PDA

View Full Version : What do you think that the photograph submission guidelines should be (and why)?



rpadam
16-09-2018, 10:09
There has been a lot of (possibly overdue) discussion recently about the type and quality of photographs submitted to the site, so let's see if we can reach a consensus?

If you agree that this would be useful, may I suggest:
a) positive suggestions (i.e. what is good) particularly welcome,
b) no names when discussing what's not so good, and
c) explain why you think something is good or bad, avoiding subjective terms.

NB - I'll hold my hand up and say that I've submitted some poor photographs in my time (particularly those taken on my 'phone, rather than with my camera, at night-time) and have no doubt have approved some pictures outside of whatever guidelines we may agree on, so I'm not trying to claim that I always get things right.

oldboots
16-09-2018, 10:54
I think positivity is key, opinions will vary about what is relevant and about quality, one person's rubbish photo might be another's artistic masterpiece! There is also the question of what should be approved and what ought to be approved but hidden from the front page. I wouldn't like to see a load of rules that you break at your peril just a general idea of what is a good picture, ie not amateurish or irrelevant, to go on the site. Also is a crap photo better than no photo and does the criteria vary according to the number of existing photos?

I'll think about this some more over a pint or three but some initial topics that suggest themselves to me are,

copyright
people
food and drinks
objects in front of pubs, especially lamp posts, street furniture, vehicles, bins, scaffolding, etc
closed pubs
decorative items, including light fittings, photographs, carpets,etc
architectural features
pump clips and pumps
gardens
view from pub
night time pictures
pub signs, including "humourous" A-boards,
Urinals and toilets in general
Similar or even identical photos to those already there.

General quality considerations: eg:-
framing and orientation of shot
focus and blurring
rain or muck on lens, fingers or strap in frame
sun flares

Aqualung
16-09-2018, 11:04
1) The suppression of internal shots from the front page is correct.

2) I don't agree with suppressing pictures of pub signs (that's the main sign not an A board).

3) People should not upload "rubbish" pictures at all as well defined by OldBoots elsewhere. I try not to upload poor pictures any more. If a picture looks bad then it's rubbish. You don't have to be David Bailey to make that judgement. Self editing is the best way.

4) Although I've uploaded a few, I've really gone off night pictures. They rarely show the pub off well.

Mobyduck
16-09-2018, 11:16
1. Agree with suppression of internal shots from front page.
2. Not keen on pub signs for front page, they don't really give an impression of what the pub may be like, although the only real way to find out is to actually go there.
3. Ok with night shots as long as the pub can be seen clearly, some pubs can be totally different beasts at different times of day.A night time photo can show a pub in a different light (pun intended).

Aqualung
16-09-2018, 11:48
3. Ok with night shots as long as the pub can be seen clearly.

That's why I've gone off them as more often than not all you can see is the pub lights and sometimes street lights. Night shots can be good with the right pub but dusk shots usually work out much better.

sheffield hatter
16-09-2018, 14:27
I'll think about this some more over a pint or three ...

Good excuse for a beer.

I'm inclined to think that we could discuss this until the cows come home, but Dave has never so much as hinted that there is any pressure - financial or otherwise - on server space. So as long as there's the supression tool available, to keep the rubbish off the front pages, there doesn't really need to be a set of criteria for acceptance of photos.

If the above position changes (e.g. advertising revenue versus cost of server) then it may become necessary to revisit the topic. I'm not saying don't talk about it, just that there doesn't appear to be a pressing need.

NickDavies
16-09-2018, 16:51
There are all manner of reasons why pictures of human beings should be avoided. Even with their consent, as they may want to withdraw it later. Much the same goes for vehicles with visible number plates.

Tris39
16-09-2018, 17:39
There are all manner of reasons why pictures of human beings should be avoided. Even with their consent, as they may want to withdraw it later. Much the same goes for vehicles with visible number plates.

