Groundspeak Portal

We all do our best to meet the image requirements of the Categories for posting new waymarks and of the Waymarks for posting visits.

How much effort do you put into getting "the shot". Is from the car good enough if you got it all in frame? Do you wait for perfect lighting or safe traffic conditions (if you need to be in the road for the perfect angle)? Do you make adjustments in image software if your picture was a little crooked or you want to crop out those strangers staring at you taking a picture of Burger King? Do you just upload, submit and hope the officers approve it as is?

Have you, as an officer, ever declined a waymark because the images met the requirements but the quality was sub par?

- Elle

 

haunthunters:

We all do our best to meet the image requirements of the Categories for posting new waymarks and of the Waymarks for posting visits.

How much effort do you put into getting "the shot". Is from the car good enough if you got it all in frame? Do you wait for perfect lighting or safe traffic conditions (if you need to be in the road for the perfect angle)? Do you make adjustments in image software if your picture was a little crooked or you want to crop out those strangers staring at you taking a picture of Burger King? Do you just upload, submit and hope the officers approve it as is?

Have you, as an officer, ever declined a waymark because the images met the requirements but the quality was sub par?

- Elle

 

Personally, I couldn't take a level picture if I set my camera on a fence. I've turned a lopsided picture into my trademark!

I love to look at the photos of all the semi-professional photographers out there, though!

I just use an old Kodak for my shots. I do my best. It's usually after I get home and am looking at it in the big screen that I see the things that I couldn't see through my viewfinder, oh like a reflection of me in the window, or a reflection of me in the polished granite.

When master Quilters quilt, they always make one square with an error, because only God is perfect. They call that a humilty square. Well, all my photos have a little humilty in them. And I'm really proud of that.

I've never used software to alter my work, aside from very basic cropping in Paint. Bruce suggested I try Picassa, though, and it's on my list (high on my list).

haunthunters:

How much effort do you put into getting "the shot". Is from the car good enough if you got it all in frame? Do you wait for perfect lighting or safe traffic conditions (if you need to be in the road for the perfect angle)? Do you make adjustments in image software if your picture was a little crooked or you want to crop out those strangers staring at you taking a picture of Burger King? Do you just upload, submit and hope the officers approve it as is?

 

The answer to this for me is "it depends".

I take a particular joy in the photography angle of Waymarking, and to be completely honest it's one of the main aspects that draws me into the site. I often partake in photo walks and nowadays I am always on the lookout for waymarks while I'm out with my gear. If I'm out looking for waterfalls, then you'll find me out there with my camera backpack, several filters and a sturdy tripod. Often I'll post-process these images in HDR format spending up to a couple hours on the process.

One of the challenges with lighting is the fact that 'perfect' lighting is often dawn or dusk. I'm not a morning person, and dusk usually means the end of the waymarking outing, as most categories frown on night shots (it IS possible to get a quality night photo, it just takes longer).  Adjusting timing slightly to avoid things like traffic is part of the process - mind you a nice 10mm lens goes a long way toward eliminating that problem!

Locations like fast food restaurants, shopping centres or other places that John Q. Public does not expect/want to see a camera, often I will pull into the parking lot, roll the window down and take a photo with a small point and shoot (being careful not to include the mirror or other features). Note I park at the location and compose the photo - I'm just hiding inside the car, not snapping a photo as I drive by at 80km/h.

The point here is to not startle the public by hauling out a DSLR on a tripod with a great big lens at the local Starbucks. Especially in this day when anyone with a camera is assumed to be a terrorist or criminal of some sort. I have had a few friends get approached by members of the public demanding to know why they were photographing a Tim Horton's or a Public Playground.

If the place is not overly busy, then I prefer to get out of the vehicle and take a few photos from different angles. If I'm at a coffee shop I tend to go in and get a coffee. If it's empty I'll take a photo of the interior (after gauging what the staff's reaction might be).

One of the key points with either situation is to simply take your time. Just take a second before you 'click' to see how everything looks. Level horizon, rule of thirds goes a long way and often just pausing for that second to remember that fixes a lot of things. 

Having said all that, I've been slapped around a few times for less than ideal photos. Usually those times I'm trying not to upset someone near the waymark.

haunthunters:

Have you, as an officer, ever declined a waymark because the images met the requirements but the quality was sub par?

 

Not yet, but I'm still new at the whole "officer" thing.
Photos that are blurry or grainy are not something I would approve though. I also measure that against the situation. If the person is taking a photo of a fast food restaurant in the food court of their local mall, it is likely to be dimly lit, and this is a place that will react poorly to a tripod or professional model DSLR so I'd probably let that slide a bit.

