Jump to content

Categories! Let's update the image categories! Your chance to help...


Recommended Posts

<p><b>PLEASE SEE EDIT NOTE AT BOTTOM OF THIS POST</b></p>

<p>Currently all image organization on photo.net is done via image tagging or simple image captioning. In order to look at "nature" photos you need to use the image tag system to search for images tagged with the word "nature" or use the caption search for all images with "nature" in the title. No category system exists for all gallery images. Photo.net currently has one place that we use "categories" for images and that is within the critique/ratings system. You can look at all "nature" images in the results of the ratings rankings, but that is not a particularly efficient way as it misses a lot of images from photographers who don't want to use the ratings system.</p>

<p>My plan is to require photo.net users to choose a category for their images upon uploading them. This will allow viewers to say "I'd like to see all 'nature' images on the site" or "I'd like to see all 'pet' photos on the site" and so on.</p>

<p><strong>Here is what I would like suggestions on: What should the categories be?</strong></p>

<p>We currently have 27 categories. I would like to avoid running that number up too high, 20-30 is probably a good goal. We do not need 60 categories that end up being something like "Pets that aren't cats or dogs but aren't farm animals either". This needs to be kept as broad as possible while still allowing some amount of separation between stuff like "Nature: scenics" and "Nature: animals". The image tagging system can be integrated into any category browsing system so that users could look for images in a specific category that were also tagged with the word "goat" or "hedgehog" or whatever.</p>

<p>For the record, here are the current categories:</p>

<ul>

<li>Architecture</li>

<li>Astrophotography</li>

<li>Cars and Vehicles</li>

<li>Children</li>

<li>Concerts</li>

<li>Digital Alterations</li>

<li>Documentary</li>

<li>Events</li>

<li>Fashion</li>

<li>Fine Art</li>

<li>Flowers</li>

<li>Humor</li>

<li>Landscape</li>

<li>Macro</li>

<li>Nature</li>

<li>News/Journalism</li>

<li>Nudes</li>

<li>Pets</li>

<li>Portraits</li>

<li>Sports</li>

<li>Still Life/Studio</li>

<li>Street</li>

<li>Travel</li>

<li>Underwater</li>

<li>Wedding and Social</li>

<li>Birds</li>

<li>Insects</li></ul>

 

<p>We do not need to keep every one of these current categories. Some are much MUCH less used than others and could reasonably be replaced by a new category in conjunction with the image tag search system in order to help someone find the images that would have previously appeared in the old category. However, any removal of an old category needs to be accompanied by a suggestion for a new category where those images would now appear. For example, if you think that the "astrophotography" category should be eliminated, you would need to have some sort of category in your suggested list for the "astro" category to be folded into.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that the categories should be accessible to as many types of photographers as possible. We want to keep the site friendly to beginners as well as advanced shooters. "Fashion" and "documentary" can be tough for someone starting out, but "pets" and "children" might be passe for those who have been shooting for a long time and have honed in on what their specialty is. We need to have versions of all four examples to serve the needs of different photographers with different subject opportunities and different skill levels. Please do your best to think broadly and not just base your suggestions around what you personally like as a photographer. It doesn't do any good for me to hear suggestions that break street photography down into 4 different genres and then has all animal photos lumped into one catch-all category.</p>

<p>Finally, there HAS to be a place for nudes to live, and ideally it needs to be a single category. People typically either want to see all the nudes or don't want to see ANY of them. I'd like to make both easier.</p>

<p>Here's a chance to help improve Photo.net. I don't know exactly how it is going to go, and I am sometimes hesitant to get into large discussions like this because of the fact that the chances of reaching a consensus on a forum thread topic such as this are very slim. But I truly am interested in hearing what the community has to say. I doubt that everyone is going to be perfectly pleased with whatever I end up deciding to do. But I hope that suggestions here can help me make the decision that will allow a large majority of our members to say "okay, this works well enough and is an improvement from what we had before".</p>

