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

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Especially if we will have to categorize our photos, I think its essential that there be a BW category and a COLOR category.</p>

<p>If I put a dog in BW and someone looking for dogs misses my photo because it's not in the ANIMALS or whatever category, that seems fine. I would put it there because the subject matter might not be important to me. Categorizing by subject (in many cases) devalues the essence of the photo. Some BW dog photos are not about DOG at all, but about contrast and texture. That's how many photographers think, and I'd love the categorization mechanism to acknowledge if not encourage such thinking.</p>

<p>I do a lot of photos that contain people that I don't consider portraits, candid portraits, street, or documentary. My most recent photo that has two people in it (at least parts of two people) seems uncategorizeable, and I'd want to put it in a COLOR queue.</p>

[Christa Binder]

<p>Josh, I would like to see a night photography category. It would be a good place for images taken at night that do not fit into the astrophotography category.</p>

[Christa Binder]

.....or just combine astrophotography and night photography into one category.

[parv]

*Low Light* would be better than night photography, else where else would noisy|grainy pictures, say shot in a poorly lit gym even during daytime, go? And, astrophotography is not limited to night in a region, say shooting solar eclipse during the day.

[jpo3136b]

<blockquote>

<p>My plan is to require photo.net users to . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We have responded so well to requirements in the past, with such maturity and grace, that we can't possibly anticipate anything going wrong with this plan.</p>

<p>Category suggestions:</p>

<ul>

<li>You know it's bad</li>

<li>Photo of my girlfriend</li>

<li>Photo of chicks I tried to get to be my girlfriend, but struck out, and am now stuck with this picture</li>

<li>Photo of my girlfriend, wearing jeans, please provide flattering critique or she will never let me live this down</li>

<li>Photo of my girlfriend, when she was in college 20 years ago, because I am now paying the price for what she says is a "fat" remark because earlier this week I did not correctly answer a "Does this make me look fat" trick question.</li>

<li>Fat people walking slowly in public down a local sidewalk as a substitute for gritty "Street" photo</li>

<li>The "Is it a street photo if I use a telephoto lens" picture</li>

<li>Henri Cartier Bresson imitation attempts and failures</li>

<li>Atget or Trash Filled Alley?</li>

<li>Picture of person walking a dog</li>

<li>Picture of a dog on a leash, "taking care of business", because I compose and focus slowly, as a substitute for an animal photo, with selective framing and composition to concentrate on the front half of the animal</li>

<li>Picture of zoo animals labeled, "Wildlife." </li>

<li>Picture of drunk college kids acting like zoo animals</li>

<li>Picture of drunk college kids acting like zoo animals, engaged in group vandalism as a substitute for "political protest" photos</li>

<li>Feet</li>

<li>Feet with toenail fungus</li>

<li>Shutter curtain problem, half of the frame is black</li>

<li>Lens cap on, entire frame black</li>

<li>Exposed to the entire screen white </li>

<li>Completely out of focus, or "radical bokeh"?</li>

<li>Partially colorized photo</li>

<li>Poor color temperature, or are her teeth actually that color?</li>

<li>Photo so heavily edited it's actually a job submission for "Avatar" or other James Cameron movie</li>

<li>Fake UFO photos</li>

<li>Alien Abduction photos</li>

<li>Alien Abduction photos made with Leica and Noctilux</li>

<li>Alien Abduction photos made with Leica and Noctilux, made by the Aliens, after they told me that Leica was the superior answer on their planet, too.</li>

<li>Photo abducted from deep within Apple Developer disc, slightly edited and marked as "Nature."</li>

<li>Dutch tilt</li>

<li>Dutch tilt with bangers and mash</li>

<li>Dutch tilt photos made after drinking Irish beer</li>

<li>Picture of public library as substitute for artsy architecture photo</li>

<li>Automatic 7/7 required</li>

<li>Automatic 3/3 to keep you out of our 7/7 drive for "Top Rated Over-Satu-Rater" Award</li>

<li>HDR: Harsh Dang Recoloring</li>

<li>Powerpoint slide featuring items not actually photos to "feed the beast" in Philosophy of Photography</li>

<li>Powerpoint slide featuring random geometric shapes, but labeled as "Nude."</li>

<li>Actual photo worked on. Comment and send no numbers. Thanks.</li>

</ul>

<p>Just some suggestions. J.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>As this thread progresses, I am beginning to suspect that two different interpretations of the the term, "category" are in play.</p>

<p>I think of a set of categories as a comprehensive division of some subject, in our case, images. Using the above definition, a tiger will be in the "tiger" category and all categories above that (ie, mammals, animals, etc.), but can only be in that one category and not in other branches of a classification tree. This is consistent with the 1st definition of the word, "category", given in dictionary.com.</p>

