This is just my honest opinion. The shot is great but for it to be less is more there is a lot going on. Shades of color, ripples in the steel, rivets, lines. But thats just me. I love it however

The picture shows an interesting detail of a collage like facade. But, it is very busy. Multiple shades of blue, different lines everywhere. It isn’t minimal,

zeh.hah.es.:

That's kind of what I figured. Thanks for the input :)

zeh.hah.es.:

not my opinion, not at all
if that is not minimal dont know what could be.
I would rather assume maybe the reason was:
not enough food for the eye in there,
not enough tension,
not enough story

Salai i:

Minimal means, that some small areas of the photo are distinct from a more or less uniform residual uniform residual area of the composition. These selected highlights as well as the uniformness of the residual area is missing in the composition.

But, your statement about tension, food for the eye, story in the composition is related to my ask for distinct small highlights in a minimal composition.

Many of my photos have been rejected as well but I see on the stream that there a many picture which are far from being minimalistic, rather difficult to know what to add to this beautiful collection...

I am sorry, Irene, that you are a bit disappointed by the photo pool. Moderating the input queue is a compromise: on one hand one wants to have the best examples for the topic in the pool only, on the other hand, one wants to encourage the group members, who have achieved a very first grasp of minimalism. Therefore, I allow some photos to the pool, which rudimentary exhibit the concept of minimalism. But, I hope, overall, this groups gives an appropriate representation of minimal photography, i.e., it showcases photos on which small areas attract interest and the residual parts are in a form uniform.

For more information on the concept of minimalism, I recommend the following threats:

www.flickr.com/groups/minimally_less_is_more/discuss/7215...
www.flickr.com/groups/minimally_less_is_more/discuss/7215...
www.flickr.com/groups/minimally_less_is_more/discuss/7215...

I can definitely see where the confusion is, and I'm sure there's more than one mod, but how is this photo considered minimal?

flickr.com/photos/camillabettinelli/52267403174/in/pool-m...

Not that it's not a lovely photo, but this isn't what I'd call "minimalism"

seems that, as is the case with a few other groups, women in bikinis automatically supersede stated rules. this one's also on the front page currently:
www.flickr.com/photos/masu_ph/52264678512/in/pool-minimal...

zeh.hah.es.: I am not going into a long discussion but may be some moderators don't know what minimalism is about....

posted links to several helpful threads above, as well as a bit of insight into some of the principles that the moderation team is currently following.

To those who are still unhappy, I think about the only thing left to say is a reminder that no form of participation in this group is obligatory.

Any definition of an approach/aesthetic will have some subjectivity, and any moderation isn't going to be 100.0% consistent. It can certainly be interesting to discuss what "counts" and what doesn't in some contexts, but ultimately this is a low- or no-stakes outcome re: inclusion in a flickr group photo pool so I would hope people don't take it too seriously or personally.

Thank you for that, JK Nelson.




Hi Steve_Mudd and a.cheerful.texas, let's test those two photos against the definition of minimal, I have given above:

"minimal photography, i.e., it showcases photos on which small areas attract interest and the residual parts are in a form uniform."

The photo flic.kr/p/2nCG6ZG has two large unstructured areas, the water and the sky. The water is framed by the land in the foreground, a very small part of the picture, and the stripe of land in the center of the picture. Against this simple background, there are some distinct elements: four women bathing, the stairs to the water jump. These elements are large enough to be noted, but are small compared to the overall space of the composition. The general concept of minimalism is exhibited by this photo. But, no, it isn't perfectly minimal. Just one of many picture, which are in the gray area on the way to minimalism.