<p>I thank you in advance for your suggestions.</p>

<p><b>EDIT NOTE:</p>

<p>I'm a knucklehead sometimes. I posted the wrong list of categories in the original post. My apologies.</b></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Josh,you surely brought up a hot topic. I reckon that whichever will be the categories some of them need a little explanation, especially for members who may not be comfortable with some english terms. If "nudes" or "birds" (no pun meant) may be pretty simple to undestand "documentary" may be a little trickier. Many amateurs, like myself, do shoot mainly while on vacation, more often during a trip. So, will my Mexico pictures filed as "documentary", along with those amazing North Pole photos taken by a pro? To many of us it will sound a bit boastful, unless it is clearly said that "documentary" means "travels" as well. By the way, I'm not sure whether I want a "travel" category, since what may be travel for others could be home to me. Same goes for the "street" category, definitely one of my favourite, but then we must first decide what "street photos"are. Billions of pictures are taken on the street, but then which are real "street"? All in all, I fear I haven't contributed many proposals, but just shared a few confused thoughts. So, summing it up, I would add "portrait" and "street", and maybe merge "concerts" and "events".<br>

Cheers, Marco</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Marco brings up one of the largest issues with this sort of thing, do people categorize by subject matter, technique or genre?</p>

<p>There isn't really any good way around it that I have been able to come up with to completely solve the issue.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Josh,<br /> Thanks for allowing us input. A year or more ago I asked where unposed street portraits fit. Now's my chance!</p>

<ol>

<li>Children</li>

<li>Landscape</li>

<li>Macro</li>

<li>Nature</li>

<li>Pets</li>

<li>Portrait <br /><ol>

<li>Formal</li>

<li>Candid</li>

</ol></li>

<li>Sports</li>

<li>Still life</li>

<li>Street</li>

<li>Transportation</li>

<li>Wildlife (includes birds)</li>

</ol>

<p>plus most of the original categories</p>

<ol> </ol>

<ul>

</ul>

<ul>

<li> Abstract </li>

<li> Architecture </li>

<li> Astrophotography </li>

<li> Concerts </li>

<li> Digital Alterations <em>Defined as?</em></li>

<li> Documentary </li>

<li> Events - <em>What do they include? concerts, parades, circuses? other?</em></li>

<li> Fashion </li>

<li> Fine Art

<ul>

<li>Nudes</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li> Underwater </li>

<li> Wedding and Social</li>

</ul>

<p>This makes 25 unless concerts gets put under events. Hope this helps.</p>

<ul>

</ul>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Josh,<br /> Why does it have to be subject matter or technique or genre? Tagging can include all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I realize that tagging can include any and all of those. But this conversation is more about creating categories than about the tagging system. I have a feeling I am missing something, so perhaps could you rephrase the question?</p>

<p>In general though, the issue is that someone could have a black and white photo of a dog at a 4th of july parade. Now, one could make a case that this should go in a "black and white" category, a "pets" category, or a "events" category. You could probably even make a case for a "documentary" category or a "street" category. That's the sort of confusion that makes having multiple kinds (subject, technique, & genre) of categories confusing. Personally, I would prefer that any photo of a dog go into a "pets" or "animals" category because that is where I think people who are looking to see photos of dogs will look. Hence, I say that "subject" is my preferred way of categorizing. But I doubt that we will come up with a list that is only subject based. I think it ends up being impossible.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>After using Nature as an example, is it me or is there no "nature" category on the list ?</p>

<p>If birds, why not other wildlife?</p>

<p>I think Jack means: For Classic Manual Cameras forum, definitely a "Camera Porn" or "Naked Cameras" category.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>After using Nature as an example, is it me or is there no "nature" category on the list ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was just trying to make up some examples. I probably should have chosen something more clear.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've always struggled a bit with the Wildlife vs. Pets stuff. I think "Wildlife" is fine, but would rather see "domestic animals" or something simlar. "Pets" works for cats, dogs, and hamsters ... but doesn't really feel right for racehorses, oxen, goats, roosters and so on. Yes, I'm splitting hairs.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would think that both "Astrophotography" and "Underwater" would be better served as sub-sects of a more general category, possibly "Nature," which was left off of the original list. I would also suggest that there be a category for Animals that is further subdivided into "Birds" and "Other Animals" and possibly a separate sub-category for "Pets." The only other thing that I would consider to be missing from that original list is a "Landscape" category and a "Sports" category.</p>

