I was browsing through this today and took note of how unusable it is currently due to the lack of images (I think because of the gallery archive switchover-debacle) Is there an easy-ish way to remedy this, or does it still depend on the original poster manually updating the new gallery/the original posts? It would be a really great resource (I miss having it handy) and as I second question, who should I contact if I want to contribute, seeing as how the whole forum is locked?
Pictorial ID of known species
Started by
Guest_Kanus_*
, Oct 18 2013 07:36 PM
17 replies to this topic
#2
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 18 October 2013 - 07:42 PM
This section is pretty much Uland's personal project. As far as i know, the only pictures in there are the one's that he has placed in there.
The problem with the links is not really the server change, I think that most of the problems are pictures from Dave Neely that were removed from the gallery archive (during the gallery archive to forum gallery debacle). I think Dave has reloaded his pictures, but they now have different web locations/addresses.
I have the technological capability to go through and manually fix it, but I do not know what Uland had in there or what he wants in there, so I have not addressed this area.
The problem with the links is not really the server change, I think that most of the problems are pictures from Dave Neely that were removed from the gallery archive (during the gallery archive to forum gallery debacle). I think Dave has reloaded his pictures, but they now have different web locations/addresses.
I have the technological capability to go through and manually fix it, but I do not know what Uland had in there or what he wants in there, so I have not addressed this area.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#3
Guest_Dustin_*
Guest_Dustin_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 October 2013 - 08:14 PM
I think with Uland's schedule he may appreciate some assistance witht the pictorial guide. It was one of the initial projects of the forum before its association with NANFA. We knew it was going to be a monumental task and with the amount of regional variation, nearly impossible to truly do perfectly. I still think it can be a great tool. The issue is verifying a species is what it is purported to be before its addition into the guide. We all know how difficult this can be from photos and even the best field I'd folks still make mistakes. These are the issues that stalled things.
#4
Guest_daveneely_*
Guest_daveneely_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 October 2013 - 09:17 PM
The problem with the links is not really the server change, I think that most of the problems are pictures from Dave Neely that were removed from the gallery archive (during the gallery archive to forum gallery debacle). I think Dave has reloaded his pictures, but they now have different web locations/addresses.
Sorry. My bad.
#5
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 19 October 2013 - 09:24 AM
No, Dave, you were not the root cause of the debacle and I apologize if it came across that way. There was a great deal of confusion during those few weeks, and I for one, am glad that we got it worked out and still have the benefit of your photos.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#6
Guest_Kanus_*
Guest_Kanus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 October 2013 - 12:45 PM
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but is there a way we could potentially form an ID comittee the review photos before they are posted? And if we can resurrect this project, as outstanding at Uland (and other's) photos are, I feel like as long as species identity could be confirmed, in-hand and/or snorkeling photos could be included as well, as fish often look different in/out of water, and that sort of thing. I'd like to be involved in this if we can get it up and running again. I believe it could be an incredibly useful resource.
#7
Guest_Skipjack_*
Guest_Skipjack_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 October 2013 - 01:12 PM
I am certain Uland does not have the amount of time that would be needed to complete this. Nobody really has authority except Uland to make this move forward. I would love to see it moved forward, and If you are interested Derek, then get with Uland, and see what you can work out. Maybe Dave could be recruited as well for his input on any questionable ID's. This could, with some work, be the best photo ID collection on the web. Glad to see that some are interested in moving it forward. Derek, after talking with Uland, maybe you could assemble a team.
#11
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 October 2013 - 11:11 AM
At the office as I type on a darn Sunday! I have not looked at the ID key in a while.
Basically, I took photos from the gallery that had the following properties:
Flank view of the fish (no angles - never as this tremendously distorts ratios)
Erect fins
All portions of fish in focus
Ability to count scales and rays
I also tried to incorporate photos of males and females or fishes out of nuptial coloration.
I really don't have the time right now but anyone is welcome to take over the project. Please try and remember to keep the quality of photos high. This isn't to show off fish, it's to provide photos that will assist with ID.
Basically, I took photos from the gallery that had the following properties:
Flank view of the fish (no angles - never as this tremendously distorts ratios)
Erect fins
All portions of fish in focus
Ability to count scales and rays
I also tried to incorporate photos of males and females or fishes out of nuptial coloration.
I really don't have the time right now but anyone is welcome to take over the project. Please try and remember to keep the quality of photos high. This isn't to show off fish, it's to provide photos that will assist with ID.
#12
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 October 2013 - 05:53 PM
At the office as I type on a darn Sunday! I have not looked at the ID key in a while.