I usually try to avoid getting unintended people in my photos if possible, and if not able to avoid them I have blurred faces slightly so they are not identifiable.   The hardest thing for me is when the sun is in a bad spot and I have to take a photo of subject at a less than desirable angle to avoid the sun.   I usually take photos from a few angles to get a good photo of the site.   As most of my waymarking is done while traveling I usually don't have the option to come back when the sun is right.  

As far as cropping, editing etc,  yes I will crop out things I don't want in photo like people, cars, power poles.    I will blur license plates and faces if I can't crop them out.   If a photo is darker than I want, I will lighten some so the subject shows better.

As far as rejecting waymarks which have photos which meet the requirements, no, but that is not to say I have not reject waymarks for bad photos... if the requirement says a clear photo  and I get a black blob of subject or or not the subject at all, then yes I have rejected as they did not meet the requirements of the category.  For those that they are just too dark I have had waymarkers send them to me to lighten up so they are acceptable.

BruceS:

I will blur license plates and faces if I can't crop them out.  

Can you give some brief instructions on how to blur a licence plate? It seems like a simple, yet valuable skill to have.

globetrotters.us:

BruceS:

I will blur license plates and faces if I can't crop them out.  

Can you give some brief instructions on how to blur a licence plate? It seems like a simple, yet valuable skill to have.

Just open up image in paint and copy the background color using tool that looks like an eye dropper and mark over the numbers paint brush or spray can.  Do same for faces just use the spray can to blur features.

northernpenguin:

The answer to this for me is "it depends".

I take a particular joy in the photography angle of Waymarking, and to be completely honest it's one of the main aspects that draws me into the site. I often partake in photo walks and nowadays I am always on the lookout for waymarks while I'm out with my gear. If I'm out looking for waterfalls, then you'll find me out there with my camera backpack, several filters and a sturdy tripod. Often I'll post-process these images in HDR format spending up to a couple hours on the process.

One of the challenges with lighting is the fact that 'perfect' lighting is often dawn or dusk. I'm not a morning person, and dusk usually means the end of the waymarking outing, as most categories frown on night shots (it IS possible to get a quality night photo, it just takes longer).  Adjusting timing slightly to avoid things like traffic is part of the process - mind you a nice 10mm lens goes a long way toward eliminating that problem!

Locations like fast food restaurants, shopping centres or other places that John Q. Public does not expect/want to see a camera, often I will pull into the parking lot, roll the window down and take a photo with a small point and shoot (being careful not to include the mirror or other features). Note I park at the location and compose the photo - I'm just hiding inside the car, not snapping a photo as I drive by at 80km/h.

The point here is to not startle the public by hauling out a DSLR on a tripod with a great big lens at the local Starbucks. Especially in this day when anyone with a camera is assumed to be a terrorist or criminal of some sort. I have had a few friends get approached by members of the public demanding to know why they were photographing a Tim Horton's or a Public Playground.

If the place is not overly busy, then I prefer to get out of the vehicle and take a few photos from different angles. If I'm at a coffee shop I tend to go in and get a coffee. If it's empty I'll take a photo of the interior (after gauging what the staff's reaction might be).

One of the key points with either situation is to simply take your time. Just take a second before you 'click' to see how everything looks. Level horizon, rule of thirds goes a long way and often just pausing for that second to remember that fixes a lot of things. 

Having said all that, I've been slapped around a few times for less than ideal photos. Usually those times I'm trying not to upset someone near the waymark.

I'm pretty much in full agreement here... except I don't have the patience to do HDR very often. I'm not too shy about taking pictures of the inside of places if I'm not alone. Thanks to MySpace and Flickr, people are used to seeing people taking pictures of every meal or coffee that they have. *lol*

And there's always the photographer's quick excuses, "It's for a project. Don't worry, you're not in the frame."

If I can get it all from the car without having parts of the car in the frame and I'm feeling lazy, I'll stay in the car. I've stood in the rain more than once to get a decent shot, though.

- Elle

BruceS:

Just open up image in paint and copy the background color using tool that looks like an eye dropper and mark over the numbers paint brush or spray can.  Do same for faces just use the spray can to blur features.

Success! I hadn't ever used the eye dropper before. I'd always had bad luck with the paint can colors not matching, and looking fake.

haunthunters:

Have you, as an officer, ever declined a waymark because the images met the requirements but the quality was sub par? 

northernpenguin:

Not yet, but I'm still new at the whole "officer" thing.
Photos that are blurry or grainy are not something I would approve though. I also measure that against the situation. If the person is taking a photo of a fast food restaurant in the food court of their local mall, it is likely to be dimly lit, and this is a place that will react poorly to a tripod or professional model DSLR so I'd probably let that slide a bit.

BruceS:

As far as rejecting waymarks which have photos which meet the requirements, no, but that is not to say I have not reject waymarks for bad photos... if the requirement says a clear photo  and I get a black blob of subject or or not the subject at all, then yes I have rejected as they did not meet the requirements of the category.  For those that they are just too dark I have had waymarkers send them to me to lighten up so they are acceptable.

