gmlimages's picture

Quality of images

I find the quality of some images on ispot a little poor, makes identification difficult. Is this becasue the T&Cs say ispot can use any images as they think fit? Therefore people only upload poor ones?
Must admit that I wouldn't upload my best images especially if I think they are saleable.

Reply

Comments

anonymous spotter's picture

Image quality -

There are a number of reasons for poor-quality images, but I think that it is important to remember this isn't primarily a photographers' site - it's a naturalists' one.
Wildlife is seldom cooperative with observers, and professionals often resort to all sorts of dubious tricks (such as putting animals in cool-boxes to slow them down before posing). The type of people who are mostly posting here either don't know about - or wouldn't want to use - these techniques. We also have a variety of equipment available, which may not be of the sort of quality (and price) needed to capture the very best images.
There is also the issue of upload speed - we often have to crop and reduce image quality to upload them successfully.
The bigger problem for identification is that the observer may not be aware of - or may not have the opportunity to capture - significant aspects of the subject that are needed for a positive identification. That's part of the value of the site - others can point out what's needed, and in future the observer knows what to look for.
I'd also like to point out that there are some technically superb images on the site, and others that are equally good because of the subject matter. I'd sooner see a picture of a blackbird doing something interesting, caught on a phone camera, than a crisp, well-balanced photo of a golden eagle. I can find those images on other sites.
Some people do put text (copyright notices or whatever) in their pictures to reduce the risk of plagiarism - but I'd stress again that this site is about the subject matter, not the medium.

gmlimages's picture

image quality

"Wildlife is seldom cooperative with observers, and professionals often resort to all sorts of dubious tricks (such as putting animals in cool-boxes to slow them down before posing)."

That is not good practice as far as I am concerned, I enjoy the thrill of capturing nature in the wild.
Sorry not been back on here recently, but I do like it for the IDing things.

Might watermark images then if that is OK.

Regards Gill BSc Hons (Open)

DavidHowdon's picture

Watermarks

I'm sure watermarks are OK (who would stop you anyway) but as this is primarily an ID site it might be good to make sure the watermark does not cover the subject of the image. Having a key feature distorted or obscured by a copyright protection device would not be helpful.

--
David Howdon

Fenwickfield's picture

Copyright protection

I have noticed this on images and think it spoils the photograph.I did not think you could do this as I was under the impression that once you put your photograph on that iSpot could use it,so why copyright or am I missing something hear.

Fenwickfield

DavidHowdon's picture

Anyone else.

Although uploading to iSpot lets iSpot use it (probably something like a non-exclusive licence to reproduce or modify - it was in the terms and conditions but I cannot recall offhand) it does not give anyone else permission - so for instance I could not take copies of your iSpot photographs and use them for my own purposes.

Putting a copyright notice on means if I did steal your image and try to use it myself it would be obvious i was doing so.

--
David Howdon

Fenwickfield's picture

Thank's

Thank's for the explanation David as I never thought of that.

Sheila

Fenwickfield

DavidHowdon's picture

To be honest

unless you are a professional photographer it is unlikely to make a difference. I've never made a penny from any of my pictures although have had a few published in charity publications (such as this one http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/12545 which the AES used as the cover image on one of their journals) and have given up on copyright tagging my images - but I can see why some people do it.

--
David Howdon

Simon Walker's picture

I think I agree that...

...watermarks and tags rather spoil an image; they tend to drag the eye to them, rather than to the subject of the picture. Like you, David, I've never sold any of my pictures, so it doesn't greatly bother me, though it would be nice to think that if anyone wanted to use them, they'd (a) ask first, and (b) acknowledge them wherever they used them. On balance, though, I think I'll leave them un-tagged.

Simon Walker's picture

I've only just read this, but here's what I think...

Sometimes the only image you get of something interesting is of poor quality, and that's for several reasons: it might be a long way off (and even with super-telephotos that's quite often); or it may be out of focus, because it something you spot in the background when you look at your images on your computer; or maybe it's just a lousy photo (and we all take them!), but the best one you got at the time.
I'd like to think that people don't hold back with pictures because they fear that others will appropriate them. but then, there are some really nasty people about.
Me, I always put up the best picture I got at the time, and I trust to the honesty of those who use the site. Perhaps I'm naive.

Fenwickfield's picture

couple

I have put a couple of really bad photo's on the first of a Curlew but I had been rushing out the house every time I heard it for months as they were nesting out the back of the house and I was going mad,I eventually got a shot of it and posted it as 'imagination needed' a few people agreed but I feared I would never get another photo.There back again so hopefully I will have better luck this year as I am going to make a hide and stake them out,I am convinced they know when I have the camera with me.I agree that people should not hold back putting a poor image on but would ask for them to give some detail's about the subject if possible.

Fenwickfield