ShipSpotting.com Forum
Shipspotters all over the world => Site related news, functions and modules => Topic started by: Marek W on August 17, 2018, 05:33:26 AM
-
I'm wondering, are close up/isolation photos allowed? I often shoot at 1200mm and get some nice details of anchors being hoisted up but I'm not sure that's allowed in picture posting. Can someone advise please?
Thank you!
-
Marek, you certainly have taken some fine photos. But for this site we have Site Standards that are monitored by volunteer Admins.
Site standards have criteria that can be met by members with a wide range of experience, camera gear and shipspotting locations. They provide an important element of consistent quality control for the site. In late 2015 they were subject to review with member consultation.
They can be seen by using the Support tab on the Home page, and then clicking on----
SITE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO ALL PHOTOS
We have site standards to ensure that the Shipspotting site maintains its focus on good images of ships themselves. In addition to these general standards, some categories have specific variations. Please use the Forum to raise any queries, or contact us at [email protected]
1. Size of image: The resolution must be between 768 x 768 pixels and 4000 x 4000 pixels, and the file size maximum is 4MB.
2. Sharpness: Images must be sharp. In a sharp image, names, windows, cranes and other ship details will be clear. Moderate digital enhancement for sharpness is acceptable, but the image must remain sharp in at least one of medium/full screen/original sizes on a screen of at least 280mm. It is accepted that older images, processed from prints or transparencies may not be as sharp as modern digital photographs.
3. Exposure: All images should be appropriately exposed to show the ship clearly, and without large white or black areas. Silhouettes are not accepted.
4. Level: The horizon must be level and verticals should appear so. The image should be straightened where necessary.
5. Distortion and enhancement: Photos taken with fish eye or other lenses that produce distorted images are not allowed. Black-and-white images are accepted only if that was the original medium; similarly for colour images. All manipulation of digital images should maintain a
-
I totally missed that! My apologies. Thanks for pointing that out. Much appreciated. And thank you for the kind words. :)
-
Well, not really wanting to stir up the fire, we may want to ask us the question whether there should not be a way to formulate site standards in such a way that fine shots like that of Marek can find a place here. I remember my second shot I ever posted showed the top of the funnel of a stationary tug of which obviously the bollard pull was being measured. I found the heat wave coming from the funnel rather impressive, but alas, there was no category for the shot and it had to go.
-
That would be interesting if it could be done. I have loads of shots of activities on board ships, such as working cargo, which might well be of interest to members but there is no category for them. It may help give some members an interesting insight into how vessels are operated etc. We have members working on ships who could also provide good shots. Most members interests are much wider than just photographs of ships, they are interesting in the wider industry.
-
There are already more than enough categories and I don't think we need any more. Interesting cargo handling ops could possibly be included in the 'Ships Deck' category but in my opinion we don't need any more 'bits of ships' categories.
-
There are already more than enough categories and I don't think we need any more. Interesting cargo handling ops could possibly be included in the 'Ships Deck' category but in my opinion we don't need any more 'bits of ships' categories.
So you would simply delete Marek's shot?
-
I honestly don't want to stir up any trouble here. Just something I think the site admins may consider. I approach this from a purely photography point of view. I don't care what ship is in my viewfinder, as long as I have something interesting to capture or present it in a way that makes my audience smile.
Could a general category be added which would encompass closeup/detail shots? No sub-categories inside. Just detailed shots of any vessel. I think this would bring a new dimension to the fine marine photography on this site and enable us and our audience to see things most don't, especially when our subjects tend to be quite a distance away from us and many will never set foot on the decks of the ships we photograph.
The aviation community faced the same issue when for the longest time some of the foremost aviation photography sites also disallowed posting of close ups, and yet with the advent of social media, sites like FB and IG now find these types of shots to be very popular.
Just a humble thought :)
-
Marek,
Your photos are indeed very good from a photography perspective but this site has always focussed on ships first and foremost, and photography second. Hence we have a set of site standards which basically allows ship enthusiasts to see what a particular ship looks like, rather than to see what a bit of it looks like. Within that, there are a set of basic composition and clarity rules to weed out shots of substandard quality.
Brgds
Phil
-
Thanks Phil! I completely understand. Looking forward to posting more. Interesting discussion none the less :)
-
An interesting discussion - and welcome to you, Marek, for asking the question. There is plenty of room for more opinions on this from other members as well (I'll probably move this discussion to the "Site related" section as we've got beyond the initial straight question).
We do not need to be tied to the past, but we do need to keep a focus on what we can do best and what members generally want, as well as the best that we already have. Personally I doubt that overall a sort of "Maritime Flickr" would be realistic as a way to go, even if we could actually manage it - technical and moderating resources are not exactly plentiful.
best wishes
David
-
Thanks David. Very well put. I just thought that maybe bringing this topic up would stir up some consideration to further site evolution and photographic expression. Ultimately it's up to the admins. I'm just glad that I can contribute some content.
Cheers,
Marek
-
My only comment is to support the admins, the site is about ships and vessels. As an official photographer for a port I only too well understand the differences, my employers want weird angles, dramatic lighting but for the most part this is inappropriate for a site like this.
What irritates me is the number of posts of crooked horizons, poorly balanced shots, underexposed etc, there are so many programs available so no real excuse.
No one should go on about the admins either, if they delete just suck it up and put something new on instead !
-
https://ibb.co/iLykJU
The photo at right side was taken with a drone and was considered for deletion because it was too similare to the photo left which was taken at a fully different location and different time, and the angle of changing ist at least 40 - 50
-
hello miraflores,
indeed your both pictures look quite more different than many other series of the same ship at the same place and time which are not under investigation for deletion. Sometimes the decisions of the admins what to delete and what not look a bit arbitrary. But is this alone a reason to play something like an "insulted liverwurst" and to delete all your 6.000 pictures? Think you posted them to share them with the large worldwide group of enthusiasts -who will definitely like your photos and regret your step- and not only to please the limited number of admins.
very sad thing, maybe you re-think your decision.