For the other photo
,
the analysis is even clearer: Most of the space is uniform background and only a small part of the picture is taken by the beach and the people dwelling there. I would consider this photo a good representation of minimalism.

zeh.hah.es.:

i can kind of see where you're coming from, especially drawing a distinction between abstract and minimal with the focal point criteria. i personally don't agree fully, but i can at least see where you're coming from on the second pic. the first pic i just fully disagree with you on, but that's life, eh? haha.

plus, minimalism isn't my forte, so i am legitimately interested in learning how others classify minimalism. at the end of the day learning is fun even if i'm not fully convinced. thanks for actually adding some clarification.

to add to the conversation, would a shot like this be considered minimalism under these criteria?



it has a focal point (the buoy) against a uniform field (the waves). does the visual noise detract from the minimalism? is the noise of the waves irrelevant because its uniform across the frame?

Thank you, very much, a.cheerful.texas, for volunteering one of your photos for further disambiguation of the concept of minimalism.

That photo has a uniform, but irregular noisy background and a small distinct area (the buoy). The buoy isn't that significant a contrast to the water surface, though. The surface of the water is too noisy compared to the contrast it has to the subject, the buoy, for the photo to be considered minimal.

The compositor style (placement of the subject in the photo, the size of the subject against the overall space of the composition) is minimalistic though.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to explain the concept of minimalism as I apply it when moderating this group. On the two beach life example photos discussed earlier, I can easily und erstand, that you have some doubts left on the minimalism of the first one.

Sure I will jump in too if you twist my arm!
I have always considered minimalism when a 'part' of the photo stands out. If you can separate a certain subject out of the uniformity of the photo. Like negative space almost always makes good minimalism. Your picture is full of texture, and its different. If you take one quad side of the photo, it would be uniform, just lines going one way. Then put a red flower on the 1/3 spot and you will have a minimalism. But thats just me. Call me a fool.

Salman Shaf I agree

zeh.hah.es.:
Memories By Salman:
I appreciate both of you taking the time to offer some pointers! thanks a bunch :)

Irene Ruysch:

capricious
adjective
ca·pri·cious kə-ˈpri-shəs, -ˈprē-
1: governed or characterized by impulse or whim: as
a: lacking a rational basis
b: likely to change suddenly
2: not supported by the weight of evidence or established rules of law
—often used in the phrase arbitrary and capricious

Whoever said that many of the pictures are not minimalist is dead right and no bleating that they really do meet the criteria of minimalism makes any difference

There seems to be no consistency.

It seems that the only real criteria are whether the admin likes the picture and whether it has clean simple lines so they can pretend it is minimalist, even if it isn 't. Many genuinely minimalist images of high quality are rejected leaving us bewildered as to why.

Of course the group admins are free to do whatever they want. It is their group

But I am removing the three images of mine that made it into the photo pool, and leaving the group.

natures-pencil:

Totally agree!

Of course all Flickr members are free to start whatever group they want.

...and there are already other minimalist themed groups. So...lots of options!

natures-pencil:
I am sorry to hear you aren't satisfied by the moderation of this group. I read you have a different definition of minimal than we use for moderation of the group pool. I'd like to hear how you define minimal such that I (and my fellow moderators) can reassess our definition of minimal.

Whatever definition of minimalism rocks your boat the mods do a fine job of curating interesting photos.

Ian Sanderson thank you very much, Ian!

I have temporarily rejoined to reply to the moderator. I have better things to do than enter into a discussion of minimalism with a moderator that cannot even apply their own rules consistently.

It is not that I have a different definition of minimalism. Maybe I do, maybe I don't.

I really do not mind images that I consider to be minimalist being rejected if they contravene one of the other criteria for acceptance. I did, after all, have three images accepted, before removing them in protest, and for a group with about the same number of members as accepted images that must be better than the average.

I repeat, the problem is that the administrators of the group do not consistently follow their own rules. They allow images that do not conform to their own rules, and reject images that do.

I am not the first person to have made this criticism. It has been made many times, and the admins always have some weasely answer. They never simply admit their mistakes, or their lack of consistency. It comes over as arrogance, which is not attractive.

It is entirely understandable that members get upset when they see a non-minimal image accepted and think "I have images like that, but I did not submit them because they are not minimalist!"

