Photo Quality

[+Max and 99]

Years ago waymark categories/waymarks would state "no cell phone pics" because the quality wasn't the best (I'm guessing). These days the quality is amazing, and everyone takes photos with their cell phone.  But now I'm starting to think the community needs to talk about photo options with today's technology: dashcam photos for posting waymarks  (I have only seen bad quality) and drone photos.   

 

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Max and 99

[vulture1957]

4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Years ago waymark categories/waymarks would state "no cell phone pics" because the quality wasn't the best (I'm guessing). These days the quality is amazing, and everyone takes photos with their cell phone.  But now I'm starting to think the community needs to talk about photo options with today's technology: dashcam photos for posting waymarks  (I have only seen bad quality) and drone photos.   

 

 

drones are the best way to get pictures of mazes. Who cares about seeing the corn at the entrance? Does it look different from the corn at others??

[+Max and 99]

18 minutes ago, vulture1957 said:

drones are the best way to get pictures of mazes. Who cares about seeing the corn at the entrance? Does it look different from the corn at others??

I agree. There are instances where drone photos would really add quality to a waymark!

[+T0SHEA]

As for drone photos,  I would suspect that photo quality would depend solely on the financial investment in the drone. A large enough drone would be capable of hoisting aloft a superior quality camera, a small drone, a tiny VGA quality camera. Ya gets whatcha pays fer!

Keith

[+PISA-caching]

I don't use my cell phone for taking waymark photos, simply because the quality of my Canon camera is so much better. If you look at this waymark, you can see photos that I took with my telephoto lens, because there wasn't enough time to walk close enough to the lighthouse. No chance, if you try that with my cell phone. :-) I would love to have a drone also, but it's additional weight that I would have to carry around and the occasions where a drone would be great to have are rare.

[+Max and 99]

My cell phone is so cheap that I only occasionally use the phone camera for waymark visits. I mostly use the cell phone, as a camera, for screen shots. My Nikon camera photos are 100X better!

However, those with nicer cell phones can take very good photos for waymark posting! Just not me.

But the dash cam photos I've seen in soooo many waymark postings lately are very bad! To me that's the definition of drive-by Waymarking, which doesn't belong in waymark posting.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Max and 99

[+PISA-caching]

Well, sometimes I see photos that were taken with a camera, but still are in poor or at least not-so-good quality. On the one hand, quality is important, because the more photos we see with poor quality the more waymarkers will think that fair or low quality is good enough. On the other hand I think that these locations can at least be found and visited, if the waymark with the poor photos is accepted and hopefully some visitors will upload better photos in the future.

[+Max and 99]

Hundreds of dash cam pics as default photos for waymarks. Bad. Very bad.

[+elyob]

I wonder why this thread stopped here without additional comment.   Am I too much of a Waymarking snob to think that we should have a minimum standard of quality for photographs in a created waymark?

Edited July 24, 2019 by elyob

[+T0SHEA]

1 hour ago, elyob said:

I wonder why this thread stopped here without additional comment.   Am I too much of a Waymarking snob to think that we should have a minimum standard of quality for photographs in a created waymark?

It's a good and noble idea, but far from easy to define a minimum standard.

Keith

[+Max and 99]

I can say with almost certainty that there has been a name change associated with the dash cam photos, within the last 6 months.

[+elyob]

2 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

It's a good and noble idea, but far from easy to define a minimum standard.

Keith

 

It's all your fault.  Your waymarks have set a standard too high.

[+T0SHEA]

1 hour ago, elyob said:

 

It's all your fault.  Your waymarks have set a standard too high.

So, the chickens have come home to roost... 

I don't know how many here have noticed, but I have, on more than a couple of occasions, noted that I do a LOT of post processing. Once one begins to tweak their pics it becomes hard to post an unprocessed image, as they seem so lacking in contrast and saturation by comparison.. There's often such a huge difference to be had for only a few seconds of time required. I'm gonna go look for a pic of mine that REALLY benefits from a bit of processing and post a before and after. Then perhaps people can appreciate the benefit of a bit of post processing. AAMOF, this was suggested to me earlier today.

