View Full Version : People or places?
03-25-2003, 11:47 PM
What does everyone think - are these two categories sufficient? Say I have a nice picture of an animal, there's no background scenery - so what category should it go under??
"are these two categories sufficient"
Hmm, I never really though about that before. Originally, I meant it to be 'People' versus 'Anything Else', but settled on 'Places' since it sounds better. There is also a 'Catergories' option to which I can always add new subject matter. Just let me know and I'll consider adding it.
03-27-2003, 12:25 AM
What categories would you use for pictures of temples or ancient ruins?
03-27-2003, 02:21 AM
03-27-2003, 07:41 AM
Does the use of categories serve any useful purpose at all? Because once you start slicing this salami, there's no end to the possibilities. (People, places, animals, architecture....).
"Because once you start slicing this salami, there's no end to the possibilities. (People, places, animals, architecture....)."
I do separate out what I call 'Categories' i.e. 'Castles', 'Architecture', 'Food', etc. from 'Genre' which consists of either 'People' or 'Places'. I would consider adding new categories, but will leave Genre as is.
03-27-2003, 06:34 PM
Thanks Adrian but I was talking about categories, not the genre. I'm not that dumb -- I know that temples & ruins are not people. ;-)