Basically, I took photos from the gallery that had the following properties:
Flank view of the fish (no angles - never as this tremendously distorts ratios)
Erect fins
All portions of fish in focus
Ability to count scales and rays
I also tried to incorporate photos of males and females or fishes out of nuptial coloration.
I really don't have the time right now but anyone is welcome to take over the project. Please try and remember to keep the quality of photos high. This isn't to show off fish, it's to provide photos that will assist with ID.
I couldn't agree more with those criteria.
#13
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 31 October 2013 - 10:22 PM
So I would like to offer an alternate perspective. For the last year or so we have not added any pictures that met these criteria. So we are not making any progress or helping anyone identify and species. On the other hand, we have a volunteer here that is interested in helping. And we have some pictures available that, while they do not meet these criteria, could help people at least until we were able to get a photo that did meet the criteria, at which point we could chose to replace and update.
I mean how is it that having no picture at all is better than having a photograph of a federally endangered species in its natural environment?
Or even a photo of a fish that the others have not had a chance to get to yet, but for which there are not a lot of good photos.
I just have to believe that these photos are better than just not having one of these these particular species... and when we get one that is better and meets the scale counting and perfectly posed requirement, then I would think we would gladly replace. Why wouldn't we want to take Derek up on his offer to jump in and help us get more fish in the tool?
I mean how is it that having no picture at all is better than having a photograph of a federally endangered species in its natural environment?
Or even a photo of a fish that the others have not had a chance to get to yet, but for which there are not a lot of good photos.
I just have to believe that these photos are better than just not having one of these these particular species... and when we get one that is better and meets the scale counting and perfectly posed requirement, then I would think we would gladly replace. Why wouldn't we want to take Derek up on his offer to jump in and help us get more fish in the tool?
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#14
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 November 2013 - 10:08 AM
But there are plenty of photos that could be added that DO meet the criteria.For the last year or so we have not added any pictures that met these criteria.
Since new photos are available and plenty of Dave Neely photos that can be re-inserted, lack of progress is not for lack of photos.So we are not making any progress or helping anyone identify and species.
Truth be told, I prefer Daves photos and used them in favor of my own. Not only is his library far more complete, they are darn good.
Lowering standards for Federal fish? I guess some might go with that but honestly, if sampling in water with Fed fish, you should be doing more homework than glancing at a forum in my opinion.
Just to reiterate, I made a slot for all the fish based on the current species list generated by Chris Scharpf. I then searched by scientific and common name in the gallery for flank shots in focus with erect fins (preferred) and scales that could be counted. I then inserted them and credited the photographer. To keep up, the list should be checked against the current species list maintained by Chris S. and searched once again and photos re-inserted. You'll find a ton of photos of Daves with broken links that can easily be fixed.
#16
Guest_Dustin_*
Guest_Dustin_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 November 2013 - 12:30 PM
One thing that I am concerned with when using photos that aren't definitive is the possible inability to be certain that the fish is what we say it is, especially if we don't know the photographer. I would also like to see the collection site and date if possible added to photos given the extensive regional and seasonal variation.
#17
Guest_Skipjack_*
Guest_Skipjack_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 November 2013 - 01:03 PM
One thing that I am concerned with when using photos that aren't definitive is the possible inability to be certain that the fish is what we say it is, especially if we don't know the photographer. I would also like to see the collection site and date if possible added to photos given the extensive regional and seasonal variation.
I agree Dustin. But if a responsible person, or team runs it, I expect that everything will be well researched prior to posting, and anything unsure will be left blank. Dave is willing to look at photos, I am sure some of our other members who are very skilled will help as well. It will certainly be better than looking up a fish photo with google images. Seems we can't go horribly wrong. Dates and locations would be great to add.
#18
Guest_Kanus_*
Guest_Kanus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 November 2013 - 05:14 PM
I feel this may help everyone understand my reasoning and intentions...
A few weeks back, I was out collecting some Roanoke Bass for a genetics study Virginia Tech is doing. In this case (and almost always in my line of work), I did not have the time nor materials handy to take a high quality photo in a photo tank as to meet the criteria. However, I got a few photos of some very nice fish that show some very nice characteristics for identifying the species. Once I came home, I started trying to recall if I had seen any really good photos of the fish where it didn't, well, just sorta look like a rock bass. I checked out our ID key and don't remember at this point if I found a broken link to an older photo, but I believe I didn't see Roanoke Bass listed at all. This is what spurred my interest in this project. Many of us learn to ID fish by looking at photos on the internet at this point. At least that is how I started out before I started accumulating books. But I still refer to online photos of fish pretty frequently to double-check my IDs, see how variable the appearance of a given species may be, etc. And our collection of talented and intelligent people has a lot to offer this educational niche. We already have a wealth of absolutely amazing photos of many species, but as Michael pointed out, I think something is better than nothing.
