Images for the Species Albums 2011

[Piers]

As the season fast approaches (but not fast enough for many of us I expect!) now is probably a good time to remind contributors of the requirements for the Species Albums.

General guidelines can be found here, and could I draw attention to a couple of specific points:

Data. A photograph really needs to have data for inclusion into the Species Albums. The minimum requirement is date and locality, with a grid reference if possible.

Should the site where the image was taken be particularly sensitive then a more ambiguous location such as 'near Buxton, Derbyshire' will be sufficient, but the image really does need something.

If there is any further relevant information that can be added to the data to increase the value of the image then please do include this also. An example could be a photograph of a female ovipositing; additional valuable data could include time of day, ambient air temperature, the plant upon which the ova were being laid, was it in full sun or shade, the quantity of ova laid, etc.

An image without data, while possibly a work of art or extremely high in technical merit or an example of enviable photographic skill has no scientific value whatsoever.

Prior to submitting an image to the Species Albums please consider whether the image is really required in the Species Albums? On what grounds does it merit inclusion? Perhaps the image was taken at a hitherto unrepresented location for an otherwise very local species? Does the image portray an aspect of the species behaviour that is not represented in the album? Does the image portray the insect from an angle that clearly depicts features of the butterfly that are not in any of the other images?

An example could be a basking male adonis blue; does the image show, for example, a feature or an eliment of behaviour that is not already represented by the many similar images?

It is also worth mentioning that there are resident species and subspecies which are less well represented than others in the Species Albums and images of these would be particularly welcome.

I shall be shortly attempting to rationalise the Species Albums a little, completing the aberration descriptions, naming aberrations where I can, suggesting revisions to the main text, etc. which shall take me months but will be well worth it in the end.

UK Butterflies is well on the way to having the largest library of images of British Butterfly specimens anywhere on the Web, which shall in time become a valuable scientific resource; as valuable as the collections of cabinet specimens that our illustrious forebears amassed a century ago. This is all thanks to you, the photographers amongst us, who continue to contribute photographs of both high quality and of real scientific value.

Thanks in advance to all.

Felix.

[Vince Massimo]

Glad to hear that you're on the case Felix . You've reminded me that there are things I need to do to a couple of my photos.

Prior to submitting an image to the Species Albums please consider whether the image is really required in the Species Albums? On what grounds does it merit inclusion?
Felix.

As a stock photo contributor I just want to make one point which is that, presently, the only way to get photos onto the stock list is to post them in the Species Album. Sometimes I post a photo which may appear to be a duplication in the Species Album, but it is because I am actually trying to fill a gap in the Stock Album. I do take care to delete an old photo if I post a better one (or indeed if someone else posts a better one) but offer apologies for any perceived clutter

Vince

[Gruditch]

As a stock photo contributor I just want to make one point which is that, presently, the only way to get photos onto the stock list is to post them in the Species Album.

Is there any way to change this Pete.

Regards Gruditch

[Pete Eeles]

Is there any way to change this Pete.

Yes there is. Two questions though:

1. What is wrong with what we have.

2. What would you change?

The species-specific albums contain ALL IMAGES. I then derive those used in the stock library (based on the contributors that allow this) and I derive those used on the main species pages based on the attributes that moderators are able to set for each image. On the species pages, visitors have the option of seeing those tagged as "shown by default" or "all images". This seemed the easiest option to allow contributors to post an image once and once only.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Piers]

I'm a little confused, but I am easily muddled.

In my addled mind, images for the species pages and stock photographs are at differing ends of the spectrum. The poorest quality image could in theory be one of the most valuable in the species pages, where as stock photographs need to be perfect in execution and composition but do not necessarily require data of any sort, or in fact to have any scientific merit.

I shall leave the images well alone.

Felix.

[Pete Eeles]

In my addled mind, images for the species pages and stock photographs are at differing ends of the spectrum. The poorest quality image could in theory be one of the most valuable in the species pages, where as stock photographs need to be perfect in execution and composition but do not necessarily require data of any sort, or in fact to have any scientific merit.

Absolutely right - although even stock photos may be technically imperfect too, if they show something interesting (I'd be the first to say that some of my photos are technically poor, but they're still around [and in the stock library] because they're the best we have of a particular stage, for example!). That aside, I think that what we have is quite simple:

1. Stock library images are all those in the species-specific album that have been contributed by a member willing to have their photos in the stock library.
2. Images shown on the species pages are those specifically tagged as such by one of the moderators.

So how are these albums managed so that they don't become a junk yard? Well, I do have a gander at contributed photos every now and again (especially new contributions) and here's what I do when I feel some housekeeping is in order:

1. Process all recently-contributed images (actually, since the last time I looked at contributed images) to see if they should appear on the main species pages.
2. Look (in each album) at those photos that are neither in the stock library nor on the main species pages. These are good candidates for removing altogether otherwise they would appear on the main species pages! Over time, as more images are contributed, I'll zap the lowest-quality images. This includes my own images.
3. Look at the stock library contributions. Again, as more images are contributed, I'll zap the lowest-quality images (although I've only deleted my own and not anyone else's to date).

Given the start of this thread, I think another criterion that should be applied is that, given two images of equal standing, the image with appropriate data (location, date etc.) will take precedence over an image that does not.

