Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 14, 2011 at 5:59 AM
Update 1/16/2011
While most of those who have commented on the name change (both here and via email) are in agreement, another important point was raised - the phrase "Earth, Sea & Sky" has become somewhat of a NPN trademark. Since brand recognition is very important, we have decided to retain the phrase as an official NPN trademark.
While the site navigation will use "landscape" for simplicity, the official name for the gallery is now Earth, Sea & Sky Landscape Gallery. The About This Forum and About This Gallery pages have been updated to reflect this, as well as to define the gallery/forum intended for photos of natural landscapes, seascapes, and celestial images showing no evidence of hand-of-man.
So once again nothing has been changed in terms of what is posted here or in the IC gallery, only a tweaking of the NPN nomenclature to best leverage brand recognition while (attempting) to avoid any confusion.
The ESS (Earth, Sea & Sky) gallery is now called the Landscape gallery. While the ESS name was clever (well, at least I thought so), some found it cryptic.
Jim or any Landscape or Flora moderators, would it be better for trees when not really part of a larger landscape to go in Flora?
Posted by Luis Argerich on January 14, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Disregard my email
"I can't find the ESS gallery!"
I liked ESS better but ok with the change
Posted by Wayne Jones on January 14, 2011 at 2:04 PM
Works for me. I was wondering where to post a shot I have that is nothing more than a couple of feet fresh water and ice. If Macro and Close-up photographs (up to 4") are "Tiny Landscapes" (Mike Moats' title) or "mini-landscapes," then the the "midi-landscapes" clearly belong in the Landscape Gallery, even if they contain no Earth, no sea, and no sky -- unless the main subject is a plant, bird, or other wildlife, or if it's EPJ, or Photo Art, or fits the Weekly Challenge... But can a landscape be an image that includes no land?
Obviously, many photographs can logically fit into two or more categories, and some may defy attempts to pidgeon-hole them. So this new title may not be as poetic, but it is just as logical. The categories are necessary, but it's too bad that there is no obvious incentive for viewers to click on ALL PHOTOS.
So this new title may not be as poetic, but it is just as logical.
I agree on both counts.
Obviously, many photographs can logically fit into two or more categories, and some may defy attempts to pidgeon-hole them.
This is probably brought more to mind by the name change to Landscape, in my opinion. Is there any possibility of having a gallery for those photographs that are cross-category (or perhaps as with small rocks in water or a small ice formation in a stream have no clear category)?
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 14, 2011 at 5:27 PM
I liked the all-encompassing title of Earth, Sea & Sky. But like Luis, I'm ok with it.
Interesting though how a simple title change has already generated a couple questions about where to post.
Now this is my opinion and perhaps Jim can clarify for all, but I don't believe what gets posted in ES&S, oops, Landscape, should or will change. IMHO, the term "landscape" should be broadly and generally interpreted. Kind of a catch-all category that simply just excludes the "hand of man" and obvious Photo Art images.
The other galleries are more targeted. So to address both Barbara and Wayne's questions, some examples may help. But first we must remember the simple statement from the Posting Guidelines:
"Please review the following gallery theme descriptions and place your image in the appropriate gallery;" And as Wayne mentions many images can fit in multiple categories. You as the poster and holder of an image must make the decision and know the intent of the image you wish to post.
For example, Barbara mentioned trees that may not be part of a larger landscape. Take a look at one my posted images. Clearly this could be posted in Flora right? Nice image of some Pacific Dogwood(Cornus nuttallii) in full autumn colors. Now, IMHO, by specifying the Latin name, I'm kinda giving a hint that I'm posting this really as a tree species image. A dogwood is a plant, a tree and certainly Flora is an appropriate gallery. However, my intent in presenting this is to show the beauty of nature in autumn; fall color, a snippet of a larger landscape, etc. Patterns, color, chaos, etc.... I chose to post in ES&S and is perfectly acceptable there.
Now you could reverse this and say that all the beautiful images of flowers in general could then be posted in ES&S. They could. But Flora is more targeted and it's generally accepted that Flora is about plants as subjects, not landscapes in general. Although certainly one could claim that a flower is part of the landscape - or of the earth so to speak. But a portrait of a flower is more commonly thought of for Flora.
A field of flowers with a wide-angle, near/far composition like Bill Fach's Bluebonnet image posted in the WC gallery is certainly more of a landscape presentation (MINUS THE HOUSE! for the Landscape Gallery of course!) The point is that in Bill's image it's not really about the flower per se, but the landscape. IMHO his image would be most appropriate in the Man & Nature gallery had it not been part of the WC.