Greets
Niko
-
Hi Juergen,
I saw your photos and was suprised about deletion.
The difference in angle is significant and there are thousands of photos on the site and growing daily with a less difference in angle.
Nevertheless, please do not stop uploading.Keep your photos on this site.
brgds
Stan
-
I have got to say that flagging one of these for deletion seems to me to be a bit perverse. They are clearly taken at a different location, and, judging by the vegetation, a different time of year. It is strange that the site standards allow identical shots of the same vessel from different photographers all stood alongside each other on the same day at Maasvalkte but don't allow these.
Did you appeal the decision of the admins, I'd be surprised if a second look would not have reversed the decision.
However I am also disappointed that you are deleting your photographs. This site is about it's members, not the admins. I, for one, would like to still see your photographs. They are very much appreciated. When I post on here, I post for the benefit of other members.
-
Some years ago I had uploaded this photo:
https://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=339222&size=1600
It was considered for deletion, reason: Obstructed by trees.
My reaction was to delete all my 22 000 uploaded photos, took me many, many days.
And now I see a photo with 4 tugboats alongside, this ship is not obstructed by tugs?
2 different interpretations or we have new rules?
I have only 4200 photos left to be deleted.
-
Dear J
-
To Jurgen: your photo of RIJNBORG with the eis coloring the trees (our word for it is: verglas) is a master piece.
-
@Daniel,
I received many emails like yours, but the photo was not good enough for SS in 2010 because the ship was obstructed by trees, not by twigs.
Not much in the deletion policy has changed since then.
-
That snow covered scenery is absolutely beautiful and the obstruction is really minimal, it is not that we are not seeing some crucial part of the ship. I always enjoyed your photos from the Kiel canal of changing seasons with ships. I would like you to stop deleting them but if you must, are you putting them on somewhere else so that we can enjoy them?
-
Just my thought, if the trees and landscape were not covered in snow would we be having this discussion ?.... probable not ;) just because the trees are covered in snow doesn't make it any less obstructed.
-
@Paul,
the Rijnborg photo is now 8 years old, but until today there is a big difference between obstruction and obstruction, between uploader an uploader and admin and admin.
Is a passenger ship in e.g. Port of Sydney with 2 tugs or a bunker boat alongsinde not obstructed?
@csaba
Go to Marinetraffic and search for my account, you find all my photos, and MT is happy to receive such photos which will be deleted here.
Rgds. Juergen
-
Hello Juergen,photos of a ship with tugs or bunker boats attached to it are not obstructed as such as they are working with the ship,but if the tugs or bunker boat were passing pass the ship and not assisting the ship yes the photo is obstructed.
As for Marine Traffic it does only one thing good and its good at it,live shipping map as for its photos well no comment ;)
-
Hello Jurgen
I always liked youre foto,s on marinetraffic but i also deleted my foto,s from shipspotting because of their different rules for different photographers i recommenend flickr no rules.
Regards
Simon de Jong
-
Interesting debate. From my point of view it is not the rules that are the problem, but the inconsistent, and sometimes arbitrary way in which they are applied. I have stuck with Shipspotting even when it seems to me quite randomly one of my photographs has been deleted, because it is the best site for shipping photographs, but it is not without it's own problems at times. For example, I had a photograph deleted for a reason I though was very harsh. As an experiment I reposted it a few weeks later. It is still on here. I had one photograph deleted because the admin said the colour of the hull was wrong!!!!! In fact it had just come out of dry-dock, and the hull had been repainted a slightly different shade of green. However this site is not unique in having these sorts of problems, I belong to a couple of aviation sites, and they have very similar problems. In this case what is an acceptable obstruction for one person, is not for an other. It is a great shame when this leads to someone deleting their photographs. I would have left them on here, but not posted any more. It is other members who lose out when you delete photographs, anot the admins.
-
If someone with a large collection of photos on Shipspotting deletes them all, let them. They can do as they please. However, they should automatically be banned for life. Why should they get access to other members' photos, when theirs cannot be accessed any longer?
Brgds
-
@Phil English
....................said the emperor to his people.
Have you ever thought why long lasted member delete their photos?
As long as I am a member is there the problem with the deletion policy, how many member have deleted all their photos in the past 10 years?
If you have an orgasmus you can delete my account and the remaining 2990 photos, it saves me a long tome to delete them all by hand.
Without Brgds.
-
Your choice.. you delete them
PS - I'm administrator in name only. I no longer undertake admin on this site and haven't done for some considerable time.
-
Phil, with respect.. if you are no longer an admin why are you listed as being one? Im afraid your attitude makes the real admins look bad...
-
If someone with a large collection of photos on Shipspotting deletes them all, let them. They can do as they please. However, they should automatically be banned for life. Why should they get access to other members' photos, when theirs cannot be accessed any longer?
Brgds
Phil, I think this is a bit of a harsh response. BTW, what would the definition of "large collection" be? I understand that Miraflores has problem re deletion and we all know that, but what if somebody deletes his/her photos without explanation? Should they be banned too? I don't see why.
-
Unnecessary in my view, and it will not happen on my watch. Prodigal sons are welcome to return provided they are not disruptive.
I am closing this forum thread which started with a genuine question and has been hijacked by a member who was upset by proposed deletion. We have a proper procedure for reviewing deletions where a mistake or error of judgment may have been made, but in this case it was specifically declined and the photos self-deleted. That is all there is to say about it.