Not remotely about Architecture

Really nice, but not about Architecture

Trafalgar Square is famous for good reasons, but is this architecture? Don’t think so.

Excellent Work! About Engineering, Farming, and the Anthropocene, not architecture.

Trains are NOT architecture either...

Carrot Room:

But the station architecture surely is?

midgpee:

Maybe, it depends on the title and what the focus it

This has been a struggle for me as well. Is the train the feature or the station architecture. I try to be more inclusive than exclusive when removing images that are borderline. I know that I have removed numerous train/station images, but also kept many as well. The same difficulty applies with other images. For example a car or a tree may be the prominent focus of a picture but have an architectural element in the background. My guiding principal when removing images is trying to keep architecture as the main focus of a picture.

Is this architecture? It contains architecture, but it's not really the focus.

naromeel:

Yes, these are borderline cases. Photos can—in principle—be about more than one thing. I have another group, “Anthropocene” which requires both nature and culture.

Group title says “Unlimited”, so I try to err on the side of inclusion. Clearly the tree is the star of the B&W above, but the house matters, especially because the architect probably sited and designed the house to preserve the tree. The blurry building with skewed perspective seems more like an afterthought, just adding color & negative space to the flower photo. Honestly it would be a LOT better photo with perspective correction and sharp focus on the building, and a splash of defocused red in the corner. I’d keep the former and dump the latter.

It’s not like we don’t have enough photos, every day.

Right. When unsure I err on the side of inclusion. In both these cases above, I did not remove. Inevitably, there is an element of subjectivity.

Agreed. Architecture has to be a key feature of the image, not just incidental. In the case of the train station photo, I would argue that the station architecture has equal prominence with the train. And without trains there would be no station architecture!

midgpee:

I wouldn't fight over it for sure ;) and your argument is persuasive; I agree in that particular example the station is actually a part of the overall presentation.
What makes me err slightly the other way is that the title of the image is primarily the train details and the fact there is a station is coincidental.

I have wrestled with the question of whether fountains qualify, generally thinking not. Turns out, some do, and I just invited one, of The Fontaines de la Concorde in Place de la Concorde, Paris. I kind of expect it will show up in Explore tonight, and our group in the next few days. Let me know what you think.

It would break the British heart in me if this photograph of the Trafalgar Square is removed.😔 But I concede that the choice is subjective, the discretion rests with Admin and am not remotely inclined to an argument. This photo merits an invitation to Vertical if it is not there already.

Susan Kitchell:
Had already been removed, but now invited to !Verticality!.

WalrusTexas: Thanks for letting me know, Ron, my British heart will heal. I hope your invitation is accepted and Les Fontaines de la Concorde…was Explored.

midgpee:

I'm a big lover of trains (although you wouldn't see if from the images I post myself) and for me, that particular photo is a photo of a train.
A train in a station, the image features the station, but to me the image doesn't really try to portray the station or the architecture of the station.
Too many of the station's architectural features are cut off, for me, to make the architecture of the station particularly relevant in this image.

Anyway, that is just my personal interpretation of this image.

I often struggle as well with what to submit to a group like this, because I do not really focus on photographing architecture most of the time. Only occasionally do I have an image that I think would qualify for any architecture photography groups.
So I may not be the best judge of what is "architecture" photography ;-)

Discussions like this help me and even inspire me however. :-)

Ah, and this shot, I feel, is about the architecture of the station rather than about the trains in the station:

Tim van der Leeuw:

Makes sense to me—with the shadows echoing the roof to help define the space; the background opening for functional flow; and a splash of train color for a use case.
Anyone care to offer a counter argument, or an invitation?

WalrusTexas:
Let me take a look through recent postings in the group, Ron, and offer my tuppence worth if I find anything worth saying. But I should perhaps explain why eliminating the fountain and the Nelson's Column in Trafalgar's Square breaks the British heart in me. The Nelson's Column was actually designed by the very famous British architect William Railton, and Nelson's statue by the sculptor Edward Hodges Baily. Do I admire Admiral Nelson? Good Lord, No. But how many of the "architectural" pieces in the group are designed by well regarded architects? Ironically, if I submit a string of buildings anywhere along Regent Street, most likely they will squeeze through. More can be said, but they should probably be the subject of a private conversation.

Susan Kitchell:

Wow! You really feel strongly about Trafalgar square. I'm British too but not quite sure I would put up such a defense; especially for a photo that isn't even mine. :-) Is this group so key that this photo's exclusion is so devastating?

Carrot Room: Whether a photo is mine or not has no bearing on whether I feel it should be included or not, what matters more to me is the reason behind the inclusion or exclusion. If I understand your question correctly it has two parts:- 1. "Is this group..key". The answer is yes, a group where a good administrator, and in this case an excellent one in the person of Ron Masters, cares to appoint three moderators and subsequently make them administrators/gatekeepers is a group I'll take seriously. 2. Is the photo's exclusion so devastating? Not in and of itself. More important again are the reasons for inclusion/exclusion. I do appreciate that with 4 admins exercising independent judgement the criteria applied would vary and the end results mixed. That is the reason why I offered to take a look through recent posting to see if there is anything worth commenting on. If there is you will know, stay tuned.

