Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Can we have some new categories ... Please...

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
dougv
dougv Site Moderator 108357 forum postsdougv vcard England3 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2009 - 8:21 AM


Quote: Maybe we could replace all of the categories with just three:

- "Pretty Good"
- "Not Bad"
- "Bag o'*****"

Hmmm...

You are obviously a frequent visitor to my portfolio.

Your not a stalker are you?

Wink

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
25 Aug 2009 - 8:21 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

ketch
ketch e2 Member 6770 forum postsketch vcard Turks and Caicos Islands50 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2009 - 8:25 AM

What me worry?

If it was that insignificant, why have categories. But tbh I much prefer your alternative categories.

In fact it is impossible to upload an image here on EPZ without categorising it so it must have some significance to the whole process.

If you have to do it I guess it is worth thinking about at least - maybe not worry though. Isn't it good to question things?

Cheers

Robert

JamesBurns
25 Aug 2009 - 8:26 AM

Oh yes.

That's the great thing about the iphone's touch screen - nobody can hear you typing when you're hiding in their airing cupboard! Wink

JamesBurns
25 Aug 2009 - 8:45 AM


Quote: Isn't it good to question things?

Some things, yes.

Getting hung up on the whys and wherefores of photo classification on a photography website that I don't pay to use, and have no control over, is definitely not one of those things for me though. Pete's always asking for people to contribute to this site in a more constructive and meaningful way (though in my case I daresay he's probably given up hope by now)... Rather than continuing in the persistent questioning on categories, why not read a book on Digital Asset Management and review it for the site, possibly writing another article on effective management of digital images (using as many categories as you see fit).

Hell, my own photo library doesn't have as many categories as you have the ability to choose from on here. I have a choice of Wedding, Portrait, Landscape, Music, Commercial and "Other"... Does me down to the ground, because as I download my cards I add keywords (they're like tags Wink)... It means I get a much more granular categorisation, based on what the image contains, rather than the desire to shoehorn something into a particular category.

People, IMHO, get far too hung up on the idea of their photography being in a particular style... From experience, they're the people who seem to go out intent to recreate the images already captured by another more popular photographer. They're determined to be a "street" photographer because that's the cool photo subject du jour, or whichever other subject/style is popular that week.

By way of an example, look at the likes of Dave Hill, Draganized photos, HDR and, dare I say it, the fu*king flood filter. Something new and interesting comes along, and people flock to it like mindless sheep. Along the way they manage to ruin it for pretty much everyone through inept overuse.

So, rather than asking for additional categories, turn this round and ask yourself why it is that we get so hung up on categorisation? In attempting to confirm to a particular style, you're only serving to limit yourself in the work that you create and the more narrowly you define those categories, the more tightly you're restricting yourself in that attempt to conform.

If you photograph for a living, you don't have the luxury of shooting what you want, you shoot what is asked of you (unless you're so far at the top of your game that people are approaching you specifically because of your style).

If you're photographing for fun, then why in the hell try and blinker yourself in your artistic processes by trying to categorise what you do. It's a hobby, FFS, get over yourself...

ketch
ketch e2 Member 6770 forum postsketch vcard Turks and Caicos Islands50 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2009 - 9:28 AM

I honestly don't think I need to get over myself - it really doesn't worry me if we have another couple of categories or not here on EPZ - I have absolutely no proprietorial stake and no right to even demand such things.

But we do live in a free country (and play on a freeish website) and I do have an absolute right to my own thoughts (right or wrong, correct or misguided) and more than that I am quite happy and relaxed to have them questioned and to have them pulled apart (as you have done - I think - but maybe others will judge).

I take your point about blinkering to some extent but I don't quite follow the link you make between style and category - they are different things surely?

Just noticed the featured photo - London River Scene by Clive A - categorised incorrectly as a landscape?. This featured photo makes the point - its not my image and I have not been restricted by trying to categorise it. It is someone elses image that doesn't get propery filed because it can't here on EPZ - as a result it gets compared with landscape images - just how appropriate is that?

Sorry but that's not getting hung up on categorisation its just plain and simple, out there stuff.

You do not want to know about the things I am hung up about believe me - but I am more than happy to ginger up the forum.

Cheers

Robert

JamesBurns
25 Aug 2009 - 9:49 AM

Right, well, I'll respond to your points and then shut up then. I imagine that neither one of us is ever going to convince the other...


Quote: But we do live in a free country (and play on a freeish website) and I do have an absolute right to my own thoughts (right or wrong, correct or misguided) and more than that I am quite happy and relaxed to have them questioned and to have them pulled apart (as you have done - I think - but maybe others will judge).

It was never my intention to pull apart your thoughts - My diatribe was a generalisation rather than one directed specifically at you. Anyone who knows me will also tell you that if I was specifically attempting to pull something apart, then I would use considerably less tact (not that I possess much to begin with).


Quote: I don't quite follow the link you make between style and category - they are different things surely?

Not necessarily in this context... Whenever people strive to achieve something with their photography - whether that be a particular style (HDR, Dave Hill, etc) of photograph, or to attempt to conform to a particular type (be that street, photojournalism, landscape, whatever), then they are limiting themselves into trying to fulfil whatever they perceive the elements of that style/type to be.


Quote: Just noticed the featured photo - London River Scene by Clive A - categorised incorrectly as a landscape?

