Nick
Voyager 
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078 
|
Post by Nick on Dec 9, 2011 22:23:55 GMT -8
This was linked on the Marine Atlantic discussion group. Many of the participants on that group also participated on the Shipspotting.com forums, up until they were apparently booted off for too many "poor quality" photos. They were essentially told that since their pictures aren't all what Shipspotting wants, and that they are out of the way in Canada and most users of the website don't care about Marine Atlantic, that they weren't welcome on the website anymore. Apparently, Shipspotting has some interesting rules regarding photos posted. They must show the complete ship and they must not have anybody "in the way" of the shot, or trees, or telephone poles etc. Some people have had pictures deleted by admins because the ship was "too far away". Anyway, this thread makes for an interesting read... it's only 2 pages. Makes me happy for the community we have here. forum.shipspotting.com/index.php/topic,9589.0.html |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 23, 2012 17:47:03 GMT -8
This was linked on the Marine Atlantic discussion group. Many of the participants on that group also participated on the Shipspotting.com forums, up until they were apparently booted off for too many "poor quality" photos. They were essentially told that since their pictures aren't all what Shipspotting wants, and that they are out of the way in Canada and most users of the website don't care about Marine Atlantic, that they weren't welcome on the website anymore. Apparently, Shipspotting has some interesting rules regarding photos posted. They must show the complete ship and they must not have anybody "in the way" of the shot, or trees, or telephone poles etc. Some people have had pictures deleted by admins because the ship was "too far away". Anyway, this thread makes for an interesting read... it's only 2 pages. Makes me happy for the community we have here. forum.shipspotting.com/index.php/topic,9589.0.html I've joined-up at Shipspotting.com today and have started to post some of my west-coast photos onto that site. I like their photo guidelines because they are very specific and they are trying to protect their brand and quality level. But it is a narrow spectrum of ship photography. But they are looking to achieve consistency and for that you need to compromise on variety. I also like our more relaxed approach here and how we have exterior (partial and full) and interior photos. We have both general and very specific views of ships. Both visions are good, because they are different sites with different expectations. So I'm happy to be part of both. Here are the shipspotting photo criteria: They know what they want, and they're clear about it. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Apr 23, 2012 20:52:28 GMT -8
I've joined-up at Shipspotting.com today and have started to post some of my west-coast photos onto that site. I like their photo guidelines because they are very specific and they are trying to protect their brand and quality level. But it is a narrow spectrum of ship photography. But they are looking to achieve consistency and for that you need to compromise on variety. I also like our more relaxed approach here and how we have exterior (partial and full) and interior photos. We have both general and very specific views of ships. Both visions are good, because they are different sites with different expectations. So I'm happy to be part of both. They know what they want, and they're clear about it. I bet that when it comes to paintings, Shipspotters like Robert Bateman. In other words, absolutely literal interpretations of the subject, no embellishment, absolutely no doubt about what you're looking at. Well, they are called 'Shipspotting', so the focus, as you say, is pretty precise. But don't they even have a thread where people can display a bit of artistry? I suppose I can understand it when threy are recording images of thousands of ships. Here in the West Coast Ferries Forum, our focus is on a much smaller number of vessels, and there are only so many photographs that one needs to see of the Queen of Coquitlam, so I really appreciate it when someone posts a creative shot, or one that captures a vessel as part of a much larger scene. Some of our photographers have gone well beyond the standard postcard type shots, and it makes the Forum a more interesting place. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 24, 2012 6:56:44 GMT -8
re the ShipSpotting website's narrow criteria for photos: I posted a batch of various ship photos yesterday, and today I found that 6 of them were deleted by moderators because they didn't fully match the criteria. I think the main problem was that they weren't enough of a close-up of the ship (too much scenery, too little ship). No, I didn't throw a hissy fit  , but it does show me that it's tough to do standard stock photos, when you're used to using some artistic freedom. A different ball-game over there. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Apr 24, 2012 10:58:11 GMT -8
:)with regard to the shipspotters site, I have been hooked up with that as my central vueing on my email daily review of the world maritime scene, I have yet to contribute any of my older vintage photography or artwork, but perhaps I may get brother wettcoast to assist me on that, but I am hooked on it's wide presentation of the worldwide maritime scene! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 11, 2012 11:14:22 GMT -8