<p>A significant amount of the discussion on this thread has been about whether a given type of image can be classified in more than one way. For example, a shot of a couple in a restaurant could be simultaneously classified as people, romance, stock, low light, candid, Nikon, etc. Such subdivisions do not fit the above definition of "category" and are better described as "descriptors", "keywords", "tags", "attributes", etc. </p>

<p>While many people use the term "category" more loosely, my sense is that Josh is using the stricter definition:<br>

<em>"... My plan is to require photo.net users to choose a category for their images upon uploading them..."</em></p>

<p>In other words, he wants one, and exactly one category for each image. This can only make sense if a tree-like classification of every image is possible. I think that from the many semi-contradictory suggestions / requests presented thusfar in this thread, as well as common sense, it is clear this simply cannot be done. For this reason, I think that all of the earlier suggestions in this thread should be regarded as keywords, not categories.</p>

<p>BTW, some keywords can be part of a hierarchical, tree-like structure, but because they are keywords, not categories, there can be multiple simultaneous keywords for an image, each, perhaps with it's own mini-hierarchy (...think the hierarchical keywording in Bridge...). This concept is fully in line with some of the suggestions already made in this thread. </p>

<p>So, my strong suggestion would be not to attempt a tree-like classification scheme, but rather, a limited vocabulary, keywording scheme with the possibility of hierarchical keywords.</p>

<p>The reason I suggest this is that it eliminates the confusion that is bound to be present when using a strict category system when both uploading (eg, should my restaurant image go in the BW, people, stock, or low-light "categories") and when searching for images. In addition, there is a very practical reason for making a clear distinction between tree-like categorization and keywording. The fundamental structure of the underlying database, as well as the user interface is very different in the two cases.</p>

<p>Just another $0.02 from me on this subject.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>We have responded so well to requirements in the past, with such maturity and grace, that we can't possibly anticipate anything going wrong with this plan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, there will always be some number of people who do not like being "made" to do something. But there are a significantly larger number of people who keep asking me for ways to have their images seen/promoted/featured on the site. Giving me options for doing this without resorting to the default ratings/critique system for filtering will be a big help in achieving that goal.</p>

<p>Sadly, every change on the site is going to come with someone being unhappy about it. But as long as a lot more people ARE happy about the change, then we're doing alright.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Thanks for the suggestions so far folks. I'm reading every one even if I don't have anything specific to say in reply to each.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What about an "opt out" like with many of the other features? Since some of my photos don't seem to fall into a "subject" category or I may not want them to be seen that way, I'd like to have that choice.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>What about an "opt out" like with many of the other features? Since some of my photos don't seem to fall into a "subject" category or I may not want them to be seen that way, I'd like to have that choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to be sure I'm understanding this correctly, you are asking if there could be an "opt out" option so that your (theoretical) photo of a dog wouldn't end up in an "animals" category when people were browsing the gallery? Is that correct?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes. I'd be happy to put it in the DOG category if that's where I thought it could or should go. But some of my (very theoretical) DOG photos would better be put in a B/W or COLOR category or some such less subject-oriented category. If there will be at least a couple or a few categories based more on medium (b/w, color, film, digital, large format, etc.) than on subject, I will be fine. But if they will all be subject categories, I'd want to be able NOT to categorize some of my photos. I understand that might limit visibility, but I might make that choice in some instances. Maybe there could be a "Prefer Not To Categorize" category. We could all do with at least that much irony, no? Or just call it the THAT DAMN FRED category! - ;)))</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Folks, Fred's complaints are an example of PRECISELY why I have been harping on the difference between "categories" (ie, any given item can go into only one category and its parents) and "keywords" (ie, any given item can have multiple attributes and be entered and searched on in many different ways). A strictly categorical system can't do this. </p>

<p>A system consisting of multiple parallel categories (eg, separate hierarchies for content, for media, for camera mfgr, for shooting conditions, etc.) can handle this, but then there is essentially no difference between such a system and a straightforward, controlled-vocabulary system based on keywords (...tags, attributes, or whatever else you want to call them).</p>

<p>Fred's complaints are just the tip of the iceberg. Analogous complaints are guaranteed to arise with great frequency with any strictly categorical system (ie, an image can go into only one category and its parent categories).</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Tom, please don't see my posts or ideas as <em>complaints</em>. There's nothing to even complain about yet and nothing in this topic that warrants complaining. Josh is trying to improve aspects of the site and has asked for suggestions. I welcome that. And that's just what most of us are doing. I prefer to keep it constructive. I don't do a lot of complaining . . . anymore. There will be those who will complain when the changes are made. I won't be one of them. If Josh decides it's best to call a DOG a DOG, then by golly I'll call my dogs DOGS. </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Sorry, Fred, I didn't mean to brand your comments as complaints when that wasn't your intention.</p>

