Good Day all,
I'm still on my agenda to build this site to meet your needs. Today’s request for feedback is on how to organize the gallery portion of the site.

Currently we have:
Standard
Critique Gallery
Technical
Experimental.

We could go with subject:
nature (rocks and trees)
documentation (street, event, etc)
Portrait (gallery of heads)
figure (the voyeurs home)
still life (dead flowers)
abstract (is that Jesus in my ham sandwich?)
other (I refuse to be pigeonholed)

or we could leave it alone or possibly you, the membership, have an opinion.


One item I am pretty sure about is that the critique gallery is going to be handled differently.

I am proposing we make critiques threads. The user will post what it is they were striving for, post the image in the thread and ask for a critique. This way the viewer will know what the poster was after and can intelligently respond.


Your thoughts are requested.


jdc

Good Day all,
I'm still on my agenda to build this site to meet your needs. Today’s request for feedback is on how to organize the gallery portion of the site.

Currently we have:
Standard
Critique Gallery
Technical
Experimental.

We could go with subject:
nature (rocks and trees)
documentation (street, event, etc)
Portrait (gallery of heads)
figure (the voyeurs home)
still life (dead flowers)
abstract (is that Jesus in my ham sandwich?)
other (I refuse to be pigeonholed)

or we could leave it alone or possibly you, the membership, have an opinion.


One item I am pretty sure about is that the critique gallery is going to be handled differently.

I am proposing we make critiques threads. The user will post what it is they were striving for, post the image in the thread and ask for a critique. This way the viewer will know what the poster was after and can intelligently respond.

Your thoughts are requested.


jdc

Hi,
I've just discovered this section of the forums in the last couple of days, since I bookmarked the digital negative section when I first came to hybrid a couple of months ago and that's the only place I've ever been, until a couple of days ago.

Anyway, I started looking in the gallery this morning, and then came looking for a place to register a suggestion about the gallery organization, and here it is.

I don't see any purpose in organizing the galleries according to subjects, but I think as long as we're planning to have more of an alternative process forum here, I'd like to suggest a separate gallery for alternative process prints. I have no interest in looking at inkjet prints, and found it frustrating to page through inkjet prints looking for alternative process prints. Or maybe have a sort feature as in the APUG galleries so one could sort by alternative process. Just a thought.
Katharine Thayer

Could there be a 'sort by process' function ?

Simple categories might be best: Ambrotype, Calotype, Woodburytype ?

Although folks claiming to be doing Woodburys would be required to buy beer for the rest of us !

APUG has a gallery search function, so you can search on process type or film size or lens type or subject matter, etc., as long as the users post the information somewhere in the image description. I'm sure that could be easily implemented here, and the upload form could be updated to solicit more detailed process information, so that people are more likely to provide it.

We could go with subject:
nature (rocks and trees)
documentation (street, event, etc)
Portrait (gallery of heads)
figure (the voyeurs home)
still life (dead flowers)
abstract (is that Jesus in my ham sandwich?)
other (I refuse to be pigeonholed)


In keeping with the "we don't care how it was done" gestalt, I think organizing it by subject makes great sense. In fact, I've been arguing for years that photo competitions should stop categorizing awards into B&W vs. Color vs. Digital and simply offer awards per subject category regardless of HOW the image was done. One shouldn't care that a great portrait is film or digital or b&w or color or polaroid-transfer or hand-tinted -- it still is a great portrait.

Cheers,

Hmmmm - I was unaware of the 'alternative' view that this is becoming 'their' forum.

A search facility would be beneficial for photographers fitted with Blinkers. Personally I like to be inspired from those working in all of the different hybrid domains.

Thus the proposed subject matter categories are fine with me.

Of to Cornwall to actually do some photography instead of talking about it - how alternative is that?

Thanks Baxter. Have big fun and get some great shots.

Personally I am more interested in catagorizing by process rather than subject. However, if subject becomes the way, I vote for a "landscape" cat. I've always thought of "nature" as wildlife photography... bugs... that sort of thing.

Bill

Personally I am more interested in catagorizing by process rather than subject. However, if subject becomes the way, I vote for a "landscape" cat. I've always thought of "nature" as wildlife photography... bugs... that sort of thing.