And so another question is how we capture such information. I currently include location and date in all of my filenames (for example), but I think we need to think about either embedding such information in the image's EXIF metadata, or at least having some fields that folks can complete when they upload an image. Possibly both. All thoughts welcome.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gibster]

Over time, as more images are contributed, I'll zap the lowest-quality images.

Hi Pete,

I'm not trying to be modest, just stating a fact here. My pics are pretty ropey! But I do have one of a Small Copper ab obsoleta with data. Ought I to submit it in the hope that a better image quickly replaces it, or not bother - in which case the high standard of this website's images will be maintained? Can I forward it to you (or a moderator) for acceptance/rejection rather than slap it straight onto this site?

Cheers,

Gibster.

[Pete Eeles]

Over time, as more images are contributed, I'll zap the lowest-quality images.

Hi Pete,

I'm not trying to be modest, just stating a fact here. My pics are pretty ropey! But I do have one of a Small Copper ab obsoleta with data. Ought I to submit it in the hope that a better image quickly replaces it, or not bother - in which case the high standard of this website's images will be maintained? Can I forward it to you (or a moderator) for acceptance/rejection rather than slap it straight onto this site?

Cheers,

Gibster.

Hi Gibster - just post it! But feel free to send it to me for reassurance, if you like!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Susie]

What is the stock album? Sorry for being thick but I'm not quite sure of its purpose; are these photos used for sale?

[Pete Eeles]

What is the stock album? Sorry for being thick but I'm not quite sure of its purpose; are these photos used for sale?

The stock photo library is what you see under the Stock Photos menu item. In particular, you can select photos from here:

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/stock_index.php

These allow anyone to "order" high-resolution images (they add images to a "basket", checkout, and that then emails me a link with their request). 99.9% of requests are from charities, academic institutions and other not-for-profit organisations. When we do get the odd purchase, that money either helps cover the cost of hosting UKB and running its events, or gets donated to BC.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gibster]

Hi Pete,

I just tried something...go to the Stock Album, choose an image, click on it to enlarge...then right click and nab it for yourself. Dishonest but very easy! Can't you 'right click disable' this little loophole?

Gibster.

[Gruditch]

They are only the 800 pix low res images Gibster, the prospective buyer has to contact Pete for the hi res version.

Regards Gruditch

[Gibster]

Cunning....I like it!

[Gruditch]

What is wrong with what we have.

What if the image without the (location, date etc.) is also in the stock library, should it get deleted for an equally good image, that has the (location, date etc.) but does not appear in the stock library. I'm cool with the system, so long as perfectly good stock pictures don't get deleted, because they are surplus to requirements in the Species pages.

Regards Gruditch

[Pete Eeles]

What is wrong with what we have.

What if the image without the (location, date etc.) is also in the stock library, should it get deleted for an equally good image, that has the (location, date etc.) but does not appear in the stock library. I'm cool with the system, so long as perfectly good stock pictures don't get deleted, because they are surplus to requirements in the Species pages.

Regards Gruditch

Agreed.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Trev Sawyer]

Hi Pete,
You have PM.

Trev

[Susie]

What is the stock album? Sorry for being thick but I'm not quite sure of its purpose; are these photos used for sale?

The stock photo library is what you see under the Stock Photos menu item. In particular, you can select photos from here:

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/stock_index.php

These allow anyone to "order" high-resolution images (they add images to a "basket", checkout, and that then emails me a link with their request). 99.9% of requests are from charities, academic institutions and other not-for-profit organisations. When we do get the odd purchase, that money either helps cover the cost of hosting UKB and running its events, or gets donated to BC.

Cheers,

- Pete

What a good idea!

[Vince Massimo]

This is a reminder for new images .

I have now taken on the job of managing the Species-Specific Albums and will soon be sorting through the backlog of images and updating the albums. Over time it is anticipated that these albums will provide the most extensive image library of Butterflies of the British Isles anywhere on the web and also become a valuable scientific resource.

Posted images are most useful when they contain information regarding location and date (which is most easily included in the image name) and it would therefore be appreciated if contributors would follow this approach. We are looking for high quality images and please take the time to read the Gallery Guidelines http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/gallery_guidelines.php before submitting your photos. Do not however be afraid to post images that appear to be similar to those already in the gallery. I will sort them out. We are always looking for fresh images and are constantly striving to improve their quality and standard. However if there are two images of equal quality, preference will be given to that which contains the location and date. As new (and hopefully better) ones are added, the relatively poorer ones will be demoted or deleted. Don't forget that there are resident species and subspecies, as well as early stages that are less well represented and my aim is to fill as many gaps as possible.

Images are selected from the Species-Specific Albums to go into the Species Identification Section, with some becoming the main reference photos for each species and the best of the rest supporting the species description. An example is here http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/species.php?species=napi but these are all out of date at the moment because there are many images yet to be reviewed. For an overview of the main gaps in the imago section see http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/species_ ... tage=imago (click on the species name for more information). Presently the majority of images in the Species Identification Section are supplied by Pete Eeles and myself, but I would like to see this change. Sorting through the backlog will partially achieve this, but I also need new and better images.

I am aiming to have all the albums sorted by the end of January 2012 and so would welcome any new images ideally by 15th January 2012. Images submitted after that date will not be overlooked, but will be considered for inclusion in the (new) regular monthly review.

If you have any problems posting images on the Species-Specific Album or if you have any questions, please contact me

Vince

EDIT: Imago link corrected (Thanks Lee! )