Lastly, two more examples. Again, my opinion, Chris Chamberlain's recent image from Yosemite of a grove of black oak trees in the snow is more appropriately a "landscape" image. Trees, plants, sure, but more appropriate in ES&S, oops, Landscape.
Now, this "Mother Tree" from Lori Kincaid could be called either way, IMHO. Wonderful specimen of this stately old birch tree. Excellent image to show the species, it's environment, bark and trunk patterns, etc. But I would venture to guess that Lori saw this as an intimate landscape with mood and atmosphere provided by the mist. Her comp suggests it's part of a larger landscape, even though this is intimate in nature.
Ok, last one, really. As far as Wayne's closeup scenario goes, clearly the Macro gallery is specific and targeted; 4" or less - in general. So Wayne, I guess you're stuck with Landscape.
But can a landscape be an image that includes no land?
I would say absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, I think in terms of "landscape" as a general and broad terms, to include, ironically, earth, sea and/OR sky AND that's not more appropriate in one of the other more targeted galleries.
Just my two cents. Probably more confusing now eh?
Lon
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 14, 2011 at 7:20 PM
Lon covered it well! No changes other than just the name of the gallery.
Earth Sea and Sky was indeed poetic and romantic - just as we landscape and nature photographers are. I really liked that label for our work.
I used to post all my work of naturally occuring objects that did not show "hand of man" in the ESS gallery. But with the many "intimate" scenes I posted, I was stretching the "Earth, Sea, Sky" concept quite a bit. Some were almost macro images, or would even fit the flora theme. But what I posted was always a sub-section of either Earth, Sea and Sky . The moderators seemed to tolerate this ... Thanks!!!
If "Landscape" covers "Intimate Landscape" then my work now will fit better...
Posted by Brad Hill on January 15, 2011 at 1:25 PM
Hi,
I'm in agreement with all who've argued for the poetic nature of "Earth, Sea, and Sky" but I'm definitely in support of the recent name changes to some of the galleries (ESS to Landscape, Fauna to Wildlife). Not only do these new titles reflect more accurately how we think of ourselves (I've never though of myself as a "Fauna Photographer", I'm a "Wildlife Photographer" - and how many of you think of yourselves as "ESS shooters?"), but I alsoI think the gallery names are likely now a little more "friendly" or understandable for newcomers to the website.
Since we're on the topic, I wanted to say that I always appreciated the old term 'Editor's Picks" over 'Weekly Picks'. It seems more official and sound more like it was critically worthy of winning the best photo of the week. I know it's just nomenclature, but I thought I would add my 2 cents to this discussion. I like the combined name ESS Landscape Gallery.
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 16, 2011 at 3:06 PM
Jim,
I like it! Nice compromise and combination of the terms. Great idea Mike, and others!
Lon
Posted by Paul Duval on January 25, 2011 at 11:32 PM
Well I figured it out, and I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, even though my head is full of useless information. Which unfortunately spills out in some of my comments on posts, but it's nice to be tolerated without being patted on the head like a child. Nothing worse than being patronized, but seriously Jim, I'm ok with the change in title as the gallery does not seem to have suffered from the title massaging.
Discussion
11 repliesWhile most of those who have commented on the name change (both here and via email) are in agreement, another important point was raised - the phrase "Earth, Sea & Sky" has become somewhat of a NPN trademark. Since brand recognition is very important, we have decided to retain the phrase as an official NPN trademark.
While the site navigation will use "landscape" for simplicity, the official name for the gallery is now Earth, Sea & Sky Landscape Gallery. The About This Forum and About This Gallery pages have been updated to reflect this, as well as to define the gallery/forum intended for photos of natural landscapes, seascapes, and celestial images showing no evidence of hand-of-man.
So once again nothing has been changed in terms of what is posted here or in the IC gallery, only a tweaking of the NPN nomenclature to best leverage brand recognition while (attempting) to avoid any confusion.
As always, your feedback is much appreciated!
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ESS (Earth, Sea & Sky) gallery is now called the Landscape gallery. While the ESS name was clever (well, at least I thought so), some found it cryptic.
I hope you all approve of this change!
"I can't find the ESS gallery!"