I want no part of a group that does not consistently apply its own rules.

So now it is goodbye for good.

I doubt that, and I am certain that you are reading this reply. FWIW, it is disappointing (as already noted above) that "we" (not me, but collectively, the entire experience of participating in this group) has spoiled a little bit of the fun in your life, but I can't help observing that with your stubborn insistence on grousing about it, YOU have also spoiled a little bit of the fun in OUR lives (again, "us" being the collective large number of people who are perfectly content with the operation of this group).

I am sorry, I have made a mistake moderating today. on a small sequence of minimal photos, I wanted to click "accept", but have rejected them instead. I am very sorry for that mistake. My sincere apology for the mishap.

I try sometimes to submit my minimalist work to this group, but they always reject it. I see that there are very different photos in the group, sometimes ridiculous and without a contest. and mine is rejected.. This is a very strange moderation.. I will probably leave this group because I do not understand the meaning of this group.

koskimoski:



Several of your photos are in the group pool: www.flickr.com/groups/minimally_less_is_more/pool/4783393...

The moderation in this group is very weak. The moderators while picking some excellent minimalist shots clearly DON'T apply consistency in any way. The fact that they defend including images that are the opposite of minimalistic and reject quality minimalistic images raises all kinds of questions about integrity and intent. I agree completely with natures-pencil's assessment of the situation.

pdajsmith:

I am sorry to hear, that you are disappointed by this group. In the past, such complaints boiled down to one of the following root causes:
- the author of such a statement is disappointed that she/he isn't sufficiently promoted by the group moderation
- the concept of abstract and minimal are mixed up (not every minimal photo is abstract nor is every abstract photo minimal)
- the word minimal is interpreted as a synonym for macro

As you speak about photos, which were rejected, you are talking about your photos. looking at your photostream, I immediately spot several photos, which I'd be very happy to accept to this group pool. I suggest you try again and give up your grudge.

There are a lot of groups with minimalism in their title or definition. And there are even more different ideas about what minimalism actually is.

Unlike groups for e.g. square or portrait-format photos, there is no clear-cut line in the sand. It is like in the Catchy Colors group. What catches me may not be what catches you.

So all I do is submit photos. If they are accepted, OK; if not, also OK. No need to get mad at someone with a different vision of their group.

flickr.com/photos/clintbuhler/52838825795/in/dateposted-p...

I took this photo specifically for this group, as there's only a single red door here and literally nothing else going on in the image. It was rejected. Next I'm going to take a picture of a single frozen pea on seamless white paper to see if it gets in, LMAO. If that doesn't make it, I'm going to try one grain of sand shot in low key, lol.

Clint Buhler
Hi Clint,
Thank you for the offer to use your picture to discuss the idea of minimalism. This will help advancing in this threat.

I like the composition, the asymmetric layout.
Looking at the items in the photo, the red door in good contrast to the gray wall, it exposes the concept of minimalism. But, the gray wall has a rhythmic structure as well as a very visible texture. In addition there is the window-like rectangle as another object asking for the viewer’s attention. For me, this background is too noisy for the photo to be considered minimal.

For comparison, let's use the following picture from the group pool:


In this composition, the wall has no texture and no structure. The two windows and the triangle of sky have a simple structure as well, but by the relative placement, there is some moment of surprise in the photo. That photo is minimal, but not boring.

A grain of sand, in general, shot in low key in contrast would just be boring.

Within a week I had one photo accepted and one rejected.

I see this group a bit like the Olympic Games: taking part is the most important thing, you can't always win but you can learn from your failures.

gr1234 do you notice a difference between these two photos which may explain the distinction? Potentially two different moderators have applied their individual interpretation of minimalism and there is no objective reason for the two judgements.
Congratulations on having one photo accepted, btw!

This one was accepted. There's a sense of calm in it.


This one was rejected. I can understand it, the buds in the middle probably bring in too much detail. For minimalism it would be better to show just one white blossom contrasted to the sky.