Keith

[+T0SHEA]

Here's an easy one. Murals are often flat, lacking contrast and saturation. Not a dramatic change, but quite noticeable. This one has had levels and lighting adjusted, slightly cropped and car fender in bottom right and joint in wall at left removed.

[+PISA-caching]

3 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

Once one begins to tweak their pics it becomes hard to post an unprocessed image, as they seem so lacking in contrast and saturation by comparison..

 

That's right. Since a friend of mine taught me how to adjust levels I always at least check, if some improvement is possible. Of course, my post processing is far from BK-Hunters' level, but here's one example:

 

 

A little cropping, blurring the faces, levels adjustment and finally removing the pigeon on the head of the statue. It didn't take a lot of time, but the result is ok for me. I might have been able to also remove the banner in the bottom right corner and the white thing in the bottom left corner, but this would have taken far more time.

[+T0SHEA]

Now, I would have either left the pigeon on his head or removed the pigeons at his feet... ...

After all, they're a set.

Keith

[+PISA-caching]

1 hour ago, BK-Hunters said:

Now, I would have either left the pigeon on his head or removed the pigeons at his feet... ...

After all, they're a set.

Keith

 

You definitely have a different view on things than I do. The two at the feet are a couple. They have a low social ranking (somewhat like working class), while the one on the head has the highest social ranking - a snobbish pigeon that thinks it is something better and deserves the best spot on the monument. Therefore I removed it and left the two untouched.

 

... or maybe it was just that the one on the head was far easier to remove than the two at the feet.

[+T0SHEA]

7 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

 

... or maybe it was just that the one on the head was far easier to remove than the two at the feet.

Bingo!!

Keith

[+T0SHEA]

Here's another example of what an unprocessed pic can look like. This is very common with interior pics as there's usually a lot less light available than with outdoor pics. As a rule I don't use a flash unless absolutely necessary and rely on post processing instead. A flash will often create shadows where none truly exist and usually unevenly light the room. Here the levels were in need of major adjustment, as well as contrast and shadows, or low light areas.

[+elyob]

Returning to my issue with dash cam photos, as a reviewer am I obligated to approve waymarks using such photography?

[+K13]

By dash-cam photo, do you mean an actual still from an automotive camera, or a photo taken by a camera held while inside a moving car?

I really couldn't see any quality photo coming from the former, and not much more likely from the latter.

I guess it would be determined by the photo in question. Does it clearly show the subject with enough detail to ascertain the topic of the waymark?

[+elyob]

The images come from a moving vehicle.  They are not blurry.  There is no part of the vehicle in the images.  While poorly framed, the subject is in the images.  I am just tired of rewarding that particular kind of laziness.

[401Photos]

New guy here. Longtime listener, first time caller. Probably preaching to the choir in this thread, yet glad to add my voice.

My take:

What is the purpose of Waymarking?  Except for a few Nature categories, Waymarking is all about our fellow humans' accomplishments and impact on the world. The spirit of the activity, above and beyond our playing the game for its own sake, is for the benefit of others -- both visitors/readers and the people who made the thing we're documenting. We are responsible for creating, to varying degrees,  intellectually and visually engaging Waymarks. To that end, I'm of the "quality over quantity" mindset.

My approach:

I'm a photographer first. Multiple, decent quality pictures can be captured within a few minutes. With a little effort, our group of images can be enhanced using a "shoot and move" attitude. Make each image different by changing the viewing angle in relation to the subject...go to the center/right/left; nearer/further away; higher/lower; show the front/side/back. And then, seriously, how hard is it to end up with four, five, or six good photos? [Blatant crops and through-the-car-window photos...we see your shenanigans. ]

 

As a relative newcomer with less than a year of playing, the "Waymarking FAQ" are fresh on my mind. These parts stand out as explanation of the rules and on-going guidance for me:

THE BASICS

What is Waymarking?

“…Groundspeak's slogan is "The Language of Location" and our goal is to give people the tools to help others share and discover unique and interesting locations on the planet...” ---- Along with my own enjoyment, Waymarking is for other people

 

What is a waymark?

"A waymark is a physical location on the planet marked by coordinates (latitude/longitude) and contains unique information defined by its waymark category..." ---- Waymarking is useful and entertaining communication

CATEGORIES

What are my responsibilities as a category manager?

