No one is expecting photographers to stand in the cemetery and check every photo they take on a tiny screen with the sun glaring on it. I agree, it's often very difficult. I've stood beside a photographer in the cemetery and watched him trying to do it. I could barely even see the picture, so I don't know how he managed it. I've also seen him struggle to take a decent closeup picture with the Android version of the BG app, which doesn't have auto-focus.
So I'm not unsympathetic to the difficulties that photographers face. They are very real, and have been much discussed here. I encourage photographers to keep raising the problems and to share possible solutions.
But it's not too much to expect photographers at home, after they upload their photos, to click through them one by one and cull the bad ones. They have two weeks to do it before the photos hit the transcription queue. If a photographer doesn't have time to do that, they don't have time to do the job properly. Too many photographers are just uploading every photo they took and then walking away without exercising any reasonable critical judgement over their own work.
I see many examples of horrendous, disrespectful photos, that the relatives of the deceased would be horrified and distressed to see on BG representing their loved ones. The number of bad photos I've seen would now total in the thousands. I've seen complaints from distressed relatives here in this forum, and I've been contacted privately by other people asking how they can get the awful photo of their loved one's grave removed. Many examples of bad photos have been posted in this forum. Some of those examples have been posted by other photographers! So if you think this is a transcriber vs photographer debate, you're mistaken. There are many BG photographers who feel as strongly about bad photography as I do.
Photographers do not have some divine right not to have their own photos judged, any more than transcribers have the right not to have their transcriptions judged. We're all trying to give BG the best and most accurate repository of data, in a way that will demonstrate most respect to the deceased and their loved ones. No one's hurt feelings - not the photographer's, not the transcriber's - get to take precedence over that.
I wonder how some transcribers would get upset if they were transcribing 17, 18, 19 and even 20 century birth certificates. Would most of them be rejected because the writing was not clear?
Of course not. Strawman argument. The BG equivalent of such a document is Bad Headstone. Bad Headstone and Bad Photo are two entirely different things. My comment above relates to Bad Photo.
you have no right to even think you know what is in a photographers head. You have no idea.
What's in a photographer's head is not relevant to the discussion. What matters is the end product - the photo - and it's easy to tell the difference between a bad headstone, that the best photographer on the planet couldn't make legible no matter how hard they tried, and a bad photo.
It is NOT always easy or straight froward.
No one ever said it was. But the many BG photographers I am acquainted with have no problem at all judging their own photos and culling the bad ones, and submitting the remaining photos to transcribers to be rated and transcribed. They know that if they've judged their own photo as good enough to stay in the queue, then it's the very best photo they could have taken of this headstone and no one could have taken a better one. Even if the stone itself is virtually unreadable, they will not be penalised for it. It may get a Bad Headstone rating, but it should not get a Bad Photo rating, because it is not a bad photo.