When it comes to humans, I don't think the issue of consent is important; I'm not aware that people can object to having their image displayed. Just look at what gets published with impunity in the tabloids.
As far a vehicle licence plates go, the only reason why the media pixelates them out is to prevent a vehicle being associated with its 'celebrity' owner, thus compromising their security; a static vehicle without a VIP shown driving it has no context. Again, I don't believe people can object to their display, with or without the licence plate being blanked out.

oldboots
16-09-2018, 21:21
When it comes to humans, I don't think the issue of consent is important; I'm not aware that people can object to having their image displayed. Just look at what gets published with impunity in the tabloids.
As far a vehicle licence plates go, the only reason why the media pixelates them out is to prevent a vehicle being associated with its 'celebrity' owner, thus compromising their security; a static vehicle without a VIP shown driving it has no context. Again, I don't believe people can object to their display, with or without the licence plate being blanked out.

The only thing here is where the photo was taken and if the person shown had a reasonable expectation of privacy, mostly pubs are regarded as public spaces so there's no problem unless someone wants to get particularly heavy about things as they are actually private buildings. There may be a problem with cloning number plates in some places rather than some z list celeb getting in a tissy but I don't think there's any kind of problem in public spaces with no reasonable expectation of privacy.

NickDavies
16-09-2018, 22:08
A former data protection officer writes:

The account in the link below is reasonable. An image of someone is personal data. If you are going to take a picture of someone for publication you must obtain consent.

http://www.longmores-solicitors.co.uk/site/blog/company-commercial/data-protection-issues-for-photographers

bcfczuluarmy
16-09-2018, 22:53
Most people are normally intrigued at having their picture taken outside a pub and will present an obscenity to ruin your picture. Sure they are happy to be posted on the internet having gone to the effort of raising a finger or two or shaking a wrist repeatedly.

The previous post I think is rubbish, how do you make factual tv program without the general public being in the way. Do you watch day time tv or any tv? Most police based tv programs have people saying you can't film me with police saying anyone can film on the street.

Got bugger all to do with this thread though but spurious link imho.

Aqualung
16-09-2018, 23:07
Most people are normally intrigued at having their picture taken outside a pub and will present an obscenity to ruin your picture. Sure they are happy to be posted on the internet having gone to the effort of raising a finger or two or shaking a wrist repeatedly.

When I was a teenager I took a photo with a telephoto lens of a vagrant woman sitting on a park bench in Hyde Park (it was supposed to be a socially conscious artistic study). She spotted me and promptly raised her upper garment to flash her knockers at me. I ran away in sheer terror!

Re pictures of pubs, I try and wait until people have passed by. In the unlikely event that any people in a picture saw them here, presumably they could contact the site and ask for them to be removed. It wouldn't bother me if they did that with one of my pics.

NickDavies
16-09-2018, 23:10
That's for factual TV to decide. And anyway, iplayer notwithstanding, factual TV is lot more evaporative than a static web site. News programmes dissapear after a week or so.

I quite like Pubs Galore, and, whether the law is rubbish or not, or you have a different interpretation of it than m'learned friends, it's best to stay on the right side of it by obeying one or two simple guidelines for the publication of pictures. All it takes someone to cause a fuss about a pic of him enjoying a convivial evening with his boss's wife and to to dump a load of legal fees on the site and that's the end of that.

bcfczuluarmy
16-09-2018, 23:13
I find moving cars more of an annoyance, people I'll wait for to move but smokers get in the way. Not sure how long I'd have to wait for knockers, probably longer than drinking the pint I've took the picture of said pub.