Bill
Thank you for saying that Bill, I too have never considered landscape as nature or wildlife photography.

Don Bryant

if we go with photo's by subject I think I need a more informed listing.

The same would be true with process.

Another approach might be intent. As in experimentation, political, romantic, iconic, ironic.

Thanks boatlaods

jdc

Thank you for saying that Bill, I too have never considered landscape as nature or wildlife photography.

Landscape is tough enough. It gets worse. Perhaps I'm just wierd, but I always thought "portrait" meant much more than just people. I feel that occasionally architectural photography is at times best described as a "portrait of a building". Likewise, many still lives are "portraits" of sorts. And even some landscapes are actually portraits: think of certain photos of trees.

Clearly images that capture a decisive moment are in a league by themselves and most of us can identify such images, so that is a pretty safe category.

Then there is the distinction between landscape vs. urbanscape vs. seascape -- is there a need for distinction?

Personally I think we should at least TRY to come up with a global categorization as at the very least we will get a bunch of different viewpoints!

So to get the ball rolling how about these:


*scapes (capturing the essence of a place)
portraits (capturing the essence of an item)
decisive moments (capturing the essence of a moment)
abstract (distilled essence of form or pattern)


There are of course many other possible categories -- feel free to add your own together with a distilled explanation of what the category means

Then there is the distinction between landscape vs. urbanscape vs. seascape -- is there a need for distinction?Personally I do not think there needs to be too fine a point drawn here. I think that confusion can be avoided by simply going with basic subject catagories if subject is the way it is to be broken down. Judging by this post, there are wide and varied interpretations of subject and it is my opinion that this could get messy. This is why I vote for process vs. subject. Although there are many, it would seem they can be broken down fairly easily into the most basic used in conjunction with the digital negative.

Bill

Personally I do not think there needs to be too fine a point drawn here. I think that confusion can be avoided by simply going with basic subject catagories if subject is the way it is to be broken down. Judging by this post, there are wide and varied interpretations of subject and it is my opinion that this could get messy. This is why I vote for process vs. subject. Although there are many, it would seem they can be broken down fairly easily into the most basic used in conjunction with the digital negative.

Bill


I don't believe there is any need to get too anal about breaking subject matter down into a lot of sub-sections. Four or five would be plenty for me.

However, it is definitely my opinion that there should be separate categories for general type of final print, i.e. one for hand-made processes, another for factory wet processes, and another for inkjet output. There could be more, but these three immediately come to mind.

Sandy

I don't believe there is any need to get too anal about breaking subject matter down into a lot of sub-sections. Four or five would be plenty for me.

However, it is definitely my opinion that there should be separate categories for general type of final print, i.e. one for hand-made processes, another for factory wet processes, and another for inkjet output. There could be more, but these three immediately come to mind.

Sandy
I personally like the break out according to hand made, factory machine made wet, and factory machine made dry.

I also feel that built for the screen may be a viable option.

I personally like the break out according to hand made, factory machine made wet, and factory machine made dry.

I also feel that built for the screen may be a viable option.

I agree with Sandy and jd that we need a way to break out by process as well as by subject, or at least a way to sort or search by output category; the broad categories suggested work fine for me.

I also like Michael Sullivan's broad categories for subject breakdown, very much.
Katharine

I agree too with Sandy.
Guillaume

Go for it JD!

Bill

If there are any dissenters please raise your voice.


I would also ask that you offer feedback on my idea for a Critique section .

Essentially I am advocating that a critique be a thread started by the individual requesting a critique. The poster would post an image as an attachment, give an account of what they were trying to achieve and if applicable request specific feedback. If nothing specific is asked the crit would be based upon the statement regarding whet they were trying to achieve.

Because the image would be an attachment the user could include multiple samples (such as a detail and an overall). This format is far closer to the kind of critique I am familiar with and I find much more useful than the relatively blind crit’s found elsewhere.

I will build a forum specific to critiques.

I would also ask that you offer feedback on my idea for a Critique section .

Good !

I would also ask that you offer feedback on my idea for a Critique section .


Sounds like a fine idea.