Roanoke Bass (Ambloplites cavifrons), Smith River, Patrick Co, Virginia. 10/18/13
Another scenario is where I think it could be valuable to have photos of fish in various situations. I recently went out sampling for Blackside Dace and, though I knew what they were when I saw them, they looked completely different than any photo I'd ever seen of them. And to add to that, I personally sometimes use gestalt, experience-derived characters to ID fish that sometimes aren't apparent when the fish are in water. While these may not be entirely diagnostic features, they were very helpful to me, and from personal experience, I think there is value to some of these characteristics.
Again with the examples: when I first learned what Chrosomus oreas looked like in comparison to other local fish that came up in the net, I keyed in on the subtle purplish iridescence that reflects off them when they are out of the water. If I tried, I could think of other examples, but that's sorta what I'm talking about. It's all helpful so long as experienced individuals can positively ID the fish.
A Blackside Dace may be a beautiful, incredibly distinct fish in the breeding season (photo by CFI):
But how helpful is a photo like that when that's all you've ever seen, and you're way more likely to find them in the field, looking like this:
Blackside Dace (Chrosomus cumberlandensis), Location sensitive, Virginia, 9/23/13
I hope no one is taking offense to this. Uland, Dave, Dustin, and others take absolutely incredible photo-tank pictures, which are immensely valuable for a number of uses. All I want to do it help us educate people and contribute to our knowlege base. I am usually out sampling (at least during warmer months) 3-4 days a week, and I get to see a lot of fish that others may not. However, the nature of my job tends to prohibit me spending lots of time getting great photos. Sometimes I don't get any, but I try to document what I'm seeing fairly well, and I get what I get. If what I get isn't good enough to be valuable here, it's no problem for me, but I'd like to contribute.
A few weeks back, I was out collecting some Roanoke Bass for a genetics study Virginia Tech is doing. In this case (and almost always in my line of work), I did not have the time nor materials handy to take a high quality photo in a photo tank as to meet the criteria. However, I got a few photos of some very nice fish that show some very nice characteristics for identifying the species. Once I came home, I started trying to recall if I had seen any really good photos of the fish where it didn't, well, just sorta look like a rock bass. I checked out our ID key and don't remember at this point if I found a broken link to an older photo, but I believe I didn't see Roanoke Bass listed at all. This is what spurred my interest in this project. Many of us learn to ID fish by looking at photos on the internet at this point. At least that is how I started out before I started accumulating books. But I still refer to online photos of fish pretty frequently to double-check my IDs, see how variable the appearance of a given species may be, etc. And our collection of talented and intelligent people has a lot to offer this educational niche. We already have a wealth of absolutely amazing photos of many species, but as Michael pointed out, I think something is better than nothing.
Roanoke Bass (Ambloplites cavifrons), Smith River, Patrick Co, Virginia. 10/18/13
Another scenario is where I think it could be valuable to have photos of fish in various situations. I recently went out sampling for Blackside Dace and, though I knew what they were when I saw them, they looked completely different than any photo I'd ever seen of them. And to add to that, I personally sometimes use gestalt, experience-derived characters to ID fish that sometimes aren't apparent when the fish are in water. While these may not be entirely diagnostic features, they were very helpful to me, and from personal experience, I think there is value to some of these characteristics.
Again with the examples: when I first learned what Chrosomus oreas looked like in comparison to other local fish that came up in the net, I keyed in on the subtle purplish iridescence that reflects off them when they are out of the water. If I tried, I could think of other examples, but that's sorta what I'm talking about. It's all helpful so long as experienced individuals can positively ID the fish.
A Blackside Dace may be a beautiful, incredibly distinct fish in the breeding season (photo by CFI):
But how helpful is a photo like that when that's all you've ever seen, and you're way more likely to find them in the field, looking like this:
Blackside Dace (Chrosomus cumberlandensis), Location sensitive, Virginia, 9/23/13
I hope no one is taking offense to this. Uland, Dave, Dustin, and others take absolutely incredible photo-tank pictures, which are immensely valuable for a number of uses. All I want to do it help us educate people and contribute to our knowlege base. I am usually out sampling (at least during warmer months) 3-4 days a week, and I get to see a lot of fish that others may not. However, the nature of my job tends to prohibit me spending lots of time getting great photos. Sometimes I don't get any, but I try to document what I'm seeing fairly well, and I get what I get. If what I get isn't good enough to be valuable here, it's no problem for me, but I'd like to contribute.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