Or just go to Blackpool maybe?

sheffield hatter
16-09-2018, 23:58
If you are going to take a picture of someone for publication you must obtain consent.[/url]

If I accidentally get someone in the picture, I usually either crop them out or pixellate their features. In cases where this has not been done and anyone complains about their picture being on the site, surely deleting the picture is sufficient to deflect any possible legal ramifications? Presumably there are thousands of photos on this site where people are depicted without their permission - how many complaints have there been so far?

sheffield hatter
17-09-2018, 00:00
I find moving cars more of an annoyance

It's cars parking right in front of the pub, just as I'm about to press the shutter, that really get my goat.

oldboots
17-09-2018, 16:54
A former data protection officer writes:

The account in the link below is reasonable. An image of someone is personal data. If you are going to take a picture of someone for publication you must obtain consent.

http://www.longmores-solicitors.co.uk/site/blog/company-commercial/data-protection-issues-for-photographers

Absolutely correct see the official document here (https://idpc.org.mt/en/Documents/Data%20Protection%20and%20Street%20Photography.pdf ), however page 3 says get permission or if that is impractical (as it usually will be for us) blur the faces.

Tris39
17-09-2018, 18:49
A former data protection officer writes:

The account in the link below is reasonable. An image of someone is personal data. If you are going to take a picture of someone for publication you must obtain consent.

http://www.longmores-solicitors.co.uk/site/blog/company-commercial/data-protection-issues-for-photographers

I think that permission rather relates to something more akin to a portrait photo. The exemptions listed make mention of consent not being required where a person is in a location or at an event where they may expect to appear in a photo; many selfies/group photos are taken in a pub where bystanders will inevitably be included. And look at the paparazzi - if these rules could be enforced, they'd be out of business. The other exemption relates to a person and context which could cause harm to their reputation, e.g. a photo which shows a CAMRA member drinking Fosters in The Wenlock.

rpadam
17-09-2018, 20:47
Absolutely correct see the official document here (https://idpc.org.mt/en/Documents/Data%20Protection%20and%20Street%20Photography.pdf ), however page 3 says get permission or if that is impractical (as it usually will be for us) blur the faces.
That document comes from Malta!

rpadam
17-09-2018, 21:14
If anybody asks you about taking photographs in a public place, refer them to Schedule 2 Part 5 paragraph 26(1)(c) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2/paragraph/26/enacted), the UK implementation of the Article 85 "artistic expression" exemption in the General Data Protection Regulation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&qid=1537214999956&from=EN). That should shut them up!

oldboots
18-09-2018, 13:12
If anybody asks you about taking photographs in a public place, refer them to Schedule 2 Part 5 paragraph 26(1)(c) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2/paragraph/26/enacted), the UK implementation of the Article 85 "artistic expression" exemption in the General Data Protection Regulation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&qid=1537214999956&from=EN). That should shut them up!

"artistic purposes" are you sure?

oldboots
18-09-2018, 13:13
That document comes from Malta!

doesn't really matter, it's an EU law.

RealAleRobUK
18-09-2018, 18:18
Getting away from the legalities of people shots, my thoughts are as follows:

