next »

[davidships]

The standard currently reads:

A. The photo must demonstrate the characteristics of a harbour, for example a comprehensive overview with clearly visible features, occupied/unoccupied berths, or loading/unloading facilities.

B. Distant views and shots where harbour features are a small part of the image may be considered for deletion. Members should understand the limitations of their camera.
General standards such as sharpness, level horizon and obstructions apply to this category, but clearly not those related to individual ships themselves.

Please add your views on this topic below, before 13 November 2015.

[Pier Master]

Having 'reviewed' over 10,000 harbour photos, and having amended the title fields to most of them to show the port/harbour image instead of 'A busy day' or 'A bright morning' or 'Cranes' etc,   the current standards...

http://www.shipspotting.com/support/faq.php?category=Harbour%20overview%20images#138
http://www.shipspotting.com/support/faq.php?category=Harbour%20overview%20images#139

are still very good. So, I am more than happy to keep the existing standards.


Regards, Brian AKA the Pier Master

[Phil English]

I agree that the current category standard is worded fine. However, it does not seem to stop many people using 'harbour overviews' as a dumping ground for any old rubbish which doesn't meet any other category or site standard. I'd go as far as to say that I'd like to see this category binned completely but that is just my personal viewpoint.

Brgds
Phil

[Pier Master]

I think binning the entire category is a bit harsh as there are some very good photographs in it. It just needs trimming a bit...

Regards, Brian.

[davidships]

I have re-opened this subject as there is periodic dissatisfaction amongst some members over the nature of both some inclusions and some deletions. It is now over five years since the previous consultation of members.  Perhaps on this occasion those members who have views about what this category should cover and what should be excluded will actually express those opinions.

Here are the current requirement:
http://www.shipspotting.com/support/faq.php?category=Harbour%20Overview%20Images

It is not my intention to close the category.  But a free-for-all is also not acceptable.
By way of explanation, my approach has been to consider images in the light of these considerations:

• Harbour Overview is the title. "Overview" implies a wide view of at least part of a harbour or port, not close-ups of an individual berth or piece of equipment
• The photo should intentionally illustrate the port itself, not focus on an individual ship (and not just a place to put ship images that fail other site standards)
• the specific exclusions in the guidance linked above

It seems that one way or another the current guidance needs to be recast so that it gives more focused guidance to photographers and provides clearer basis for Admin to review uploads.  So, concrete suggestions please (rather than just negative comments about other people's opinions).  I will take stock of discussion after a few weeks and then draw up proposals to review with Admin colleagues.

[Bob Scott]

In my humble opinion, a photo of part of a renowned ship alongside an equally famous quay/terminal does not qualify as a "harbour overview" under the the existing rules of this site. Therefore, as I see it, either the photo should be deleted or the rules changed in a way to accommodate pics of this sort. I also think the last thing we want is more photo categories on the site.

[Cisco]

Maybe 'harbour overviews' should be changed to 'harbour views'... a requirement being that the photo should show something of historic or other significance.

For instance .... I have a rather nice pic of a liberty ship unloading bagged grain in Cochin... can't identify the liberty but it shows a way of life and cargo work  long gone even on the subcontinent.

Frank

[Wolfgang Fricke]

Hello everybody,
after having raised the discussion by posting the QUEEN ELIZABETH at Ocean Terminal in Southampton, I like to contribute with some thoughts.
The photo might fail the standards for posting ships due to the missing aft body (although others have been accepted such as http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=400811), but selecting the habour category was certainly not the reason for that. Regarding the definitions for the category, I would support the change to 'Harbour View Images'.
Overview photos of harbours are certainly within the scope. If it comes to more detailed photos like the present one, I think the 'interaction between ships and port' should be the focus, i.e. ships still play a major part. If shipspotting.com reflects the life of ships, not only the times at sea or restricted waters, but also in ports are important. This should guide the selection of photos.

[Tom Walker]

I'm aware that increasing the number of categories is not everyone's favourite idea. However I relate to the photograph of the QUEEN ELIZABETH as I visited that location on one of my earliest shipping trips to view her and visit the Ocean Terminal (1964).  To avoid such historical photos being deleted, perhaps the existing category could be renamed 'Harbour Views' with subcategories as 'Harbour Overviews' and 'Historical Harbour Scenes' or 'Historical Berth Scenes'.

I'm not sure of the logistics that would be required, but initially all the existing uploads could be transferred to the new Overview sub-category and the Berth category populated going forward.

Many thanks- best regards

Tom

[Henning Brauwers]

Hi,
I'm not so sure why it should be a big problem to add a sub-category as suggest by others here.
Obviously there is the need for a decent place for this kind of photos.

Brgds
Henning

[davidships]

Thank you for contributions so far. I won't comment on them yet.

Meanwhile, just for information re Wolfgang's comments, there are many older uploadings that do not meet current site standards - clearly so the one from 2007 instanced.  It was decided quite some time ago that photos accepted in those times would be kept, though not to provide precedents for subsequent uploads.   

[Pete Davies]

I found and joined this site about a year ago, as shipping has long been an interest. I uploaded around a dozen views, but most of them were rejected. I deleted the others and haven't wasted my time in sending in any since. Those rejects were in various categories, including this one. For what it's worth, my view would be to support the sub category idea from Tom Walker.

[simonwp]

I wouldn't be in favour of binning the category. It's often useful in providing context, especially for older photographs. I know we've got Google Maps for the current era, but for older one's sometimes a bit of context is useful. It also enables some historically interesting photographs which don't quite fit into one of the other categories to be retained.

The site is called Shipspotting. Shipspotting is about ships, and shipspotting takes many forms, not just taking the perfect photograph of a ship. Sometimes I feel the site gets too hung up on the quality of the photograph, and not enough on how interesting the ship is. I accept there have to be minimum standards, ie. in focus, horizon straight etc. but sometimes I feel that they are to rigid, and otherwise interesting photographs are deleted. The danger with this discussion is that we end up with something else being too tightly defined. And then people start to lose interest and stop posting.

[pieter melissen]

I think the current definition of harbour view is overambitious. It can probably be applied to small tidal ports on the UK coast, but an overview of the Rotterdam Port facilities might be provided only by google maps, by which time the size of the individual facilities becomes meaningless for an instructive photograph. So my proposal would be to remove the name Harbour Overview, and seek a proper one that does justice to the modern way of shipping operations, f.i. port facilities, or terminal operations (where also to now to be deleted QE shot could easily be accommodated). There can be a ship in such pictures or more than one or none at all. Organising such a category could be done by Port name, which might require some IT activities. If in the shot an individual ship is significant the IMO number could be used also, but that could fail for historic photographs. I for instance would not think of posting an frame filling ore carrier at EMO under Terminal Facilities, but only under the name of the ship. However, If I would photograph a line-up of four bulkcarriers at the same terminal, it would go under terminal facilities, and in the description I would give details of the ship.

[Tomislav Raymondi]

I totally agree with what was stated by Pieter, Harbour Overview could be replaced by a category that would be, for example, ships operating in port or terminals and thus you could appreciate the ports with modern facilities as well as ports with old facilities, it would be good to see how it has progressed this activity and for the rest is also a category of ship spotting.

Regards

Tomi.

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Shipspotters all over the world ----------------------------- => Shipping News and information => Trip reports => Scale Models => Site related news, functions and modules => Help and Advice => Consultations and review of site standards