat.
- Take a pretty shot.
Therefore, if anything, iNat made me a worst photographer but a much more fulfilled person! So, just tell them about how iNat respects their ownership of their photos while sharing them for science. 
6 Likes
You might want to also mention the additional data observers can document such as feathers, tree hollows, interactions (preying on, eaten by, infected by), banded, tracks. and many others.
2 Likes
Relatable, I’m much less a photographer than I used to be.
3 Likes
That’s quite definitely a positive factor for me. I have always been into photography for as long as I can remember and in the specific case of nature photography, it’s always meant much more to me than simply having an attractive image. It’s a way of trying to communicate my love for nature and hopefully encouraging other people to do the same. Like many of us, I first came to iNaturalist to get help IDing my images, but I soon moved on from that. Now I deliberately set out to take good (I hope!), clear, diagnostic images of even common plants and animals and post them to iNaturalist with the precise aim of helping others to ID what they’ve seen. The knowledge that I can contribute to scientific research and/or conservation while also helping others get closer to nature has been a great stimulus for me.
5 Likes
To iNat? - In this fashion: Was a lifelong photographer of wildlife and on one occasion I happened to capture on video and with photographs three hawks (unknown ID to me at the time) chasing song birds in a large shrub. The hawks were also running on the ground like a Velociraptor chasing the birds. I was showing some friends, they said “post your images up at iNaturalist”, they sent me the
link, I set up the account, and I posted many previous observations. I soon learned I was observing juvenile Cooper’s Hawks (I learned this thanks to the ID from others here), and then I quickly dived into learning about the identification of Hawks - so iNaturalist became a place to share wildlife photography, and I learned to “teach” others with identifications over time, and then by teaching (sharing info and photos) I was also learning over time. And it continues - since 2019.
4 Likes
The thing is, what exactly IS a wildlife photographer? The term ‘photographer’ itself has never been so… fluid? Technically, anyone with a camera (which is now anyone with a cellphone) and a living organism qualifies. (“Just look at the sugar maples I captured in this landscape shot!”)
I’ve also noticed a couple of things about enthusiastic people who are very proud to call themselves wildlife photographers. There is a very vague area about what constitutes a ‘pro’ vs an amateur. Many seem to think that with enough likes on a posted SM platform qualifies the title. On with the ‘scripty’ signatures, right? Or maybe because they won a local photo contest at their library and won a ribbon, or their shot was featured on a fundraising calendar. If it makes you feel good, why not, right?
The Dunning-Kruger effect runs very strongly through the photography world. More so today than ever. Cameras/software that use advanced AI for everything from exposure, focus, tracking, stacking, even composition.
There are also people who sign up for every possible workshop, buy all the top gear and…
well, click away. Often without much understanding of what they’re shooting or really how best to go about it. And some hit the tech (and their wallets) really, really, hard. Kind of like the would-be creative writers who invest thousands in the most powerful laptops, or ergo-chairs etc. with the hope that more powerful tools may translate to more creative quality.
Then there’s the ‘imposter syndrome’ crowd. Kind of the opposite of the D-K confidence-pumped crowd. These are folks who wouldn’t dare look at their best stuff as anything more than a ‘pleasant’ lucky event. That keeps recurring. Even with low-camera tech experience or low-end gear.
Another common streak that I’ve come across (as a short-term member of a local photo group) is the ‘arts major’ crowd who often work very hard at legitimizing what others would call technical problems, as something much loftier – abstractionism. Nothing says fine art than slapping a mismatched expensive lens to a very expensive camera and framing the totally blurry results. (A little petroleum jelly on a cellphone lens strikes me as a much less expensive way to experiment.)
Not to dissuade participation in a very enjoyable, often social, hobby. But when you get to defining the pro level? That’s very tricky to nail down. But the one thing that the masters/top pros seem to always mention is that your ability to capture great stuff is directly correlated to your understanding of your subject. The more you know about their habits and behaviours, the more likely you will find, and be prepared for better results.
That’s what I would pitch to a roomful of ‘wildlife photographers’. The whole ‘journey’ aspect of creativity. Are they asking themselves WHY as much as they ask themselves HOW? I’ve seen some fantastic stuff from people who know almost nothing but the basics from simple cameras or phones. And other than ‘pure dumb luck’, they also know and have studied at least a little, about what they are shooting. If you are persistent in digging out answers, your craft will improve quickly and dramatically.
I would also emphasize that the more they recognize as they participate in iNat, the more they will learn to appreciate the enourmous diversity and range of accessibility that observing offers. Not every great shot has to have fur or feathers! Though browse through any SM group with Wildlife in its title and you’ll see that fur/feathers absolutely dominates what you see there.
I quickly ended up concentrating on bugs and other small lifeforms because of two great reasons:
- I discovered that often only in closer macro views were amazing visual features visible.
- you don’t need to travel or wait long to discover new stuff. It’s everywhere once you learn how to find it.
One major lesson I’ve learned in pursuing good wildlife shots (and there are many!) is one that is particularly relevant to those of us who can remember pre-digital photography days. And that is?
