I'm reaching the super-saturation point with flower photos. I like shooting them, and they tend to be well-received here, but they seem to be constituting 1/3 of the photos here on Caedes (from a random sampling of four pages from the "New Images" section). This may explain the recent downturn in the c-index on flower shots. I find myself becoming hyper-critical of these photos in the voting booth, because I have seen so many really good ones. I have stopped uploading them, because the competition is so stiff. Am I the only grumpus who feels this way?

No, you're not the only one starting to get a feeling of repetativeness - there are a few flower photos that make me go wow, mainly because there are colours I didn't even think could exist on a flower.

But lately I've been passing by flower images without a second glance, I have seen way too many of them lately, and I haven't been prepared; it is still gloomy and miserable in England, and the flowers have not popped up yet. All the bright natural colours are confusing me.

Luckily, I have never posted flower images and have no competition, but I would feel very intimidated by the high quality on the site if I did. Kinda like how I feel intimidated by a higher quality in whatever I do, I suppose.

I, too have never posted any flower shots, but I agree. Perhaps we should limit the amount of flower shots allowed?

Or maybe, people might find something else to photograph...

and that, in part, was what led to me create a thread called just an idea

I really, really ... really hope that the point of this thread is not lost.

However, if people wish to ... and like to post flower images, well ... then perhaps they might have to step up their game? Present more creative takes, etc.?

The flipside of this, as I see it is ... that my stuff might be better received. :oP

How about some flour shots? Not many of those...

typical half-baked response..

I am still spitting tacks at the suggestion that flower shots should be limited, so will return with my thoughts when I stop choking.
Surely the large number is an indication of the popularity of this type of image?

No ?

Passing without a second glance? - well I sometimes feel that way about other genres but I still take the time to consider the merits and value of each upload.

More later - choking again!!

I am intimidated by the quality of landscape shots but that does not stop me from trying to improve. To say I don't want to play this game any more because I am not winning would be a useless and selfish attitude.

You live in new zealand!? Go get a glider ride...my favorite soaring video(s) is(are) made there. *sorry about that random though*

*moving onwards* about those flower shots...everyone has their style.

I agree with you, LynEve about the unlikelihood of limiting any type of images. Don't worry - Caedes'll never do that I'm sure.

When I travel in Europe I'm often afflicted with what we call "the ABC Complex" It means, "Another bloody church." The churches there are all spectacular, but after a week of church after church after church you get so that unless it's the Catedral Toledo you don't pay any attention to it. I'm feeling a bit of that with the flower shots. I find myself giving 4's to photos that should be getting 6's because I just saw ten previous flower images that were 8's. Now you have to understand that as part of my Caedesian duties I spend a lot of time in the voting booth when I'm active on the site.

I personally think that while some people do a spectacular job of photographing and manipulating flower shots, most flower shots work because flowers are simply pretty. Their bright colors attract attention, so they're just easier to shoot than, say a black and white of shoes and a hat near a fireplace.

Don't get angry over the possibility that your flower shots will be limited. It's just not this site's style. You should know that by now my friend.

:) OK, tacks are all gone, but I have to disagree that most flower shots work simply because they are pretty. Most birds are pretty too, but that does not guarantee a shot that will grab the attention of the viewer.
I have some spectacular scenery on my doorstep but having the talent to photograph and present it in a manner that is sure to gain attention is missing. Sometimes they work because of the inherent beauty of the scene, but one could say one mountain is much like another, as with churches when you suffer from ABC overload.
Anyway I have set myself a new goal - a hat and a pair of shoes near a fireplace in b/w.lol

Noah, yes I do live in New Zealand, which is probably why most of my pictures are of New Zealand! My flowers are all NZ flowers too.The World Gliding Championships are held very close to where I live , so maybe next time I will get some shots - "just another glider shot" And no, I won't be taking a ride, I would be too scared and I am too old, so you don't get rid of me and my flowers that easily, sorry ! :)


Just as a matter of interest, in the permanent galleries there are....
Landscapes - 103 pages
Flowers - 79 pages

Abstracts - 124 pages
Computer generated - 78 pages

Now, where can I find a pair of white shoes, and a black hat . . . . . . .

