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

joshroot · August 2, 2010

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.

</blockquote>

Nothing will change about the image tagging system other than it may be integrated into the category system to help people find, for example, "elephant" photos within an "animal" category. It really wouldn't be any different than searching the whole gallery for images with the tag "elephant", but it might be a user interface improvement for some people. We also might be able to add such integration to the ratings/critique system to allow people to rate/critique images in their specific area of interest or specialty.

In general though, there will be no big change to the tagging system. It works quite well as is.

brucecahn · August 3, 2010

Hi Josh: I think we need 2 categories for what are now "nudes." One for fine art nudes, a separate category for glamor-pinup-boudoir.

pnital · August 3, 2010

Josh, as far as I remember, one of the categories in the past was "other", which enabled to use it when the other categories in the list did not fit.What do you think?

lauren_macintosh · August 3, 2010

Josh: IN my mind I would think Animals and Birds would go together very nicely:

leighb · August 3, 2010

I recently started a thread that didn't fit anywhere, about using dry ice for special effects in a studio shot.

I put it in Fashion because that seemed most closely related to studio work as opposed to location.

- Leigh

joshroot · August 3, 2010

I recently started a thread that didn't fit anywhere, about using dry ice for special effects in a studio shot.

I put it in Fashion because that seemed most closely related to studio work as opposed to location.

- Leigh

</blockquote>

Only talking about the gallery here Leigh, not about the forums.

joshroot · August 3, 2010

Josh, as far as I remember, one of the categories in the past was "other", which enabled to use it when the other categories in the list did not fit.What do you think?

</blockquote>

I'm not against the idea. But I'd like to see what we can come up with as far as a comprehensive list first. Then look at adding a "misc" category.

leighb · August 3, 2010

OK. Disregard.

- Leigh

pnital · August 3, 2010

What about : Sports Dance ? I add dance to fine arts, but not every dance is fine arts. or: performing arts( on stage), as fine art can be paintings, statues etc.

charleswood · August 3, 2010

Josh: I suppose you are referring to the 14 Photo Galleries - Browse Photo Categories. A bit confusing since the drop down list to further browse has 28 or so categories. Those 28 or so categories are the same as those used to request critiques and ratings. The critique and rating categories apparently evolved over time to split by subject. Those 28 work well enough all things considered, although it is sometimes hard to decide the category for a portrait of a child. Be that as it may....

You wrote: "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."

I would argue for a meta layer unrelated to your present categories. That layer would represent types of photography, not subjects, and allow a result set that is a broad representation of those photography types. Doing so would add a great teaching tool. For example, I would rather see all macro photographs, not just insects. That would give me a better idea of the universe of macro applications. Here is a quick list that does accomodate some subjects.

Abstract Aerial Animal Architecture Astrophotography Candid Car & Vehicle Children Digital alterations Documentary Events Fashion Fine Art Food Humor Infrared Landscape Macro Miscellaneous News/Journalism Night Nude Pets Plants Portrait photography Product Sports Still Life/Studio Travel Underwater

The list is for the most part types of photography which could integrate with your other slice and dice fields. Pictures of gear are product shots. Street is afterall, candid. Nature is omitted, yet flowers are plants. Wildlife, insects and birds are animals. Weddings and concerts are events, as is a dance. Your 28 browse by category field could be improved, but I think that is a separate issue.

anthea50 · August 3, 2010

I would realy like to see a macro category - this is because (to me) not all macro shots are nature or abstracts. I also agree with 'subjects' as catagories - so perhaps a mix of 'subjects' to cover common things we all like to shoot and 'type' of photography, eg. abstract, macro, still life, documentary....

This way, people can search by subject or type depending on their interest.

jim_j2 · August 3, 2010

Hi Josh,

Only a couple of category recommendations/suggestions;

<ul>

<li>Aviation . . . There appears to be quite a following (myself included). </li>

<li>Zoo . . . It really does not fall into the Wildlife or Nature category. It could include animals in capitivity.</li>

</ul>

Thanks for offering the opportunity to provide some input.

Jim j.

JTG1 · August 3, 2010

"Do you mean for photos OF camera gear? As in, a photo of a Leica camera or a Argus flash unit?"

Yes, people do post images of there gear, and others do enjoy looking at it! :)

Also, I saw an entry for *Infrared*, I'd also like to second that as a request.

~Jack

joshroot · August 3, 2010

Josh: I suppose you are referring to the 14 Photo Galleries - Browse Photo Categories. A bit confusing since the drop down list to further browse has 28 or so categories.

</blockquote>

I'm an idiot sometimes. Holy moses.

Charles is correct. There are 28 categories. *sigh*. I will update the original post and hope that I haven't confused the matter too much.

dmc · August 3, 2010

I think some of the current headings could be changed or combined.

Pets, Birds and Insects could be combined to be Animals & Insects. This would encompass all non-human living creatures.

Portraits could contain all human photographs, adults, children and studio except nudes. Nudes, I think, should still be in a class of their own.

The nature heading could encompass flowers, plants, natural landscapes.

A Transportation heading could combine automobiles, planes, boats, bikes, and motorcycles of all sorts.