"...you should clearly define [the most important information to be included in] the description of your category...Many people will be counting on you to preserve the integrity of your category." ---- this is for other people

WAYMARKS

What are my responsibilities as a waymark owner?

"Your responsibilities as a waymark owner are to exactly follow the instructions of its parent category and to describe it in detail..." ---- this is useful and entertaining communication

Why doesn't my waymark show up in the directory?

"Category groups review all new submissions and will only accept waymarks that strictly adhere to their posted guidelines..." ----- this is useful and entertaining communication, but also describes a minimum effort

Waymarking AND GEOCACHING

What is the difference between geocaching and Waymarking?

"...the entire focus is on what can be gained from the location in terms of education [and/or] entertainment..." ---- Along with my own enjoyment, this is useful and entertaining communication for other people!
 

The photography doesn't need to be professional caliber. The descriptions don't require extravagant prose and in-depth essays. (Unlike this response...sheesh...He's still not done?) Each subject and, equally if not more importantly, our readers/visitors and The Game deserve more than an iota of attention. Contributing anything less dilutes the integrity of Waymarking.

I'd like to see an official call-out to the Waymarking masses reminding folks that not everybody who interacts with the site has been doing it for years and years or has posted thousands of photos. (I stumbled on Waymarking last fall --- the Oddball Museums category caught my eye in pursuit of another habbit [ehem] hobby: business card collecting.) Though we might be out and about Waymarking individually: Keep in mind the value of our contributions and take at least three intentionally distinct pictures for each entry.

Self-depreciating close -- I promise to keep future replies shorter now that I got all this off my chest. Thanks for reading. The end.

 

Edited September 7, 2019 by 401Photos
clarity

[+elyob]

Well put!  I look forward to future wordiness.

 

"Keep in mind the value of our contributions and take at least three intentionally distinct pictures for each entry."

Edited September 6, 2019 by elyob

[+iconions]

Welcome to the forums and to Waymarking, 401Photos.

It is good to remind some of us old Waymarking geezers like me EXACTLY why we go out to little towns like Junction, Utah, (Okay, in the spirit of confession I WAS geocaching to pick up a Utah county, and I did stumble upon this courthouse, but hey, y'all still can think I did find this on purpose!)   Again, Keith and Barb of BKHunters do a REALLY fantastic job on their writeups and pictures that they really make me jealous - just don't tell them.  I always shoot my pictures with a camera - never with a cell phone, simply because cell phones are evil and I believe they are designed to take over the world!    I just feel that I have more control of the subject matter with a camera and I just grew up holding one of those devices.  I'm an amateur in the fullest sense, although one of these days I'm going to get my lovely daughter to fully process one of my pictures through her photoshop suite JUST to see what can be done.

Again, welcome, I hope to encounter lots of your waymarks!

 

Puite County Courthouse in Junction, Utah...  No, Keith, I'm not going to get to post this under the Victorian Style - the write-up is calling this "Edwardian".  Tell me this isn't Italianate!  LOL  

[+T0SHEA]

On 9/7/2019 at 6:42 AM, iconions said:

Puite County Courthouse in Junction, Utah...  No, Keith, I'm not going to get to post this under the Victorian Style - the write-up is calling this "Edwardian".  Tell me this isn't Italianate!

Well, Tom, I would have voted Italianate. Most of the building's characteristics seem pretty Italianate to me.

Keith

[+T0SHEA]

On 9/6/2019 at 8:06 AM, 401Photos said:

Self-depreciating close -- I promise to keep future replies shorter now that I got all this off my chest. Thanks for reading. The end.

There's certainly no need to apologize for verbosity when the wordiness is employed in an attempt to improve the "game". Really liked your contribution. With any luck it may prod the odd Waymarker on to bigger and better things, like Waymarks.

Welcome to the game, Jason - we hope you stick around for awhile!!!

Keith

[401Photos]

Thanks, everybody, for the feedback and support!