Ah – it’s not like the good old days (well, a few months back) when – during the middle of the northern hemisphere winter – the number of flower posts spookily dropped and all manner of complaints arose and now when we find ourselves in the springtime, bizarrely, the number has increased again – but with new and improved complaints. Removes tongue from its firmly planted cheek abode.

Well Phil, I did my best to keep you supplied during your winter/our summer lol
Perhaps I will have an Autumn/Winter rest now and let you guys up there keep the flowers coming.
You should all be thankful there have not been 'autumn splendour' shots ad infinitum from this neck of the woods.
My tongue seems to be a bit stuck too
:)

Quotes .. Surely the large number is an indication of the popularity of this type of image?

no .. the large number is an indication of ..

1.) They don't run, screaming, away from the photographer ..
2.) they don't run, screaming, towards the photographer ..

I would like to see an increase in ravenous Grizzly Bear photos


.. so, how about it?

We can't go on with our personal likes and dislikes when it comes to voting because that would be totally unfair. Some don't like flowers, some may not like birds or snow and ice. You don't like flowers - good enough - you don't need to buy them but at least you must be "magnanimous" (being polite :) ) enough to give a posting its due worth. I posted a flower shot yesterday and somebody said it was worth a 10 but the C index turned out to be 59 - (no)thanks to enemies of flowers but that won't stop me from posting more flowers. So flower haters beware!

>_> Me, flower hater?

Um, i'd give it a 3-4...more like a 4. Its good and everything, but effort influences the score i give in the voting booth (when i do vote, which isn't every often).

It looks as if you were standing, pointed the camera down, centered the subject, and pressed the button. Vs something that looks as if more effort was put into it: dew (sometimes it's good), carefully framed, spent time in post processing, proper exposure, creative POV, etc etc.

I don't think it's a case of "flower haters". Simply a fact that as the number of photos increases, so does the competition and therefore the expectations of the voter. Similar to that the longer you have been on the site, the higher your expectations become, so something that might have once impressed you greatly (say an 8 or 9) will probably get a lower vote if you have been on here a while as you have seen more of what is around and realised there are similar/better images around.

*(when i do vote, which isn't every often)*.

Why is that Noah?

Just wondering, as you appear to have a good understanding of that makes a good picture.

Btw. dew is not always available.

Keith, where are the grizzly's we are expected to shoot? There seems to be a shortage of them where I live.

Honestly, I can't stand voting. I probably should vote, but i think the system is doing fine without me.

Dew is not always a good thing or should it always be in a photo. I kind of like it. Finding dew on a photo makes it seem like the photographer waited for the right moment to take the photo...or took the time to fill up a spray bottle and spray the plant.

"Just wondering, as you appear to have a good understanding of that makes a good picture." Lol...that may or may not be true; but if it is, i'd be taking some sweet photos.

I'll agree with Noah on this point: voting is, at times, a tedious affair.

There are days when I want to post an image, but end up not doing so because I am to tired to brave the voting booth.

Granted, I don't have the time to do nearly as many images as I used to. I am busier, and more tired, so the voting booth, if this makes sense, is even more tedious than it was 5 months ago.

Going back to my suggestion of limiting images, how about limiting the amount of images in the permanent gallery? That way it is more of an indication of the spectacular quality of the image rather than a general best-in-class.

Of course it's tedious, but it's necessary to make the site work. Just do it, because it's your duty.

Noah ...Looking at your gallery it is apparent that you are indeed taking some sweet photos, and I am sure you are delighted with the c-index ratings they have gained. If we all allowed tedium to get the better of us and stopped voting you would not have had the pleasure of seeing them.

Tim . . it really does not take very long to vote on 10 images, and is a small effort for the 20 or so you will get in return on your image :)

*Quotes .. Surely the large number is an indication of the popularity of this type of image?

no .. the large number is an indication of ..