This line of discussion is especially interesting to me.  Awhile back I approved what I believed to be a very special waymark in a special location.  It had a photo that met the requirements, meaning I could make out the object and it wasn't blurry or dark.  I was promptly chastised by another officer, who sent a message to the entire group to remind us of our obligation to maintain the quality of the waymarks we're approving, and how a site this special deserved a much better photograph, and thus should not have been approved.  Ummm, the site's been live for three years... if a professional photographer could not get there in that timeframe, I'm happy to have the waymark recorded with an amateur's shot.  Other visitors can supplement the gallery.

I quit that group.  It was a real buzz kill for me.  This is a site about discovering locations -- not a photography site.

the leprechauns:

Awhile back I approved what I believed to be a very special waymark in a special location.  It had a photo that met the requirements, meaning I could make out the object and it wasn't blurry or dark.  I was promptly chastised by another officer, who sent a message to the entire group to remind us of our obligation to maintain the quality of the waymarks we're approving, and how a site this special deserved a much better photograph, and thus should not have been approved.  Ummm, the site's been live for three years... if a professional photographer could not get there in that timeframe, I'm happy to have the waymark recorded with an amateur's shot.  Other visitors can supplement the gallery.

I like your statement about visitors supplementing the gallery. Visitor picture quality fluctuates just as much as Poster picture quality so there's a good chance that the quality will balance itself out. The great thing about the waymark gallery is that they all go into the same gallery, and the waymark owner has the option of making the default picture one of the visitor's pictures!

- Elle

the leprechauns:

 Other visitors can supplement the gallery.

I'll go one step further... When I have a vistor that has submitted a better picture than mine, I will click the 'make this the front page picture' button.

This being Michigan, we often go many months without good sunlight in the winter.

I think having a waymark declined because of picture quality could seriously turn me off waymarking, especially if it had happened during one of my first submissions.  Luckily, I haven't had that particular problem.

For most of my waymarks, I'd be happy to replace my photo with others'...but haven't had the opportunity to do so yet.

the leprechauns:

This line of discussion is especially interesting to me.  Awhile back I approved what I believed to be a very special waymark in a special location.  It had a photo that met the requirements, meaning I could make out the object and it wasn't blurry or dark.  I was promptly chastised by another officer, who sent a message to the entire group to remind us of our obligation to maintain the quality of the waymarks we're approving, and how a site this special deserved a much better photograph, and thus should not have been approved.  Ummm, the site's been live for three years... if a professional photographer could not get there in that timeframe, I'm happy to have the waymark recorded with an amateur's shot.  Other visitors can supplement the gallery.

I quit that group.  It was a real buzz kill for me.  This is a site about discovering locations -- not a photography site.

I think you are reading more into my statement of quality of a photo.  The ones I have rejected were such that the building was not identifiable as a building other then a black silhouette,  in this case I could not make out the object at all whether in form, color, size.   I have submitted plenty of less than great photos, thus my expectation is far from professional quality.  This site is not a photography site however  photos along with locations do make waymarks.

I find it interesting when people say visitors can enhance the gallery,  this enhancement will not happen as long as visit requirements are for gps photos... a gps photo enhances nothing.  

pseudoprime:

I think having a waymark declined because of picture quality could seriously turn me off waymarking, especially if it had happened during one of my first submissions.  Luckily, I haven't had that particular problem.

For most of my waymarks, I'd be happy to replace my photo with others'...but haven't had the opportunity to do so yet.

Most category owners that reject for pictures do it in a very positive way, and very quick. Personally, I've had quite a few rejected for missing sign pictures. Which usually isn't a problem, unless it's a festival , and the rejection doesn't come until the festival is over. As long as I get the rejection fast enough to mitigate it, I consider it constructive criticism. 

BruceS:

I find it interesting when people say visitors can enhance the gallery,  this enhancement will not happen as long as visit requirements are for gps photos... a gps photo enhances nothing.  

This is very true. I just don't want to restrict the allowance of them to prevent people from logging visits when they didn't know not to put the GPS or someone in the photo. I assume most people, when given the choice, don't want to be in the photo or have to line up their GPS at GZ.

- Elle

My main objective in taking a picture for making a waymark is to follow the rules.  Secondarily, I like to get a shot that isn't ruined by something like bad reflections, shooting into the sun, shooting from my car window and getting part of the car in the shot, etc.  My third priority is to get my picture taken without calling undue attention to myself, perhaps a weakness on my part.  Certainly, if I can see how to get an extra nice shot, I will go for it.