Like some other members (Mr. DOT, Mr. Horn, Scott) on this forum I have signed up on shipspotting.com under the name WCK. I am posting west coast photos (mostly of cruise ships) originating either from his camera or mine going back to about 1970. I have been trying to be very careful to observe their rules and not have photos tossed into the reject bin. I have not been entirely successful in that regard. Here are my two rejects so far...  ![]() www.shipspotting.com/photos/removed/middle/5/2/3/1554325.jpg [/img] I am not quite sure why they don't make the grade. Does anyone have any idea about this? PS: Perhaps we could start a dedicated thread to discuss shipspotting.com related matters? Related posts here could be moved into that new thread.[/quote] Both of these have items obstructing the full-view of the ship. That's one of the criteria. Also, the first item is likely too-small for Shipspotting's standard, they like a closer or fuller image. ....but the Shipspotting moderators are inconsistent in applying the criteria. You'll see lots of "should be deleted" photos on their sites. My reject count is 6, all from my first batch. That also included some closely-similar angled shots, so I shouldn't have posted so many closely-similar shots. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 11, 2012 11:17:06 GMT -8
A new thread to discuss how they do things at that other site, and things that are relevant to us here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on May 11, 2012 12:01:49 GMT -8
The first photo I uploaded there was my photo of the NorEx at Departure Bay and it was never rejected. Thus far, I have not had any of my photos removed from their site, but I have been very inconsistent uploading things there. While I can see why they only want certain shots, they definitely should be more lenient with vessels that are no longer with us, like Jim's wonderful shot of the QotN at Berth 5, Tsawwassen. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 12, 2012 19:17:00 GMT -8
As the ship is somewhat distant, and not as sharp as I might like it, I can see that they might choose to delete it. These standards may be appropriate for photos originating from modern digital cameras. I think that a little less rigidity for old stuff would also be appropriate. I'm enjoying the challenge of submitting "stock view" photos of ferries. I prefer more freedom, but I understand this website and what they say they are after. I also understand that the website library of photos is huge and growing at a crazy pace, and so it's tough for them to stay consistent in how they protect their brand. But I'm having fun trying to fit their brand. The fun is in the play-it-straight challenge. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on May 14, 2012 10:48:35 GMT -8
:)never mind, as archie bunker used to say to the meathead, he's just an impotent man in the shipspotters! mrdot.  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 21, 2012 17:25:25 GMT -8
Is the shipspotting.com website down today?
I've had nothing but error messages all day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on May 21, 2012 18:04:01 GMT -8
Is the shipspotting.com website down today? I've had nothing but error messages all day. Same for me. Maybe there was a series of "imperfect" photographs uploaded, so their server suffered a nervous breakdown... ;D |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on May 26, 2012 18:55:50 GMT -8
:)shipspotting is a facinating read of world wide interest, and my brother WCK has submitted much of his work and also posted some of my work, I found out yesterday, rather rudely, when he posted an item of my artwork, that that was out of order, nevertheless they have some very fine work submitted, and well scanned by him. mrdot.  |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on May 26, 2012 21:28:08 GMT -8
:)yes indeed the head master at shipspotting sent me a note informing me that artwork was a no-no, however I note that artists licence has been used on other occasions! I will try to go on and suck it up! I note that one of their adherints is to use your slide of Calipso as his screensaver, and someone has entered it as his own on this lovers of ocean liners site! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 3, 2013 21:58:32 GMT -8
Shipspotting.com appears to be down and has been down for most of the day. If others can get on successfully please let us know. My brother & I have both tried several times to get on but all we get is this message:
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 3, 2013 22:22:02 GMT -8
Interesting website. I'll have to check it out if it ever goes back online.
Going to the photos quality topic brought up early on in this thread... I was once a member of an airliner photo discussion group (Airliners.net) back when I was really into the genre of aviation photography. They had similar protocols in place, and I once submitted a series of photos taken with what was then a top-of-the-line digital "bridge" camera that was more like a compact DSLR in style. This was back in 2005.
Every photo I submitted, which was of a tour helicopter for the Mount St. Helens area, got rejected. Back then, 4 megapixels was a pretty big deal. And, the camera I owned was the standard-bearer for bridge cameras in the day, aside from its drawback of having a voracious appetite for Energizer Ultimate Lithiums!
Needless to say, I asked moderators to delete my membership there, but not before I sent them a scathing e-mail informing them that I'd been a professional freelance photographer for almost a decade, and my camera had been used to take award-winning photos that were featured in the press and in trade publications for the school bus industry - and that I really don't appreciate being told my photos were not considered for addition to the website because of a few "jagged edges" on some of the photos.
Never heard back from them.
Personally, I disagree with site policies like that. It sort of discourages those less fortunate in the camera dept.