A B&W fine art category would be a nice addition for those that appreciate the fine art of Black & White Photography.

The Macro category is a must, as I feel, Macro Photographers need to stand out as the art is most challenging. Even though photos in this category could easily fit into other categories, I think it is a nice addition to the site.

Just some random thoughts but what ever the choice, please alphabetize the list for ease of use and give the user a definition of the category. This might be obvious to some but I think there is some confusion, especially among new users to the site, as where to list their photo. Example, where do you put a photograph of a lion you photographed at a zoo? Pets... No, Wildlife.... not really since it wasn't in the wild. Nature... again, No. You get the idea.

Thanks for your time. DMc

tonmestrom · August 3, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred Goldsmith</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 02, 2010; 10:18 p.m. (<a onclick="if (confirm('Are you really want to mark this message as spam and make it hidden from the thread?')) return true; else return false;" href="report-msg-uni?on_what=forum&id=00WzVz&return_url=/casual-conversations-forum/00WzL8?">report spam</a>)

</blockquote>

Storytelling.

</blockquote>

I'll second that. But in order to realise this to max effect it would be really nice if we were able to upload pdf files. This would also potentially benefit the Documentary part of the S&D forum which is now for the most part dormant.

As for categories I think a Urban Landscape categorie would be nice because there is lots of them floating around that get uploaded elsewhere.

cmitchell · August 3, 2010

I think it would be good to have a categorization system that filters via a series of drop down boxes. An example would be a category of Abstract. If that was chosen, the drop down field next to it would offer sub-categories of Abstract such as Architecture, Nature, Other. The category of Animals would have sub-categories of Wildlife, Pet, Domestic and Zoo. This would keep the initial list short while also fine tuning the categorization if needed. Users could also just stop at the initial category without having to choose a sub-category. Here are 23 categories with their sub-categories that I would like to see in a filtering system. Abstract - Architecture - Color - Nature - Objects - Other Altered States - Graphic Design - HDR - Infrared - Other Animals - Birds - Domestic - Pets - Wildlife - Zoo Architecture Children Commercial - Product - Food - Other Documentary - Journalism - News Events - Indoor - Outdoor Fashion Fine Art Humor Landscape - Desert - Farm - Forest - Mountain - Plains - Urban - Valley - Water - Winter Low Light - Low Key - Night Macro Nature - Astrophotography - Flowers - Insects - Macro - Underwater Nudes Portrait Puppies (just kidding) Sports Still Life Street Transportation - Air - Road - Train - Water Travel Wedding

parv · August 3, 2010

I second Lupo L's suggestion of *Food* category, purely for selfish reason to learn & see others' work.

*Astrophotography* should be its own category, certainly not go under *Nature* (as in life, land, water, climate, ecosystem, etc, on planet Earth).

Please don't have a broad category like Nature, then exclude *Birds*, *Pets*, *Insects*, *scapes (other than urbanscape), *Underwater*, etc. from it as they all belong to Nature. In other words, if a photo is of, say a bird, then it is certainly not out of place in Nature.

It would also be less frustrating not to find a sub category (Nature::macro) also being a super (*Macro*).

What is stopping people to put head shots or portraits in *Fashion* as currently it is the fashion here? Or, please define what constitutes a fashion photograph if there is no emphasis on clothes, shoes, accessories, etc.

It should be obvious now about the need of having clear description of a category available while uploading a image and all the descriptions listed on one page for reference.

Is there going to enforcement of categorization, say when a photo does not meet a category at all, or when a photo might belong strongly in another category than the one it was placed in? If not, then what would be the point of this exercise?

je ne regrette rien · August 3, 2010

My proposal would be the following Basically no new categorisation, but just a re-grouping of the existing ones. The categories in the left hand column are those who I suggest to keep, those in the right hand column are the old categories which would be incorporated. No subcategories. The fine-tuning would be done through the tagging. Cars and vehicles is a bit selfstanding, I see it as if we had a category "doors and windows" or "trees": no real need to consider them separately.

My two cents: the smallest number of categories as possible. Most posts fall into a few categories anyway.

<tbody>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Architecture</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Astrophotography</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Digital Alterations</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Documentary</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

<li>Humor</li>

<li>News/Journalism</li>

<li>Travel</li>

<li>Cars and Vehicles</li>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Events</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

<li>Sports</li>

<li>Wedding and Social</li>

<li>Concerts</li>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

<li>Still Life/Studio</li>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Nature & Beings</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

<li>Macro</li>

<li>Landscape</li>

<li>Flowers</li>

<li>Birds</li>

<li>Insects</li>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Nudes</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Fashion</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Portraits</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

<li>Children</li>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Street</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<ul>

<li>Underwater</li>

</ul>

</td>

<ul>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

tom_mann1 · August 4, 2010

[Josh R]: "... My plan is to require photo.net users to choose a category for their images upon uploading them. ..."