I always check my pictures before uploading them.  I crop them if there is too much extraneous stuff in the picture like too much sky or asphalt. (There is something funny about the waymarking site's thumbnail versions - any cropped picture shows up as a thin line in a black rectangle, but the large view is OK.  Or is it the editor I'm using?)

Another part of checking a picture is to remove/blur personal stuff - licence plate numbers and people's faces.  Distant faces in a crowd are OK, but a picture of an antique store (I waymark that category) with one person sitting on the bench outside psychologically makes it a picture of that person, not the store.  I spend time editing a picture if I think it needs it.  I blur out licence plates and possibly bumper stickers if I wasn't able to avoid them in the shot.  I use a photo editor - I think they all have a blurring tool.  In one incident, someone was selling their paintings in front of the store.  I didn't want to be uploading their paintings to the internet and there was no other way to get a shot that followed the rules.  I blanked out all the paintings by copying adjacent pieces of the store's wall onto them, and blanked out the person selling them as well.

As an officer, I avoid the swelled-head syndrome and never reject a waymark submission because of some photo quality issue I may have with it.  If it follows the rules, then it's in.  Avoiding subjective rules like "it must be a really good picture" is part of the nature of waymarking, I think.

black dog trackers:

(There is something funny about the waymarking site's thumbnail versions - any cropped picture shows up as a thin line in a black rectangle, but the large view is OK.  Or is it the editor I'm using?)

I don't think it is your editor. Unless there are a lot of us using the same one. I use Picasa. You?

BruceS:

I think you are reading more into my statement of quality of a photo.  The ones I have rejected were such that the building was not identifiable as a building other then a black silhouette,  in this case I could not make out the object at all whether in form, color, size.   I have submitted plenty of less than great photos, thus my expectation is far from professional quality.  This site is not a photography site however  photos along with locations do make waymarks.

I find it interesting when people say visitors can enhance the gallery,  this enhancement will not happen as long as visit requirements are for gps photos... a gps photo enhances nothing.  

I think you are reading too much into my quoting of your post.  I agree with all that you've said in this thread.  If we were sitting across a table from each other, you'd see me nodding up and down like a bobblehead doll.  That's difficult to convey in a forum post, as there's no animated bobblehead emoticon.

Wow.  My first double post.  I'm so very proud.

the leprechauns:

BruceS:

I think you are reading more into my statement of quality of a photo.  The ones I have rejected were such that the building was not identifiable as a building other then a black silhouette,  in this case I could not make out the object at all whether in form, color, size.   I have submitted plenty of less than great photos, thus my expectation is far from professional quality.  This site is not a photography site however  photos along with locations do make waymarks.

I find it interesting when people say visitors can enhance the gallery,  this enhancement will not happen as long as visit requirements are for gps photos... a gps photo enhances nothing.  

I think you are reading too much into my quoting of your post.  I agree with all that you've said in this thread.  If we were sitting across a table from each other, you'd see me nodding up and down like a bobblehead doll.  That's difficult to convey in a forum post, as there's no animated bobblehead emoticon.

Understood

TheBeanTeam:

black dog trackers:

(There is something funny about the waymarking site's thumbnail versions - any cropped picture shows up as a thin line in a black rectangle, but the large view is OK.  Or is it the editor I'm using?)

I don't think it is your editor. Unless there are a lot of us using the same one. I use Picasa. You?

I use ArcSoft PhotoStudio.

black dog trackers:

TheBeanTeam:

I don't think it is your editor. Unless there are a lot of us using the same one. I use Picasa. You?

I use ArcSoft PhotoStudio.

Ulead PhotoImpact and Adobe Photoshop. I've not seen this problem.

- Elle

I would think it has to do with the aspect ratio of the images.  I have noticed the black bars if I crop into something that is much wider or panoramic than the original 4:3 ratio that my camera takes.  Ususally I select to keep the original ratio and this does not occur.

It is also noticeable that the thumbnails zoom in a bit on images which are uploaded in portrait orientation as opposed to landscape.  These omit showing the very top and bottom of the image, but the whole picture is seen when opened.

black dog trackers:

TheBeanTeam:

black dog trackers:

(There is something funny about the waymarking site's thumbnail versions - any cropped picture shows up as a thin line in a black rectangle, but the large view is OK.  Or is it the editor I'm using?)

I don't think it is your editor. Unless there are a lot of us using the same one. I use Picasa. You?

I use ArcSoft PhotoStudio.

I use mspaint, the resizer powertoy, and/or explorer when I use a windows machine and I use Preview when I'm on my Macintosh (usually).  Preview will also edit the brightness and contrast and the like.

Do you know if PhotoStudio is actually saving a thumbnail in the photo file?  Does waymarking.com's thumbnail viewer use that?

It saves a photo, not just a thumbnail.
It only does the thin line thing when I crop a picture and thereby change the width-to-height ratio.