I always hold the view that the camera, nor image quality, makes the photo. It's all in composition and how it's presented.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Mar 4, 2013 13:22:26 GMT -8
Interesting website. I'll have to check it out if it ever goes back online. Going to the photos quality topic brought up early on in this thread... I was once a member of an airliner photo discussion group (Airliners.net) back when I was really into the genre of aviation photography. They had similar protocols in place, and I once submitted a series of photos taken with what was then a top-of-the-line digital "bridge" camera that was more like a compact DSLR in style. This was back in 2005. Every photo I submitted, which was of a tour helicopter for the Mount St. Helens area, got rejected. Back then, 4 megapixels was a pretty big deal. And, the camera I owned was the standard-bearer for bridge cameras in the day, aside from its drawback of having a voracious appetite for Energizer Ultimate Lithiums! Needless to say, I asked moderators to delete my membership there, but not before I sent them a scathing e-mail informing them that I'd been a professional freelance photographer for almost a decade, and my camera had been used to take award-winning photos that were featured in the press and in trade publications for the school bus industry - and that I really don't appreciate being told my photos were not considered for addition to the website because of a few "jagged edges" on some of the photos. Never heard back from them. Personally, I disagree with site policies like that. It sort of discourages those less fortunate in the camera dept. I always hold the view that the camera, nor image quality, makes the photo. It's all in composition and how it's presented. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Mar 4, 2013 13:30:08 GMT -8
I for one are glad to find shipspotting back up, and running as I am addicted to the photostream it provides, especially the older classic material that is posted, in particular, the passenger classic vessels that once sailed our seaways, occasionaly pics., that I have had a hand in! mrdot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Mar 19, 2013 17:55:14 GMT -8
Just a heads up...
Apparently, ShipSpotting doesn't like night photography, even though there is nothing mentioned about that in their "standards".
Two of my Northern Expedition photos were deleted with no reason given. So, I've e-mailed them for an explanation...
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Mar 22, 2013 21:59:41 GMT -8
Just a heads up...Apparently, ShipSpotting doesn't like night photography, even though there is nothing mentioned about that in their "standards". Two of my Northern Expedition photos were deleted with no reason given. So, I've e-mailed them for an explanation... That's absolutely absurd, Scott. With your equipment and your photographic talents, you've produced some pretty spectacular night time shots on this forum. If they have a bias against the lighting, it's their loss, in terms of a comprehensive visual record of any given vessel. I hate the modern term 'anal', but if someone could come up with a less vulgar word or phrase, it might accurately describe Shipspotters' narrow criteria for worthwhile ship photos. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Mar 23, 2013 0:04:05 GMT -8
That's absolutely absurd, Scott. With your equipment and your photographic talents, you've produced some pretty spectacular night time shots on this forum. If they have a bias against the lighting, it's their loss, in terms of a comprehensive visual record of any given vessel. I hate the modern term 'anal', but if someone could come up with a less vulgar word or phrase, it might accurately describe Shipspotters' narrow criteria for worthwhile ship photos. Thank you for the compliments, Neil. Sadly, I've yet to receive a response from ShipSpotting. As a "valued" member of ShipSpotting since 2006, it's comforting to know my first interaction with staff there is simply ignored. Because of that, my participation will be returned with the same courtesy. Go pound sand, ShipSpotting. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 23, 2013 7:10:30 GMT -8
That's absolutely absurd, Scott. With your equipment and your photographic talents, you've produced some pretty spectacular night time shots on this forum. If they have a bias against the lighting, it's their loss, in terms of a comprehensive visual record of any given vessel. I hate the modern term 'anal', but if someone could come up with a less vulgar word or phrase, it might accurately describe Shipspotters' narrow criteria for worthwhile ship photos. Thank you for the compliments, Neil. Sadly, I've yet to receive a response from ShipSpotting. As a "valued" member of ShipSpotting since 2006, it's comforting to know my first interaction with staff there is simply ignored. Because of that, my participation will be returned with the same courtesy. Go pound sand, ShipSpotting.They sound just as banal as Airliners.net. I have half the mind to think they're owned by the same company. UI looks the same. I don't blame ya, though. It's also laughable they pride themselves on high quality.. Some of the photos I looked up, have the outward quality of being shot with a digital point-and-shoot ca. 2005. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 23, 2013 21:15:01 GMT -8
I have come to the conclusion that Ship Spotting is very arbitrary in what they delete. You Scott, and I too, have at least two things going against us. One is a general disinterest in our Pacific North West ferries on the part of their moderators. The second is that we are not in the 'clique'. To become a member will take some time.
Don't expect a reply from them to your request as to reasons for deletion. They say that they are 'much too busy' for that.
I feel your pain!
WCK/JST
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Mar 23, 2013 21:27:49 GMT -8
I have come to the conclusion that Ship Spotting is very arbitrary in what they delete. You Scott, and I too, have at least two things going against us. One is a general disinterest in our Pacific North West ferries on the part of their moderators. The second is that we are not in the 'clique'. To become a member will take some time. Don't expect a reply from them to your request as to reasons for deletion. They say that they are 'much too busy' for that. I feel your pain! WCK/JST Thank you, Jim. However, I went through my photos and individually deleted them this afternoon. I came to the conclusion that if I can't even get the courtesy of a response, my contributions are worthless in their eyes and not worth the time nor bandwidth for me to upload them. This whole incident makes me so proud of what we have here at WCFF. |
|
, but it does show me that it's tough to do standard stock photos, when you're used to using some artistic freedom.