1.) They don't run, screaming, away from the photographer ..
2.) they don't run, screaming, towards the photographer .. *

Sorry Keith, I disagree completely lol.
Mountains don't run either, nor do buildings, or skies for that matter.
If every picture has to have an element of suggested danger requiring bravery to have shot the picture then I would be a goner.
I am not brave.
(Or perhaps I am, to venture into this discussion)

I had something to say...but i just remembered what always happens when this c-index issue pops up...but...

I think it would be fine to have 5-10 votes per image with only 5 choices. Each score can be seen by what individual people scored: in that case, i could ask why they gave me a 2/5. Or in other cases, when every1 gives 4/5's, and the 9th person gives a 2/5, i can a) ignore it b) ask the person why they voted a 2/5 c) whatever c could be.

I also think that 10 votes compared to 20 votes is kindof like comparing a 6mp to a 10mp sensor - which is not that much of a difference.

And so finally, i think that half the votes now can be discarded. I really wonder what the difference would be if only the first half of the votes were kept and compared it to the full votes. I'd be interested to see this; to prove me wrong or right.

Well, that's my opinion...actually, excuse for me not voting.

Quote from Noah : "It looks as if you were standing, pointed the camera down, centered the subject, and pressed the button." - No, I went from my home to the garden 11 miles away, walked around, chose the subject, took 4 or 5 shots from different angles and chose the best one. How else would you take a photo of a landscape, building or a beach?
OK, I may now try something else : A black hat with a candy striped walking stick (for the blind) ; a manipulation of a grizzly eating a big mac (horror?) ; and a sack of flour (still life) *LOL*

I think the reason flower shots are so numerous is simply that they are one of the few subjects that are readily available to most photographers which are immediately and obviously aesthetically pleasing. Not everyone has a nice landscape around their neighborhood to snap, or interesting buildings etc., but most people would be able to find a nice flower or two nearby...

....and they don't run, screaming, away from the photographer ..
flour can get up your nose though

:)

Another thing: flowers aren't moving, except with the wind...
It's easier to take them than insects ;-)
But to capture a very good flower's image is really difficult.
We find a lot of poor compositions (centered flowers...) or out of focus images. That's why the ratio perms/archived is very low

A shortage of bears? .. but you have Nazgul, Barrow Wrights, Balrogs .. the list goes on and on

I've seen 'em .. on TV

:o)


and ... proper grammar would be .. "dew isn't always doable"

This 'proper gramma'does not frequent the Barrow Downs :)I don't want Frodo leaping out and scaring me.

"Proper gramma" would be your parent's mother who always does things just so.

Just to make a point clear - My contribution called
Rhododendron posted 3 days ago has now a download/view of 95% which means many out there in the wide world found this photo (exceptionally) good. Yet there are voters like Noahnott who would have given it a 3 or 4. So you can see how unfair the voting now-a-days is especially when it comes to a photo of flowers!

If I might offer a few thoughts here, I went to go look at the shot you've offered as an example.

Let me address the view/download issue first. That,just as the vote itself, doesn't offer an accurate "standing" of the image itself. It does show how strong of a "hook" the image has. Often, I've gone to full view on an image, not because I love it, per se, but rather, I wanted to investigate further.

As for the vote itself,it too, is a partial telling of the image's standing, or (for lack of a better descriptor) quality. The difference being that votes are cast on the full-sized image, as you know.

My vote, had I cast one on that image, would've been a 6 or so. The composition is nice enough, but the lighting is a bit flat, and there could have been more contrast and sharper details to make this pop. The 58 it's currently scored at seems fair.

Just my opinion..

I believe that illustrates my point. The plethora of flower photos means that we voters have all become a bit jaded towards them, and the result is what happened to your image, Ramad.

I've looked at the flowers gallery and i've realized that i vote lower (by about 20 cindex points) than what the images actually recieve.

I'm going to see if this true for other types of images....yep, i vote low. I guess i just have high expectations...or something.

I think the notion that flower shots won't do well doesn't stand up. It's more a case that so-so flower photos have alot of better flower photos to compete with so they might be penalised when it comes time to vote. If you upload an interesting well taken flower photo it can still do just as well as any other subject.