copyright - Obviously a no-no, it has to be your own pic, not one you have lifted from somewhere.
people - Personally I try not to get face shots in, but if you are taking an overview pic of a crowded pub it's hard to avoid. I've got photos of the backs of people waiting at the bar before now too which I didn't really notice when taking the pic but did when I was looking at a later date. So long as they don't dominate the pic or block the view of anything important, then it's part of the pub scene I guess. For outside shots I try to avoid groups of smokers outside and wait till passers by have passed by. Otherwise they make the place look untidy!
food and drinks - I'm mixed on this. A close up of an individual drink is probably unnecessary. A table that happens to have drinks on with other pub features in the background is different though. We probably don't need to see food, though if it looks good it can put the pub in a good light and give someone an idea of portion size and so on.
objects in front of pubs, especially lamp posts, street furniture, vehicles, bins, scaffolding, etc - Always best to try to avoid but sometimes it's hard if there is a crossing right in front of a pub, I guess the best bet is to try and angle it so it doesn't intrude on the main features such as the pub sign, the main window or door, etc.
closed pubs - Tinned up buildings are not attractive, though some people may take interest in the history of a pub and how it has looked over time. Where do you draw the line though? A pile of rubble after a pub has been demolished? Some people may be interested if it's a pub they used to frequent, but the average person would probably pull a WTF face at the pic.
decorative items, including light fittings, photographs, carpets,etc - An overview photo of a pub can show its carpet and a wall covered in photos. Not sure we would need close ups of either. However some places have items that are interesting for whatever reason and I have been guilty of submitting a photo of some lighting or a bit of faux distressed ironwork.
architectural features - A date stone or something could be interesting perhaps. It's possible to get this in a wider shot of the pub though.
pump clips and pumps - I have only submitted one of these and it didn't get approved, so assume it is a no-no. I thought it looked artistic at the time but I guess it probably has no real value.
gardens - If there's a beer garden it's nice to see it, I think. Gives a prospective visitor an idea of what the outdoor space is like. But perhaps not if it's not just a grubby yard full of empty barrels and bins!
view from pub - Unless the view is really special, not sure what value a view from the pub would add. But some people may find this artistic.
night time pictures - So long as it's not pitch black and you can actually see the pub, pub sign, etc, some night/dusk pics can look good.
pub signs, including "humourous" A-boards - Humour is subjective, what one person finds hilarious may make the next person cringe. Perhaps of value to the kind of person who wants to avoid pubs with "humorous" A-boards! Proper pub signs though, bring them on!
Urinals and toilets in general - Not unless of special interest. I submitted photos of urinals that were made of old barrels because I thought they were interesting. Perhaps the same for some huge old marble slab urinals. But nobody wants to see a trough full of piss or a grubby bog cubicle. And obviously the bogs should be empty when you take your pic!
Similar or even identical photos to those already there - To be honest I don't mind this. I quite like looking through the photos and seeing how a pub has changed, so if there is an outside shot from 2012 that looks similar to the 2014 one, but then 2016 is wildly different it gives you an idea of when a pub was refurbished or changed hands etc. Perhaps only the newer ones should be shown on the front page though.

Just my thoughts and personal guidelines I guess - and I probably don't even stick to them all the time, so please don't go off trawling through my photos to pull me up on any of the points made above!

rpadam
18-09-2018, 22:58
"artistic purposes" are you sure?
Well, if you don't fancy that, you could try the "journalistic purposes" exemption, but I would save this for reviews (which could also be "literary expression" or "academic expression").

rpadam
18-09-2018, 22:59
doesn't really matter, it's an EU law.
It does matter, because the detail is remitted back to member states, hence the Data Protection Act 2018.

rpadam
18-09-2018, 23:01
Getting away from the legalities of people shots, my thoughts are as follows:

copyright - Obviously a no-no, it has to be your own pic, not one you have lifted from somewhere.
people - Personally I try not to get face shots in, but if you are taking an overview pic of a crowded pub it's hard to avoid. I've got photos of the backs of people waiting at the bar before now too which I didn't really notice when taking the pic but did when I was looking at a later date. So long as they don't dominate the pic or block the view of anything important, then it's part of the pub scene I guess. For outside shots I try to avoid groups of smokers outside and wait till passers by have passed by. Otherwise they make the place look untidy!
food and drinks - I'm mixed on this. A close up of an individual drink is probably unnecessary. A table that happens to have drinks on with other pub features in the background is different though. We probably don't need to see food, though if it looks good it can put the pub in a good light and give someone an idea of portion size and so on.
objects in front of pubs, especially lamp posts, street furniture, vehicles, bins, scaffolding, etc - Always best to try to avoid but sometimes it's hard if there is a crossing right in front of a pub, I guess the best bet is to try and angle it so it doesn't intrude on the main features such as the pub sign, the main window or door, etc.
closed pubs - Tinned up buildings are not attractive, though some people may take interest in the history of a pub and how it has looked over time. Where do you draw the line though? A pile of rubble after a pub has been demolished? Some people may be interested if it's a pub they used to frequent, but the average person would probably pull a WTF face at the pic.
decorative items, including light fittings, photographs, carpets,etc - An overview photo of a pub can show its carpet and a wall covered in photos. Not sure we would need close ups of either. However some places have items that are interesting for whatever reason and I have been guilty of submitting a photo of some lighting or a bit of faux distressed ironwork.
architectural features - A date stone or something could be interesting perhaps. It's possible to get this in a wider shot of the pub though.
pump clips and pumps - I have only submitted one of these and it didn't get approved, so assume it is a no-no. I thought it looked artistic at the time but I guess it probably has no real value.
gardens - If there's a beer garden it's nice to see it, I think. Gives a prospective visitor an idea of what the outdoor space is like. But perhaps not if it's not just a grubby yard full of empty barrels and bins!
view from pub - Unless the view is really special, not sure what value a view from the pub would add. But some people may find this artistic.
night time pictures - So long as it's not pitch black and you can actually see the pub, pub sign, etc, some night/dusk pics can look good.
pub signs, including "humourous" A-boards - Humour is subjective, what one person finds hilarious may make the next person cringe. Perhaps of value to the kind of person who wants to avoid pubs with "humorous" A-boards! Proper pub signs though, bring them on!
Urinals and toilets in general - Not unless of special interest. I submitted photos of urinals that were made of old barrels because I thought they were interesting. Perhaps the same for some huge old marble slab urinals. But nobody wants to see a trough full of piss or a grubby bog cubicle. And obviously the bogs should be empty when you take your pic!
Similar or even identical photos to those already there - To be honest I don't mind this. I quite like looking through the photos and seeing how a pub has changed, so if there is an outside shot from 2012 that looks similar to the 2014 one, but then 2016 is wildly different it gives you an idea of when a pub was refurbished or changed hands etc. Perhaps only the newer ones should be shown on the front page though.

Just my thoughts and personal guidelines I guess - and I probably don't even stick to them all the time, so please don't go off trawling through my photos to pull me up on any of the points made above!
These are just the sort of suggestions I was hoping to elicit - more thoughts on the actual thread topic most welcome!

oldboots
19-09-2018, 11:32
It does matter, because the detail is remitted back to member states, hence the Data Protection Act 2018.

Given the propensity of UK civil servants to goldplate EU directives when drafting legislation I have no doubt the Maltese interpretation will be free and easy compared to the DPA2018.

sheffield hatter
19-09-2018, 11:45
Just my thoughts and personal guidelines I guess - and I probably don't even stick to them all the time, so please don't go off trawling through my photos to pull me up on any of the points made above!

Some of these chime with my own " thoughts and personal guidelines", but while it would be good if more photographers (perhaps especially those on the less thoughtful end of the spectrum?) were to bear them in mind, I can't see a list like this forming the basis of a prescription for acceptance or otherwise of photos on this site.

RealAleRobUK
19-09-2018, 12:36
Some of these chime with my own " thoughts and personal guidelines", but while it would be good if more photographers (perhaps especially those on the less thoughtful end of the spectrum?) were to bear them in mind, I can't see a list like this forming the basis of a prescription for acceptance or otherwise of photos on this site.

I guess a lot of it also depends what you are using the site for. If you just like looking at nice photos of pubs, that's all you're going to want to see. If you're hoping to check a pub out on here before you plan a visit then you're going to be interested in the more realistic pictures that show you the outside, interior, maybe the bar area and any beer garden. If you're interested in pub history then you may want to see a whole lot more than the average person, but would be less interested in the arty shots.

I don't think anyone should go out of their way to take a photo that makes a pub look bad, but the photos should be an accurate reflection of what to expect and not necessarily a bit of free marketing for the pub. In the same way that we are encouraged not to be overly negative when leaving a review.

Everyone will have their own take on what adds value to the site and what doesn't. One man's trash being another man's treasure, and all that.

oldboots
19-09-2018, 13:50
I can't see a list like this forming the basis of a prescription for acceptance or otherwise of photos on this site.