It may have been when you looked at it, but it's not categorised as landscape now. Even if it was, then I don't think it would be misplaced. Personally, I don't see it necessary to make a distinction between a landscape that features water and one that does not. I see no need to differentiate between urban or rural landscapes. Personally, I think that it's possible to take a portrait photograph and for it to contain enough defining elements of a landscape photograph to be categorised as such.


Quote: This featured photo makes the point - its not my image and I have not been restricted by trying to categorise it. It is someone elses image that doesn't get propery filed because it can't here on EPZ - as a result it gets compared with landscape images - just how appropriate is that?

Call me blasť, but I don't think that it makes the blindest bit of difference. How will the image suffer?


Quote: You do not want to know about the things I am hung up about believe me - but I am more than happy to ginger up the forum.

I have no idea what gingering up is... If it involves biscuits then fair play. If however it involves a small army of leprechauns with low voltage cattle prods and an oral fixation, I'm afraid you'll have to count me out - that restraining order is still in place Wink

Diana
Diana  72011 forum posts Netherlands19 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2009 - 9:54 AM

it just needs one more category......

"night photography/long exposure/light painting"

job done

JamesBurns
25 Aug 2009 - 10:01 AM

Why?

QuentinS
QuentinS  926 forum posts United Kingdom
25 Aug 2009 - 10:38 AM


Quote: puffinscape

Yes, brilliant, that's the one we need!

(what's with puffins anyway?)

Quentin

pennyspike
pennyspike  102068 forum posts United Kingdom29 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2009 - 11:19 AM

In answer to James Burs "Why/"
Because many of these photos do not easily fit into other categories.

I didn't understand this until I tried to do it, but Diana ia quite right.

Thanks to Diana I tried to do star trails for the first time and chose to upload the picture on epz.
It did not fit :-
Lighting as apart from a bit of light painting on the foreground the main subject was the galaxy my flash wasn't quite up to thatWink
Landscape:-No sign of any land
Architecture :--having a building in the picture is the only link,
General:- Maybe but only because it doesn't fit anywhere else.
Nature:- Maybe stars count but I doubt if anyone would consider this as a suitable category.
Specialist:- possibly as a sub-category but not one I would immediately think of as the place to look.

As most of the subject categories encompass whole areas of photography, when I couldn't find a category to fit the picture I concluded that this was a valid reason to ask for a new one. The types of night photography are sufficiently broad that I think it would be used more than occasionally.

As this seems to be a contentious area I suggest an epz night meet somewhere & challenge participants to find the right category for the pictures.

How about it Diana? Would you host a meet like this if there was enough interest?

JamesBurns
25 Aug 2009 - 11:30 AM

So astrophotography is not specialist? Seems like entirely the correct category for me..

I simply don't understand this desire to micromanage categories, especially with the tagging system that's already in place. Why is it such an issue? Your images will still receive the same amount of exposure, the same number of clicks... Nothing changes... Why can't it be about the actual image (and the making of it), rather than the obsession over semantics?

Diana
Diana  72011 forum posts Netherlands19 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2009 - 11:38 AM

its not about exposure is it? Its about looking at other similar work for others by use of the category filter

astrotogrpahy does not include lightpainting or fire spinning does it ?

yeah sure Penny a night meet in Portsmouth or your neck of the woods I dont mind either (if you do it with me, now that you can shoot star trails on a long expoure and also stack)

Last Modified By Diana at 25 Aug 2009 - 11:39 AM
Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1218416 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2009 - 11:42 AM

Here's the gallery for Fire Spinning
Starts off really good.
And here's Light Trails...also good.
As I've said before, and James is saying now you have a fantastic way of getting micro specific categories...it's just a case of using the tags.

Last Modified By Pete at 25 Aug 2009 - 11:45 AM
Diana
Diana  72011 forum posts Netherlands19 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2009 - 11:48 AM

ooh some of mine are in there from when I used to use the tags properly! lol (sorry)

JamesBurns
25 Aug 2009 - 11:51 AM


Quote: Its not about exposure is it? Its about looking at other similar work for others by use of the category filter

astrotogrpahy does not include lightpainting or fire spinning does it ?

So what next? A "photographs taken at 2:15pm on a tuesday on a day when I've eaten a bacon sandwich for breakfast" category?

Seriously, asstrophotography might not include lightpainting or firespinning... But Specialist does. People start asking for the categories because they become popular for a few weeks (as we've already mentioned) and then fade away, leaving a woefully underpopulated category within the gallery that does nothing but take up tablespace in a database. Bear in mind that each additional category puts additional strain on the database on which the site runs. Tags will do the job equally as well, without the strain.

Tell me, when the site is once again beginning to run like a 3-legged dog with a smoking habit because we've added 2 dozen additional categories, will you be happy to sit quietly and not complain, or will you be at the front of the queue, clamouring for server upgrades that cost a significant amount of both money and resource?

The whole point of the tagging system is that it adds an extra layer of granularity to the categories, without the need for actual additional categories. If all of the people who were taking, for example, fire spinning images were really in any way bothered about being able to share images, then they could have already searched each other out, decided on a common tag, and be using that tag under a subset of the specialist tag, you could both be out concentrating on taking your fire spinning images, able to find each other's work with the minimum of fuss, and now be able to concentrate on taking more photo's rather than worrying about where to upload them...

Last Modified By JamesBurns at 25 Aug 2009 - 11:54 AM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.