I will second that notion Sam ;=)

I agree, but only if the words 'oh no, not another flower picture' are banned from the vocabulary of every Caedesian.:)
ppigeon's remark "But to capture a very good flower's image is really difficult." is all too true, as anyone who has ever tried to will know.

Darn things just won't keep still for long enough.

one of the tripod manufacturers - cant remember who now - used to make a clamp attachment that fixed to a tripod and gripped a flower steady to be photographed - ill try and remember who made them - sure it was either manfrotto or gorrilapod.

I just bought my first tripod last week :) It does not have a flower gripper though :):)

found it :-) not Manfrotto or Gorilla - Wimberley - in this case - the Plamp.

Could it be the same guy who invented zoom lens for photograping landscapes, aeroplanes and animals? You know Phil, there is nothing wrong with using a tripod even for a flower shot because it makes a big difference especially if it is an indoor shot. Not for airplanes and such because they are seldom photographed indoors - except by technicians in the hangar :)

the Plamp (PLant clAMP) was specifically designed originally for using on plants - thats why i mentioned it.

O.K. Thanks, You gave me a great idea - I can make one out of a bit of siezing wire and a clothes peg :)

im sure that will work just as well. not.

or you can hire my son (teenager) he doesn't move most of the time... hehehe *kidding

funny... i wanted to come to the discussions to post my thanks to all the people who post beautiful flower pics.. i enjoy them so much! instead i see this thread... ok, sure, some flower pics are ordinary, but then so many other pics are very ordinary as well, why just pick on flowers?

My guess is that it is Spring, and there are a higher number of flower pictures than usual because people looking to get out of photographic slump went outside and snapped photos of their flowers.

Sometimes the amount of image of any catagory can become overwealming.

Spring? Where?
It is autumn here :)

Spring - everywhere but there :-) the flower flood/drought is definitely a seasonal thing but as tim said - too much of anything can often be a bad thing, be it mountains, flowers, birds - whatever - you know what I mean :-)

I always thought one could not get too much of a good thing lol

'course depends what we think a good thing is.
There are good things and good things.
And flowers.

what about all the ducks, squirrels, cats, dogs??

ANIMANIACS! You can never have too much animaniacs! Season 3 dvd release coming July 9!

As Spring comes to an end the flower photos will dwindle. Now is the time for some super beach photos. Whatever you photograph, I challenge everyone to study the viewfinder more and try for the most pleasing composition that you can create. Avoid images with the subject that's too centered or too far away. Try shooting from different angles. Looking forward to a Summer filled with great images. Happy shooting.
Russ

I think the main thing is that Springtime and Summer is filled with natures beautiful flowers and if people enjoy them on their desktops, they should be able to come to caedes and search and choose. But on the other hand, I feel its most important to just check them out, if ya like them, keep 'em but if ya don't then just forget ya say them....Beach shots are wonderful, personally I feel sunsets//sunrises are great. But the key to anything is to come up with something a bit on
the unique side, not matter if its flowers or anything else. Put our minds to it and come up with a bit of drama or whimsy or whatever, to change the subject to make it more interesting. Just shooting any photo from a different ANGLE is often the key to success.

Okay, so let me see, the Buddha was wrong when he said, "If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change". I surmise from the discussion above that there are just too many flowers in the world and any old shutter plunger can shoot them, ipso facto, flower shots are irrelevant. Would you like to set quotas for flower shots? Then how about quotas for landscapes, automobiles, sunrises/sets, fractals, etc. If you love photographing flowers, then you should photograph them. In my opinion, there aren't enough people pictures here. So they are shunned and flower shots are shunned, then what on God's good earth is worth taking a picture of may I ask?

if you outlaw flower photos .. then only outlaws will have flower photos

Then it's an outlaw's life for me!

First they came...

`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·

♦ They came first for the shots of Girls in bikinis,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a bikini-girl poster.

♦ Then they came for the images of Copyrighted material,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a poster of copyrighted material.

♦ Then they came for the Snapshots,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a snapshot photographer.

♦ Then they came for the Baby pictures,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't posting pics of the kids.

♦ Then they came for me, a flower photographer
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·

based on a poem by Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

(*my apologies to the Holocaust victims*)