Me neither, those who won't self edit will still submit dross and the Seven Dwarves will use their own judgement about what to approve or refer.

At least people have been given the chance to air their views and judging by the response only a couple of people are very bothered about what photos go on the site.

So business as usual then?


Everyone will have their own take on what adds value to the site and what doesn't. One man's trash being another man's treasure, and all that.

I disagree; a picture of a van obscuring a pub, a shadowy building or a dirty bus window are always going to be crap in anybody's view unless they are seriously "challenged" in some way.

RealAleRobUK
19-09-2018, 14:09
I disagree; a picture of a van obscuring a pub, a shadowy building or a dirty bus window are always going to be crap in anybody's view unless they are seriously "challenged" in some way.

Well yes, there is that. And I think most of us would agree that those kind of extremes belong in the "what were you thinking?" pile.

I have to say that I have been guilty of not being sure what is allowed, so if there was something I considered to be borderline I may submit it anyway and let someone else be the judge as to whether it gets approved or not. I certainly don't take offence if it doesn't get put through. If there was a list of guidelines then it would take some of the ambiguity away. But then we are making the assumption that people will pay any attention.

I think it depends on the person approving too. In one pub I had a picture of the fireplace with a couple of drinks on the table in front of it that got approved, yet the same style picture for another pub didn't.

I'd have thought there would have been more response to this topic as it is something that crops up frequently on the forum. Though there may well be many people who contribute to the main page who don't look here.

bcfczuluarmy
19-09-2018, 18:20
Most contributors only have the chance to take the picture in the time they are visiting that pub. If vehicles are slightly in the way then the only chance to rectify is if it's gone when you leave.

Street furniture etc can't do anything about that same as narrow streets and not being able to get everything in shot whether phone of digital camera.

Internal photos unless a quirk like urinals(barrels are getting very popular now)/wells/signs or features that you consider a view of amusement but if I upload these I self suppress when I remeber

Views from gardens if interesting OK but then I'll also suppress it may attract people to visit the pub and stop it closing. Unlikely if it's got great views but may sway people to visit.

Views of pubs looking same. It's a building it exists and doesn't move people will stand and take a photo from similar angles especially if a new place where they potentially have same month pictures from various users as a person is made aware of a new venue from the pub being added and notifications they receive from email alerts so will visit and take a picture.

Closed pubs as mentioned historical view from picture of pub prior or post closure/demolition/redevelopment valid and should be approved but then take the view to suppress as admin do at present in a lot of cases. If anybody is using this from a research point of view it's easy to identify where a pub was and what it became.

Night pictures unless proper pitch black then early evening pictures dependant upon the device used to photo can sometimes come out looking worse as can sun above the pub in the daytime. Unless nothing visible it's just the time the contributor is at the pub.

Admin know the suspects of the worse offenders of us windows etc and I'm sure I've a number that could be highlighted but given people are looking to contribute the intent is only to add to the site.

The whole point of this thread stemmed from 236 pictures of dross over 10 pubs which yes if suppressed remove from the main screen but the volume of photos of less merit than a poor angle taken was the gripe. But getting an email notification saying somebody has uploaded 41 pictures is pretty annoying especially if the menu pictures aren't suppressed.

Aqualung
19-09-2018, 20:49
All of the immediate post above makes sense to me. I only think pictures should be referred (refused) if they are a copyright violation, really awful (dirty bus windows, a complete blur, a vehicle totally blocking the view, taken in a deluge of rain etc etc). Other than that poor ones should be suppressed from the front page. Nothing has been said about age. My picture of this (https://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/62105/) pub was taken around 40 years ago. The two prominent pine trees are long gone, one of them snapped like a matchstick in a 1980s gale and went through the roof of the pub narrowly missing someone in one of the bedrooms. I'm happy to see it suppressed but for a long while it was the only picture.