I can't remember if it was me, but the first one would be an automatic 'accept' from me. I'm a sucker for Ye Olde Rule of Thirds, it has a single subject, and nice negative space.

The second one with the flower just has too much subject, and too little minimalism.

---

I think it's just zeh.hah.es. and me moderating this group. So please feel free to critique our moderating methods, we don't want to turn it into our personal photo vault.

Wouter Rietberg:

I would say the same about these two photos. The lone tree against a lot of sky and green, a classical minimal composition. The rule of thirds does help maximize the perceived negative space. is the sky would be calmer, it would be the perfect minimal composition.

On the second photo, a significant part of the space is covered by the different parts of the blossom. The blue sky isn't perceived as a relevant part of the image just some background.

What about this one, would it qualify?

Dear Admins,
I discovered my recent photo submission to this group was rejected this morning, so I headed over here to read more about this group's criteria on what constitutes "less" in the fickle realm of minimalism. I can safely say I am now more the wiser, and thankful to you all for helping me along this journey of photographic discovery.
I consider myself a novice in all things photographic, but I rate myself as someone who can differentiate a 'great' photo from a 'nice' photo, as I'm sure we all can. My first foray into minimalist photography happened intrepidly after about 1 month of joining Flickr with this photo, after being inspired by a fellow member's minimalist photos. Trepidation surrounds minimalism for the novice through the technical jargon and strict rules governing what constitutes the term, so maybe it is fortunate I'm a bit of an adventurist type - not adverse to taking on a challenge, as the kind ER staff at my local hospital can attest! My submission yesterday is clearly not in keeping with this group's interpretation of minimal, and I happily concede this.
I now see this group as a challenge, and will endeavour to have one of my photos 'accepted'. However, I strongly believe that art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder, and really wonder if compartmentalisation, regulation and jargon detract from our interpretation of what we consider a great photo... a case for 'less is more' perhaps?
Suffice to say that I will remain sheltered in my comfortable naive bubble related to my own interpretation of what constitutes a great photo and minimalism, but also keep trying to get a photo here in this group. Keep up your thankless hard work, Admins, a lot of us appreciate what you do.

I have to agree, I have just had a simple seascape, a row of huts rejected, a glassy sea and a sky but on the front page is a busier seascape with a windsurfer or something in it????

I do not think so. Minimal means something like: as little as possible.
Regarding your photo, four, three, two or one tree would be less...😆

keith@Niton:

It might have been me, wh rejected your submission. Potentially as I considered the sky a bit too distracting for a minimalist composition.

Hello!
You rejected my photo. This is your choice and I accept it. But I don't understand why you accepted this one as a "less is more:
.
This is a nice photo but obviously not of minimalist kind.

Claude thank you for your feedback, Claude.
The photo you refer to has larger areas unstructured and just two islands with details: the peer in the front set at the side such that it doesn’t take that much space and the forest. The forest against the calm background is the contrast typical for minimal composition.

I also think it's a good photo but not really minimalistic with such a lot of details in the trees and reflections in the water. But opinions on what is minimalistic or not differ, as this thread shows,

gr1234 thank you for your feedback! Our moderation will improve by your input.

I found this photo in another group and I think this is minimalistic, what do you think? There are trees and reflections, but not a lot of details.

I consider this photo as minimalistic.

zeh.hah.es.: Thank you for your. answer.

gr1234:
That one is an excellent example of a minimalistic composition. Thank you for sharing!

I submitted this photo



Simple bird flying. Highly contrasting the blue sky. I would not describe this as busy. I guess birds can be detailed, so understandable why it would be rejected.

Then I see this accepted and in the group



It's more or less the same concept, but this one was fine(?) Thanks

Greg Ralbovsky sorry, that must have been me, who rejected your photo. For all those photos of a bird against a clean blue sky submitted to this group I am always torn between accepting these as in a formal sense, at least as long as the bird is small enough, they are minimal and rejecting these as those are just pictures of an object against a clean background. I have doubts whether the picture can be viewed as a unit, a minimalist composition or whether the object and the background are unrelated. By being torn, one day I accept these photos, the other day I reject them.