Shoot and shoot again. The incredible ‘low-cost’ of storage for digital gear is a HUGE advantage for nature work. If you are prepared to abandon the ‘perfect shot’ approach to shutter button control, you will find yourself significantly upping the ‘odds’ game. If it takes 50 or even 100 shots to get the one that works, so be it. The ability to do this so easily now is a woefully under-appreciated gift to all photographers today.
A final note: beauty vs identification. We know this is a primary struggle within the IDer workflow. How many stunningly beautiful shots are simply missing the identity cues because – well, that angle wasn’t nearly so beautiful. I try to shoot for ID first, and (thanks to the gift of shutter/storage freedom) then go in qucikly for the splendour. This is where more shooting equals better shots. When you don’t have time to think – just react. As for the ID issue, I’m not sure most non-iNatters will think of this as a problem though. Still, might be worth mentioning what the priorities are.
Good luck! Please let us know how it goes.
3 Likes
I am an amateur birdwatcher and amateur photographer.
Before joining iNat my focus was on landscape with geological features, streetscapes and natural habitats.
My interest in orchids, grasses and mosses started as a photographic challenge and I ended up at iNat to find out what I saw. I stayed on to learn more about what grows at places I visit.
I found the web app easy to navigate. I never watched the tutorial, only looked up how to identify. The phone apps are not for me, the screen is small and my inbuilt phone camera is way inferior to the dedicated gear.
I encountered some iNaturalist pages while searching for flora and fauna of places I planned to travel. I think those were project summaries. I did not know at the time that I can add my photos.
After I joined, I was not aware that I am allowed and expected to identify other people’s photos (observations) until I started reading the Forum.
The language around identifications is still confusing to me. Leading and maverick, what does it mean? I found that I can safely ignore these.
I have no reservations loading my photos. I try not to be up to date so I don’t advertise my current location.
When it comes to wildlife photographers who are new to iNat, I think they need a word of caution that anyone can download the original photos they post.
The experience of new users depends on how their expectations are primed.
iNaturalist is a civilised community. Most of the time friendly but always polite, even if the discussions are robust or just factual.
iNaturalist is great showing what other people have seen before at any location or where was the organism of one’s interest was seen lately.
iNaturalist is great for keeping track of places visited.
iNatiralist will suggest identifications of the uploaded photos. One of them MIGHT BE correct. The community will refine or correct the initial identification eventually. The identifiers are volunteers so this can take time, sometimes a lot of time.
Beautiful wildlife photos might not show all the details needed for identification.
Adding photos MAY contribute to conservation and science.
Edit: There are scientists and trained professionals who are also accomplished wildlife photographers. It might be worth asking the audience who can identify their subjects.
1 Like
I was a macro and micro photographer long before joining iNaturalist, and I previously used several other citizen science platforms. I recently outlined my reasons for switching—reasons rooted in my personal values and shaped by my work as a researcher and data scientist who often faces the challenges of restricted data openness.
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/gillessanmartin/122712-why-do-i-use-inaturalist
As a photographer, I believe that an image stored in a structured, online database is far more impactful and accessible to those who need it. Sharing my images under a Creative Commons (CC) license has led to years of rewarding human interactions and even professional collaborations. None of this would have happened had those images remained hidden on a hard drive.
From a technical standpoint, iNaturalist is much more user-friendly for photographers than other citizen science platforms I know (but maybe not as good as platforms specifically designed for photographers ?) . I’m also a wikimedia contributor but the interface to upload images there is really painful (usually I do flickr → wikimedia).
On iNat, two features stand out:
-
Bulk Uploading: I can upload images from multiple observations simultaneously, whereas other platforms often require a one-at-a-time approach.
-
Metadata Integration: iNaturalist efficiently extracts species names directly from image metadata (IPTC, in my case).
When asked for images of a specific subject, I used to direct people to my Flickr gallery : https://www.flickr.com/photos/sanmartin/
Today, I often point them to my iNaturalist profile. It is much easier for users to search by any taxonomic level within my specific library of pre-authorized images.
One drawback is that the default view only shows the first image of each observation. To provide a better viewing experience, I sometimes direct people to the following interface, though I find the layout less polished than the native iNaturalist page:
Another drawback is the images size limitation to 2000px on iNat but for most usages this is enough and I encourage people to recontact me if they need higher resolution (in that case I foten put the image on wikimedia and/or flickr)
Good luck with your talk @tiwane !
7 Likes
Now that is really cool, didn’t know it existed! Thanks for sharing.
4 Likes
I started photo’ing wildlife when I was working as a wildlife biologist, mainly to document species I encountered and for slide shows. That was in the film era of cameras. Later, when I went digital, it was to share photos with the wildlife agency I worked for and many were used in agency publications, websites, etc. I started posting my pics on Flickr and some were used by others in publications, with my permission. But Flickr is not biology-focused and lacks the framework that iNat has so when I got into iNat it seemed a much better fit for my interests, including the community. I like having a place to archive my photo vouchers, especially for species that warrant documentation.
2 Likes