<p>However, you effectively stated that the proposed system won't handle certain situations which are important to you and proposed a work-around. I would characterize that as a complaint about the proposed system, or, to use a more euphemistic term, a disagreement.</p>

<p>I see absolutely nothing wrong with complaints / disagreements / pointing out inadequacies, etc., so long as they are valid, constructive, well-intentioned, etc.. Your comments certainly were, and, I hope, mine are as well.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Understood.</p>

<p>However, the goal of this sort of thing is to get more images in front of someone who wants to see them. If someone is looking for dog photos, and you have hidden your image in the b/w category, they you have eliminated your image from that "class" of viewers. Of course, if someone is looking for b/w photos and there are only subject based categories, they won't see it either.</p>

<p>There has to be a way to figure out both without making a mess of things (or over complicating things for newbies). But it is going to take some conversation between Jin and myself to figure it out.</p>

[timzeipekis]

<p>I think it's about time for an HDR category......</p>

[doug_williams4]

<p>I too think that an HDR category would be a good idea and if you are going to make a media or process type category why not a medium/large format category. It depends on what you want to do, if you want to organize based on subject that is one thing but if you want to also break out images based on process or format that is a different thing. I agree with Josh, this is going to be difficult to reconcile.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>In light of the recent Scott Heinkel thread, how about a "be nice to me and give me good ratings" category "because I can't take criticism well." Sorry, I couldn't resist, you can delete it if you want and save yourself the time sending me an admin email, I'll go ahead and put myself in the corner for 5 minutes.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I do think there should be a beginner photo category. It could be a confidence booster, if nothing else. Some people are shy, and they might feel better about trying.</p>

<p>I think maybe some folks could use some help with the critiques. Maybe a beginner's crib notes type form or something to help get them started. I volunteer someone on your staff for that coding job.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>..and NOT thinking about Scott Heinkel. I've just posted some air-show shots. At the moment the best categories available for me for those are (i.) 'Documentary' as in of a record of that and (ii.) 'Event'. Something covering Air/Aircraft would be good for me and others I'm sure. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Here is my 2 cent on this, I kept it simple by putting an 'X' on the ones that need to go IHMO:</p>

<ul>

<li>Architecture X </li>

<li>Astrophotography X</li>

<li>Cars and Vehicles X</li>

<li>Children X</li>

<li>Concerts X</li>

<li>Digital Alterations X</li>

<li>Documentary X</li>

<li>Events X</li>

<li>Fashion </li>

<li>Fine Art </li>

<li>Flowers X</li>

<li>Humor X</li>

<li>Landscape X</li>

<li>Macro </li>

<li>Nature </li>

<li>News/Journalism </li>

<li>Nudes </li>

<li>Pets XXX</li>

<li>Portraits </li>

<li>Sports X</li>

<li>Still Life/Studio </li>

<li>Street </li>

<li>Travel </li>

<li>Underwater X</li>

<li>Wedding and Social </li>

<li>Birds X</li>

<li>Insects XXX</li>

</ul>

 

[tonmestrom]

<p>well, as long as we keep to the categorisation of photos it would be nice to create seperate categories for babies, holidays and family stuff to keep the other ones clean of (most of) those.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to offend anyone here but there is a notable difference between rather gratuituous snaps (which more often than not would be better kept private) and photography compliant with the sites intention.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Other suggestions :<br>

web site creation X<br />B&W film and film processing X (Should be merged with B&W Film Processing)<br />Canon FD & Classic cameras X</p>

[starvy]

<p>I would suggest splitting nude into at least two - Glamour Nude and Artistic Nude.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p>Josh: "But there are a significantly larger number of people who keep asking me for ways to have their images seen/promoted/featured on the site. Giving me options for doing this without resorting to the default ratings/critique system for filtering will be a big help in achieving that goal."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still believe that the fine-tuned categorisation should be done with the tags.<br>

That should be increasingly the way to find "dogs", "cars", "planes", "flowers", etc. and the laziness of using the tags should be overcome in time.<br>

Using a relatively small number of quite broad categories would make the initial classification more simple and usable, leaving the detailed classification to the tagging system.<br>

Also the specification of the medium and B&W vs colour should be done with the tags. And the sub-classification of nudes.<br>

It would be useful to combine categories and tags in the same search tool.</p>