I've submitted several photos to this group. Several have been rejected. I don't take this personally. When a photo clearly meets the criteria, it's pretty easy to see it, but in the gray area, it seems to be a matter of personal opinion more than meeting objective criteria. That's art for you! Your statement regarding an object against a clean background does help clarify what you're not looking for. Thanks and thanks for moderating!

Cool. That makes sense, and I will keep that in mind moving forward. Thank you for the clarification!

There is a little bit of confusion here. "Less is more" is the group's motto, not "minimalistic". Less is more is not necessarily minimalistic. A photo of mine was also rejected:

www.flickr.com/photos/maecius/53777618534/in/photostream/

It is a section of a large area, within these areas there are smaller areas that are open to interpretation.

Maecius:

"Welcome to Less is More.....a high quality gallery of minimalism. "

"The Less is More... group is a focus on minimalism."

Maecius:

The title of a Flickr group is generally not enough information to express completely the type of photos that are welcome or allowed. You should always read the entire Overview page of any group as a starting point, where the administrators may put important information.
www.flickr.com/groups/minimally_less_is_more/

Much appreciate your rejection, zeh.hah.es.! It's didactic. I thought this image was sober:

...but now I realize it has multiple metaphoric layers of confusing mutual interference, so that's far from being minimalistic! It's crowded, actually... ;) 😄

Mag3737 - I registered everything when I signed up but not when I commented, clearly the minimalist aspect is highlighted there, my inattention. Regards

It is difficult to understand why photos are accepted and why others are rejected. I have had mine rejected and when I look at others I can see lots of busyness so it does not make sense at times.

I was sad when some of my photos were deleted after being accepted, but I still have one in the pool! Not my fav but I guess it satisfied expectations. I'll have to work on getting a picture accepted sometime, but somehow other scenes attract me more.

СВЕТЛОПИСИ И ХОДОЧАШЋА

Sorry, I have only seen your humorous comment today. I like the tone in which you present your opposing opinion. I do not remember having rejected that photo, but I might have. There is some noise in the window frame as well as in the sky. I wouldn't consider that loud, but it isn't calm either. This is one photo, which I might accept one day and reject the other.

nathan_rank:
Hi Nathan,
in general, we do not delete photos from the pool after we have accepted them. Was the deletion immediately after acceptance (within minutes)? Like looking at the photo in the context of the pool and then deciding?

This happened a few years ago. The photos were in the pool for about five years, I think. And then I noticed they were gone. So perhaps it was an earlier admin or something. In any case, I will try again when I figure out which photos might be appropriate. I like the idea behind the photos in this group.

nathan_rank:

Some years ago, we had a admin going berserk. We kicked him out ...

I'd be interested to know why my photo of swans in the fog was rejected. I've seen other foggy photos here. And when I saw the swans I immediately thought of this group.

chrismarpe:

Sorry, that might have been me being too quick with the selection. My bad. Just re-submit, and maybe it'll go through next time. ;-)

Chris Marpe if, by chance, on resubmission, the photo needs my approval, I will accept it as well. This photo is minimal - not all foggy photos are, though

Ah ok thanks, will do....

So, I submit my first and only photo, but it gets rejected. What a superb group to be in. Admin up themselves.

Das Boot 160 Most probably it was me who rejected your submission. I reviewed the submission queue last night.
I don’t know which photo you attempted to add to the group. I can comment on the general style of photos in your stream only. Those don’t look minimal. They don’t have very few and small areas which significantly differ from a homogeneous background. On your hundreds of photos of a ferry the ferry is large and the ferry is very structured in the way it is depicted. Those aren’t minimalist

zeh.hah.es.:
Well done,
thePhotos realy dont show too much Photographic efforts or Knowledge>
To post them by the dozen does not make them better>
They real dont belong to this group

zeh.hah.es.: The photo I submitted was minimal. So you judge by my photostream and not the individual photo.