I hesitate to jump into a discussion like this knowing how difficult it is to set up categories or a keywording system even for one individual, let alone a whole community of us. In addition, there are quite a few very knowledgeable and thoughtful folks who have already discussed this problem in general terms for any large collection of images or documents, e.g.,

http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/iptc_naa.html

http://metadatamanifesto.blogspot.com/

http://www.iptc.org/std/photometadata/0.0/documentation/IPTC-PhotoMetadataWhitePaper2007_11.pdf

http://www.iptc.org/std/Iptc4xmpCore/1.0/specification/Iptc4xmpCore_1.0-spec-XMPSchema_8.pdf

My fundamental thesis is that a (the?) major problem with categories is that most images will almost certainly fall into several different categories, and if the user is allowed to select only one category, there will be problems when others try to retrieve that image or similar ones. If you allow multiple categories to be selected, then the distinction between categories and keywords/tags gets blurred and we might as well be talking about an improved keywording / querry system. My impression is that very few large image archives use categories, and instead, rely on keywords, whether for browsing or retrieval of individual images.

That being said, let me suggest a somewhat different approach to the one you are considering. I suggest that you set up a system that acknowledges the above problem and allows multiple keywords using a hierarchical, limited vocabulary system. Specifically, a user would not be allowed to upload an image until he/she has selected at least one keyword. If the keyword he selects is not at the top level of the hierarchy, all keywords above it in the hierarchy would also be automatically applied to the image. The system could also automatically add the photo.net user ID number to every image as another keyword, so retrieval by user name / number is also possible.

For example, using the 2 level hierarchical system suggested immediately above by Luca, if a user selects "Humor" as a keyword when submitting an image, the keyword, "Documentary" is also applied to the image. The user might then select another keyword, "Wedding", so the keyword "Events" would also be automatically added to his image. Such a system would allow anyone searching for certain types of images to be as general or specific as they want. If they want to find all nature photos, they will find them. If they want to find humorous photos, they will find them; if they want to find all photos of humorous events at weddings, they can find them just as easily, so long as the facility for Boolean operators is provided, (ie, like Google provides, eg, {wedding AND humor}).

The requirement that every image have at least one user specified keyword/tag plus a user ID keyword ensures that every image can be found.

Obviously, it's important to make the keywording process as painless as possible. A keyword entry page similar to the column structure shown by Luca (above) plus check boxes would be easy to understand and fast to use. Keeping the number of choices low is obviously highly beneficial in ease of use. The image search facility could look like Google's or could be essentially identical to the keywording page, and like it, use check boxes.

The desire that images of nudes shouldn't accidentally pop up in searches for other images is reasonable and can be dealt with equally easily. When a user is submitting an image, not only are they required to select at least one keyword from the hierarchy, they must also select either NSFW (eg, nudes) or Suitable_for_work (SFW) before their image can be uploaded. When searching, the default option would be, like Google's image search, SFW-only. Implementation of this would be trivial. Every user search would simply have the Boolean criterion "AND SFW" appended.

My proposal may sound a bit abstract, but I believe something along these lines is the most efficient at tagging and retrieving images, would be very, very fast and easy to use, and could be easily modified in the future as needs change.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 on the subject.

Tom M

wood · August 5, 2010

I like the ideas suggested that include subcategories, and the more the better. I can imagine the number of images resulting from requesting all "Nature" photographs. It would probably take days to view all of them. And I would also suggest that the results from any category request be randomly displayed for each request. I applaud Josh for taking this on. We should all keep in mind that the final category list will not please everyone, but this added functionality will still make this site more useful.

doug_williams4 · August 5, 2010

Why not put Astro, some mico and other science related photos into a Scientific category.

AJHingel · August 5, 2010

Some few comments and suggestions concerning the present list.

The TRAVEL category is confusing for a place like PN that is supposed to be international. What is travel for some, is "own backyard" for others . Could be deleted as category. Street photography from the city of Taipei is street photography whether the photographer happens to be on travel or not.

The FINE ART category is as far as I can see confusing because of lack of clear and shared understanding of what it is. Could be deleted in my eyes

No joke, but I have never understood what to do with the category of HUMOUR. In most cases it would be an "event", "children","portrait", "documentary" or any other but "humor" alone is difficult to imagine. Could be deleted I would think.

I agree with Howard that what he describes a CANDID PORTRAITS is a need (I call them "stolen" portraits) STILL LIFE / STUDIO is surely a category that makes sense but we see many still life shots that are shot outside studio conditions and often described as ABSTRACT. I would not argue for an "abstract" category because of difficulties of defining it clearly but CANDID STILL LIFE could be a category that is not covered for the moment. There is a confusion as far as I can see between the STREET and ARCHITECTURE categories. Architecture in streets, which I personally love shooting can be found in both categories for the moment. Maybe the STREET (PEOPLE) category would be clearer and ARCHITECTURE (TOWNS/COUNTRY SIDE) would be clarifying.

And two small question: can we imagine a CAR that is not also a VEHICLES. What is SOCIAL if it is not a WEDDING?

Hope this is useful.

quasifoto · August 6, 2010

I always thought there should be a "Seascape" category. Maybe because I do way too many of them!

ejchem101 · August 6, 2010

Maybe a beginner category? Kind of like the forum, but for photos :)

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in