<p>Additionally, I think that it would be helpful if the page where photographers select a category include an explanation of each category, so that people will better understand which category their photo fits into. Nothing very elaborate, just something like "Abstract: pictures of things that are not immediately recognizable. Architecture: pictures of houses, skyscrapers, bridges, ect." and so on, to help keep things from being classified incorrectly. There are some instances where a photo might fit into event or documentary or concert if someone is not sure what the definition of each category is.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>what about classifying as "film" or "digital?" These wouldn't be separate categories, but maybe this could be specified when uploading. If someone searches for photos, all photos would come up, but if they wanted to separate film photos from digital ones, then they could do that.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Over the years I've seen some members request a "film" oriented image category for critiques/ratings, or one for traditional b&w photography. Such a category would probably be welcomed.</p>

<p>Some photographers may prefer critiques informed by recognition of the process as well as the pure aesthetics of the photograph regardless of process. I will adjust my own critiques of others' photographs if I know the process involved. Saves a lot of aggravation from having to reply to uninformed critiques:</p>

<ul>

<li>"Yes, it is soft. It's a pinhole photograph. Diffraction is unavoidable at f/250"</li>

<li>"Yes, it is very blue. It's a cyanotype."</li>

</ul>

<p>The tricky part is making it as inclusive as possible. I'm not sure there's enough demand for separate categories for Color Film, B&W Film, Alternative Process, etc. But I could be wrong. Maybe it's a case of "If you build it they will come."</p>

<p>Might be better to choose a category name that seems inclusive enough to invite submissions from photographers using any media that involves traditional light sensitive materials as a significant part of the process: enlarger produced prints on light sensitive papers from film based negatives; alternative light sensitive contact prints from large format inkjet negatives; pinhole photos directly to paper (no "film" involved); etc.</p>

<p>I dislike the word "analog" to describe the pre-digital light sensitive processes (seems akin to a backronym - an awkward mutation of the word analog to differentiate these processes from digital). But it may be the least bad compromise in this case.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Good idea. I would vote for fewer rather than more categories. For example, Nature, Astrophoto, and Underwater could be combined under Nature.</p>

<p>May I suggest allowing multiple tags? Many photos are not easily categorized, and erring on the side of inclusivity rather than exclusivity is a plus IM[-H]O. </p>

<p>We could have one set of categories for subject matter and another for technology. The shooter could choose one or more from either or both groups.</p>

<p>For a category system to work, the potential viewer must anticipate the shooter's interpretation of the content. The more categories, the fewer matches. </p>

<p>For example, I might put a pic in the Architecture category because that accurately describes the subject, but I took the photo because of the colors and how they interact, so in my mind it's an artistic rendering.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The "film" and "black/white" and "digital" suggestions are all better served by the tagging system (or some other search system) than by a specific category as far as I am concerned. They just muddy the category waters further if you try to force them in.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that, as of now, there are no such things as subcategories. Suggesting subcategories is essentially the same as suggesting two different categories. Which is fine. But it counts as 2 against the over number.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>May I suggest allowing multiple tags? Many photos are not easily categorized, and erring on the side of inclusivity rather than exclusivity is a plus IM[-H]O.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm a little confused by this, as we already have an<a href="../help/gallery/photo-tagging/"> image tagging system</a> that allows multiple tags. Can you explain further?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>We could have one set of categories for subject matter and another for technology. The shooter could choose one or more from either or both groups.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had actually thought of that this morning after Marco made his post. I will have to have a conversation with Jin to see what he thinks of the possibility of having a main subject based category and then a secondary (optional) technique or genre category. I'll see what we can come up with.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I'm a little confused by this, as we already have an<a rel="nofollow" href="../help/gallery/photo-tagging/"> image tagging system</a> that allows multiple tags. Can you explain further?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Josh,</p>

<p>I understood your original post to mean that you were re-vamping the system, so I had no reason to assume that current policies would carry forward.</p>

<p>Just a suggestion.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...