Salai i: I think you need a word with yourself. No need for those sort of comments. It has nothing to do with you.

I looked at the first two pages of your photostream, das Boot. I would not call the photos I saw there minimal. I don't always agree with admins, but I think in that case they were right.

And photos are sometimes rejected, it's also a matter of personal taste, and should not be taken too seriously.

Das Boot 160:
So, I submit my first and only photo, but it gets rejected. What a superb group to be in. Admin up themselves

Please, there's no need for cranky sarcasm. If you feel you are wronged, please show the image that was rejected, and then the mods can give some feedback on why it was rejected.
The submission queue is sometimes filled with a lot of photos, so you can't expect us (the mods) to remember each one.

How can you post small versions of a photo to a discussion? Iirc I could do it via the share function in the past, but I don't remember how.

A link to the photo page enclosed in brackets will work; that's the easiest way. The share function can give you embed code as well to choose a specific size (although a max dimension of 500 pixels is enforced anyway on discussions)

Added by edit: It looks like the "share" function is broken, hopefully actually broken temporarily and not actually changed by Flickr on purpose.

Checking that the embed works with brackets around the photo link...

Though a full-size 6k photo displays at 500 pixels, the large file is still loaded onto the page, unnecessarily making flickr even slower.

It looks like the "share" function is broken

Not here. Works fine.

Checking that embed function works



It does.

Thanks for the embed investigations, people. But I think he booted himself out of the group, so we'll probably never know.

Das Boot 160:

No, I haven't judged you by your stream. But as your comment wasn't referencing the image in question, I could use your photo stream as reference on my reply only.

I understand that everybody has a different opinion of minimal. Just curious as to how much more minimal than this?

Craig Elliott sorry, Craig, I see a noisy background.

And the fish is very detailed, not minimal.

Interesting. I thought for sure this was minimal.

I think there's some very inconsistent moderating in this group. I get why this might be deemed unsuitable although there is really only the lone tree as a point of interest but when compared to recent accepted landscapes it seems harsh. maybe you're moderators need a bit of a get together.

Wayne Elsworth
Your photo shows a lone tree, but the ground it is standing on is unevenly structured, high contrast and covers a significant portion of the picture. That is too much distraction from the lone tree for me to consider this minimal.

Wayne Elsworth:
In my opinion, the difference between the mods* and the subsequent inconsistency adds to the variety of the group pool.


And as always, don't take it personal or too serious. It's just a group on a website.

----------------------------------
*) At the moment, the only active mods are zeh.hah.es. and me.

Well, I have to thank one of you for admitting my latest contribution. I really was not sure if my photo could be called minimal, but I tried anyhow. I wouldn't have taken it personal if it had been rejected, as you say, it's just a group on a website, and some photos of mine were rejected in the past. I can't understand that some people are really offended when their photo does not make it.

zeh.hah.es.:

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. However, as I said there are other photos posted recently that are simply landscapes with much more detail and interest throughout the shot.

Yes, Wouter Rietberg, I fully agree. The group benefits from our differences on the interpretation of minimal.

"In my opinion, the difference between the mods* and the subsequent inconsistency adds to the variety of the group pool."
y'mean like "inconsistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"? are you seriously offering this excuse? it's as if a dictionary had different definitions of words published in different editions. or 2 umpires can't agree on a call.

"This is one photo, which I might accept one day and reject the other."
and a moderator with a philosophy like this isn't any better. there MUST be some consistency if you are gonna have a public group. otherwise, it's your personal curating of other people's work based upon your own likes/dislikes.

i moderate 2 groups, neither of which i started. i think my function is to weed out images that don't follow the group rules (which, again, i did not create) NOT to decide the relative merits of the photos; if it fits the description, it stays. i offer this as a suggestion.