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

[rpadam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.u...-photographers