Susan Kitchell:

Thank you Susan I appreciate your passion in this; it's just what Flickr is about

Not sure if this needs to be a new topic, but how do you feel about people reposting the same image? There is one picture that I see on the first page almost every day.

naromeel:
Brings to mind the line from the musical Chicago, “I fired a warning shot, right between his eyes.” Of course, I don’t advocate violence, but reposting is theft of space from other group members. Recent judicial decisions confirm that killing a thief after sundown is not a crime in Texas, not the only evidence of persistent barbarism. Sorry, getting dark. How about removal from the group, followed by removal and removal of all posted photos, and then banning on a third offense? Happy to discuss alternatives. If the photo is mediocre, I might accelerate the schedule.

Which of course reveals that I don’t look at this group every day, for which I apologize.

I have on a few occasions accidentally removed an image from a group, and then quickly added it back.

So if it happens once, then it's an accident. If it happens repeatedly, it crosses over into intentional and unsociable behaviour.

Tim van der Leeuw:
Agreed. I doubt anyone would notice the occasional instance.

Tim van der Leeuw:

Yes, I’ve made this mistake occasionally. Best to give people the benefit of the doubt.

naromeel: I am very happy that in case of doubt, you have opted to err on the side of inclusion. In these unusual times, I know that many people, some my acquaintances, have come to Flickr for comfort and company and a group like this, without a high bar on quality, is a good place for them to find both, especially when they may not have either the skill or equipment for the more restrictive groups. Thanks Naromeel.
I think I have contributed all I can to this discussion group. Is there a way for me to switch off notifications on further discussions in the group?

You have to check Flickr notification settings but I think the only way is for us all to stop talking in this particular discussion thread!

Susan Kitchell:

I've never tested this, but on your "Group" page, there is an "Options" column. You can click on the 3 buttons "..." which provides options to Mute Notifications or Hide from Activity Feed. Maybe one of these options would help.

Susan Kitchell:

naromeel:

Tim van der Leeuw:

Much easier. Open “Notifications” to a full page, find a response to this thread, hit the ellipsis on the right side to open a menu. “Mute discussion in this thread” is the first of several items, “Mute this group” the 2nd..

Ron Masters Thank you all, this message is for all three of you but I don’t know how to put more than one name in a message. I have muted discussion in this threat. Best, Susan

Why is photo on page one of our pool almost every day?

Carrot Room:

Photographer removed from group. Thanks for your dedication!

I have removed this photo several times now and it is back again... Remove from Group?

Carrot Room:

I'm not admin or mod but.. Be my guest!

I mean, I don't know what marvels of architecture are on display here in that shot... And if it keeps coming back, then obviously the poster doesn't care too much about what can fit in this group, right?

BTW I wonder if users now get notifications if their images are removed from a group? I don't remember.

Carrot Room:

Yes, remove. And Ban, if it shows up again.

WalrusTexas:

Will it help if in group rules something in the line: "No reposting" will be helpful? I do make error from time to time and post of topic or banned subjects in some groups. It is not intentional. I appreciate when I receive a note from admin that my photo was removed or before removing me from the group.

CVIja(x):

‘No reposting’ might help, worth a try. Everyone makes mistakes occasionally, me included. The front page does say “please don’t bump”, but maybe that’s too colloquial for our polyglot community.

WalrusTexas:
Removed again and banned

Carrot Room:

Thanks. Always sad that when people just won’t listen.

borderline pic, hard for me to discern much 'architecture' here; but lovely art:

InnAtElmwood:
Yes. The top and bottom look like supporting arches, giving the impression that we are looking at a ceiling, but on closer inspection probably are trompe l’oiel. The description says “ceiling of a church”, completely credible given the wooden, probably arched, structure. So it’s a ceiling painted to look like a ceiling, beautifully decorated in a classic style. Interesting juxtaposition of simple (cost-constrained?) architecture and fabulous (maybe also inexpensive) artwork.

Someone let it in, don’t know who. I tend to reject corner cases if the photo—like this one—is already in over 100 other groups. Prefer not to 2nd-guess the new moderators. Maybe some of them will offer opinions?

WalrusTexas:

yes, I see you have 7 sets of eyes reviewing the queue now.

WalrusTexas: I tend to "save for later" the ones that make me have to stop and pause too much. Approve the clear ones - then go back.

I have denied a picture that seemed to be simply white patio tables with sun umbrellas. The tables were arranged in a plaza set up - no buildings were in the background. The plaza was the only "architectural" feature ~ but it was obscured by the tables.

At present I would have 'saved for later" this image. Come back and thought again. I would be inclined to reject as the picture does not clearly show how the image relates to the space if I cannot figure out what it is trying to show.

Earlier today I admitted a picture of a stained glass window which clearly showed the window within the actual structure. Another picture of another window had been edited to just show the stained glass window on its own. That was "saved for later". I could not tell from the description if it was designed by the architect; if it was an exhibit in an art gallery. I denied that one as I felt the backlighting looked like an art gallery display.

Brownie Bear:

I saw the same stained glass window, had the same reservations, but approved it, by analogy with gargoyles. some stained glass window was clearly intended here by the architect, even though (s)he may not have know which one.