[+PISA-caching]

Lately I see more and more waymarks that have small photos. See for example http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM11F4K where every photo has a long side of 720 pixels or less. Is that because people resize their photos before the upload or do they use cell phones with a low resulution camera or is there some process, in which these photos are resized?

[+Max and 99]

59 minutes ago, PISA-caching said:

Lately I see more and more waymarks that have small photos. See for example http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM11F4K where every photo has a long side of 720 pixels or less. Is that because people resize their photos before the upload or do they use cell phones with a low resulution camera or is there some process, in which these photos are resized?

I can't even tell the difference.

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

11 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Lately I see more and more waymarks that have small photos. See for example http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM11F4K where every photo has a long side of 720 pixels or less. Is that because people resize their photos before the upload or do they use cell phones with a low resulution camera or is there some process, in which these photos are resized?

I have always resized my photos. I started on a 56k modem on a phone line. I am now on a metered satellite internet system. Why upload a high definition photo when Waymarking receives it and resizes it to fit their format. They used to say that on the photo upload page. Any photo over 600k in size is wasted. 720 pixels x 720 pixels = 518.4K plus or minus a little. I don't know if it is reduced if you include it in your write-up using HTML.

Edited October 15, 2019 by 8Nuts MotherGoose
Edit for clarification.

[401Photos]

13 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Lately I see more and more waymarks that have small photos...Is that because people resize their photos before the upload or do they use cell phones with a low resulution camera or is there some process, in which these photos are resized?

I resize mine to 750 pixels on the long side for a couple of reasons. First, the subjects in my photos are clear, intentionally framed, and (for the most part) well-exposed/consistently exposed. I typically post several pictures to give a good overall sense of the place or item, too. At that size, it feels sufficient to get across the Waymark's story. Secondly, I'd rather not make it easy or attractive for piracy -- hence, the reduced dimensions and resolution plus subtle yet sizeable watermarks.

[+PISA-caching]

Thanks for all your feedback.

 

Ok, seems like the photos are manually resized. Most of my photos were uploaded (after editing and cropping them to the perfect frame) with a long side of 2,048 pixels, until I noticed that 2,250x1,500 is also accepted, as long as the file size isn't too big. When I save them optimized for the web with PhotoShop, the file size is most of the time small enough to keep the original size. And if not, it is only reduced to a long side of 2,048 pixels.

 

I'm not afraid of piracy (on the contrary I would be proud, if one of my photos was used on a Tourist Information page or something like that), but that's of course just my personal opinion and I totally understand that others don't want their photos to be stolen.

 

Usually, I wouldn't even care about the actual size of uploaded photos, but from time to time I have to approve waymarks, where higher resolution photos would be a good thing. Anyway, it's up to the WM owner and I just wanted to make sure that it isn't any technical problem.

[+PISA-caching]

Ok, one question: If you are an officer, what is the minimum resolution you request? I just approved a waymark with photos with a long side of 320 pixels. It would take 27 of these photos to fill the display of my computer and the photo isn't much bigger than a packet of cigarettes. Where will this stop? Matchbox size? Smaller? :-(

[+Max and 99]

18 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Ok, one question: If you are an officer, what is the minimum resolution you request? I just approved a waymark with photos with a long side of 320 pixels. It would take 27 of these photos to fill the display of my computer and the photo isn't much bigger than a packet of cigarettes. Where will this stop? Matchbox size? Smaller? :-(

As an officer, I wouldn't have a clue about checking resolution or size of a photo. If the photo looks reasonable, (Not obviously blurry) I accept it. That's outside of my skill set. 

[+PISA-caching]

In IE you just have to right-click the photo at 100% view and click on Properties to see the exact pixels. Anyway, the exact resolution isn't that important, but if I look at the original photo (not the preview) and it just fills a small part of my display, I consider it being "small" and if there is text on the photo and the text isn't readable or hard to read, because the photo was shrinked too much, I think about declining the photo. If for example you look at this photo  ( (  (which is bigger than 320x240!), can you recognize every single letter? And now look at the big version. Of course it always depends on the photo motif. If I take a photo of a lake, a small photo will do, because you don't need to see any Details, but the problem is, that people tend to use the same resolution for all their photos. Same is true for me. Therefore I use a resolution that is big enough for everything. :-)