There's a whole slew of photos that are just pretty pictures of random sights. Some have a tree or something in it, but several don't have a living plant in the photo. I know this is an ongoing problem, maybe we can somehow tweak this section of the site to return it to its intended purpose - highlighting garden combinations. The difficulty with mobile devices and tagging has been discussed and I can see that this would make it impossible for many members to post their great photos. Maybe we could do something more along the lines of requiring at least 2 plants tagged or listed in the comments? Or add a place to list plants featured in the photos? If no plants are identified, it can't be posted. I realize this would eliminate some photos where the poster has no idea what they are taking a photo of. Maybe an incentive to attempt to find out or ask for help on the plant ID forum?

I like to look at pretty pictures too, I just don't want to see sunsets and hot air balloons on the gardening site. There are plenty of other places on the internet to post pretty pictures.

I took a look and did see that it mostly is from one member. Maybe admin could let them know what the photos should be? I didn't see a report button on them. If there was a report button, maybe someone could check and delete or move photos that are in the wrong place?

I commented on a couple of those beautiful photos and asked the owner to share them on the photography thread since they aren't truly landscape photos with identified plants.

I wonder if a message could be placed at the main page for landscape/mulit-plant photos https://garden.org/plants/mult... to give a bit of direction for use; something like:

"When adding a Landscape/Multi-plant photo, be sure to identify the plants shown in the photo by either tagging each plant with it's name; if tagging isn't possible due to the electronic device used, the plant names can be added to the comment section after the photo is uploaded."

But move them where? I did see someone suggested putting them in the photo forum, but even that seems a bit of a stretch to me since this is a garden site, and it's my general understanding that the photo forum was created to discuss how to take better pictures of plants. Maybe someone could open a thread in the Sandbox for just random pretty photos? That would seem to be a benign resolution without hurting anyone's feelings.

I like Lauribob's suggestion that a landscape photo somehow not be allowed to post unless at least two plants are identified, either by tagging them or somehow simply adding a reference to the photo. I also understand that there is a difficulty with tagging on some devices, so perhaps that can be addressed somehow? It appears the box drawing might be the issue, and to me that is not a do-or-die issue -- if all the plants are at least referenced, it's not that difficult to figure out which one is which. I find landscape photos to be a pretty bit of fluff if not tagged, but a great reference tool when they have actual plant names associated with them.

Cross posted with Lin. I did look at the forums, and to further confuse (me anyway), there are 3 photography forums: Garden Photos, Plant Photos, and Photography. As a casual photographer at best, I haven't delved into any of these other than with a random question, so don't really understand the difference between the forums. It does appear that the plain Photography forum is more geared toward technical tips and info, so perhaps that would be a good spot for random non-plant photos?

I am probably one of the main offenders when it comes to failing to label pictures. No excuse except laziness. I am going back and labeling the most recent ones this morning. Will try and do better..... For me trees in a sunset are landscape photos while just a sunset, while lovely is not.

Try Photography forum: 'Share Your Photos' already set up for random photo subjects...

Maybe the "landscape photos" area just needs to provide the definition of what is expected? I think many people think of a "landscape photo" as being almost anything off in the distance.

Or, maybe the definition is there somewhere and I just didn't see it? (if so, sorry!)

I do think that being required to tag some given number of the plants could exclude quite a few otherwise very interesting photos.

Weedwhacker said: I do think that being required to tag some given number of the plants could exclude quite a few otherwise very interesting photos.

True ... many people take beautiful landscape photos but may not know the names of the plants to be able to tag them.

While I agree that there are lovely landscape photos with no plants identified, those photos will likely be seen by very few people. They will appear on the day they are submitted, quickly replaced by others that push them off the screen. After that, they MAY appear if a person has chosen to have a 'random landscape photo' show up on their home page, or if someone actively seeks out landscape photos by a specific member. I don't know how else they would ever appear (?)

Landscape photos that have been tagged, on the other hand, will show up in the main database under each identified plant - for a much broader exposure, and also serve a useful purpose of showing folks who may be researching a specific plant how it can look in an actual landscape.

I guess I don't personally care if folks choose to post photos that will quickly fade into obscurity, just seems like rather a waste. To me, the database is both a resource and learning tool. If a person submits a nicely composed photograph of a garden showcasing several plants, and for whatever reason does not know the identity of any of the plants, why not post it first on the Plant ID forum (which almost always generates active discussion that results in at least a genus/species ID if not a cultivar-specific one), then tag appropriately before submitting as a landscape photo. Yes, that does take a bit of time, but that's kind of how I see this crowd-sourced database grow in a more useful fashion.

My two cents.

"Landscape photos that have been tagged, on the other hand, will show up in the main database under each identified plant - for a much broader exposure, and also serve a useful purpose of showing folks who may be researching a specific plant how it can look in an actual landscape. "

You're right, Deb -- I hadn't really thought that through very well. Definitely more useful and able to be utilized if the plants are tagged!

I just removed several, she can always add them to the Photography forum as mentioned.

Why and when were the Multi-Plant photos (as it originally was named) switched to be called Landscape Photos?

Quite some time ago.

Landscape Photos is far more friendly and descriptive than the cold technical sounding "Multi-Plant Photos".

I'm somewhat confused about the name change too -- does it still include photos of, say, a planter full of different herbs?

That, to me, isn't a "landscape."

You're right, Sandy. "Landscape" doesn't fit those photos, but they are among my favorites. "Multi-plant photos" didn't work because people would post a photo of a berm covered with one variety of Impatiens or a photo of lots of pots filled with the same Pelargonium and feel justified because the photo contained more than one plant. We need a word for plant combinations or assorted plants.

I like 'Plant Combinations' - that seems to rather hit it on the nail. I agree with Dave that 'Multi-plant' sounded a bit technical, but as we've seen 'Landscape' seems to invite some lovely photos that don't actually include any plants. Kind of a conundrum. I do think a bit of an intro to whatever this feature ends up being called would be useful - encourage folks to label the plants, and also encourage them to open a comment that states when/where the photo was taken which would then open up a discussion. Yes, some people will ignore any guidance, but not everyone.

I really enjoy and learn from landscape photos with tags. Also I spend a good deal of time researching my landscape photos to try and find the correct names. I have a bunch of photos not published yet because I'm still trying to ID the plants. That is part of the learning and enjoyment of this site for me.

dave said:Landscape Photos is far more friendly and descriptive than the cold technical sounding "Multi-Plant Photos".

I have "New Landscape Photos" showing on my homepage but at the bottom of the list of photos, it says "see more multi plant photos"

To be consistent ... maybe that bottom sentence/link should be changed to read "see more landscape photos" instead of "see more multi-plant photos???

Thanks Lin, I fixed that.