I liked ESS better but ok with the change
Obviously, many photographs can logically fit into two or more categories, and some may defy attempts to pidgeon-hole them. So this new title may not be as poetic, but it is just as logical. The categories are necessary, but it's too bad that there is no obvious incentive for viewers to click on ALL PHOTOS.
I agree on both counts.
This is probably brought more to mind by the name change to Landscape, in my opinion. Is there any possibility of having a gallery for those photographs that are cross-category (or perhaps as with small rocks in water or a small ice formation in a stream have no clear category)?
Interesting though how a simple title change has already generated a couple questions about where to post.
Now this is my opinion and perhaps Jim can clarify for all, but I don't believe what gets posted in ES&S, oops, Landscape, should or will change. IMHO, the term "landscape" should be broadly and generally interpreted. Kind of a catch-all category that simply just excludes the "hand of man" and obvious Photo Art images.
The other galleries are more targeted. So to address both Barbara and Wayne's questions, some examples may help. But first we must remember the simple statement from the Posting Guidelines:
"Please review the following gallery theme descriptions and place your image in the appropriate gallery;" And as Wayne mentions many images can fit in multiple categories. You as the poster and holder of an image must make the decision and know the intent of the image you wish to post.
For example, Barbara mentioned trees that may not be part of a larger landscape. Take a look at one my posted images. Clearly this could be posted in Flora right? Nice image of some Pacific Dogwood(Cornus nuttallii) in full autumn colors. Now, IMHO, by specifying the Latin name, I'm kinda giving a hint that I'm posting this really as a tree species image. A dogwood is a plant, a tree and certainly Flora is an appropriate gallery. However, my intent in presenting this is to show the beauty of nature in autumn; fall color, a snippet of a larger landscape, etc. Patterns, color, chaos, etc.... I chose to post in ES&S and is perfectly acceptable there.
Now you could reverse this and say that all the beautiful images of flowers in general could then be posted in ES&S. They could. But Flora is more targeted and it's generally accepted that Flora is about plants as subjects, not landscapes in general. Although certainly one could claim that a flower is part of the landscape - or of the earth so to speak. But a portrait of a flower is more commonly thought of for Flora.
A field of flowers with a wide-angle, near/far composition like Bill Fach's Bluebonnet image posted in the WC gallery is certainly more of a landscape presentation (MINUS THE HOUSE! for the Landscape Gallery of course!) The point is that in Bill's image it's not really about the flower per se, but the landscape. IMHO his image would be most appropriate in the Man & Nature gallery had it not been part of the WC.
Lastly, two more examples. Again, my opinion, Chris Chamberlain's recent image from Yosemite of a grove of black oak trees in the snow is more appropriately a "landscape" image. Trees, plants, sure, but more appropriate in ES&S, oops, Landscape.
Now, this "Mother Tree" from Lori Kincaid could be called either way, IMHO. Wonderful specimen of this stately old birch tree. Excellent image to show the species, it's environment, bark and trunk patterns, etc. But I would venture to guess that Lori saw this as an intimate landscape with mood and atmosphere provided by the mist. Her comp suggests it's part of a larger landscape, even though this is intimate in nature.
Ok, last one, really. As far as Wayne's closeup scenario goes, clearly the Macro gallery is specific and targeted; 4" or less - in general. So Wayne, I guess you're stuck with Landscape.
I would say absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, I think in terms of "landscape" as a general and broad terms, to include, ironically, earth, sea and/OR sky AND that's not more appropriate in one of the other more targeted galleries.
Just my two cents. Probably more confusing now eh?
Lon
I used to post all my work of naturally occuring objects that did not show "hand of man" in the ESS gallery. But with the many "intimate" scenes I posted, I was stretching the "Earth, Sea, Sky" concept quite a bit. Some were almost macro images, or would even fit the flora theme. But what I posted was always a sub-section of either Earth, Sea and Sky
If "Landscape" covers "Intimate Landscape" then my work now will fit better...
I'm in agreement with all who've argued for the poetic nature of "Earth, Sea, and Sky" but I'm definitely in support of the recent name changes to some of the galleries (ESS to Landscape, Fauna to Wildlife). Not only do these new titles reflect more accurately how we think of ourselves (I've never though of myself as a "Fauna Photographer", I'm a "Wildlife Photographer" - and how many of you think of yourselves as "ESS shooters?"), but I alsoI think the gallery names are likely now a little more "friendly" or understandable for newcomers to the website.
Cheers...
Brad
I like it! Nice compromise and combination of the terms. Great idea Mike, and others!
Lon
Paul