Mod here.

We’re not looking for accidental photos, as in “I yeeted my phone and accidentally captured A Renaissance™”, because those mostly don’t exist.

We’re looking for well-composed photos that, as the photographer was pursuing a nice photo, also accidentally copied the rules of Renaissance painting, which does sometimes overlap (as a happenstance) with the fundamentals of good photography.

We remove a shitload of photos that are objectively gorgeous and technically astute, but don’t look like paintings, so trust me, there’s a difference.

As I understood it, they’re not doing it the old fashioned way because they’re trying to breed alpacas who are more resilient against climate change, and it’s easier to send a jar of spunk than to send an entire male alpaca.

We're being more lax this time around, at least for now, because the community is small.

We had to be stricter in the subreddit because the volume of posts was insane and anytime something didn't quite "measure up" to peoples' (absolutely batshit insane) expectations, the comment section demanded mod blood sacrifices.

So if something doesn't quite "measure up"? Eh, no big deal. We're not writing down the usernames of the naughty users that post something that's 20% too baroque.

Lots of old timey artists "cheated" by using out of boundary light sources to light their scenes, this is not the "gotcha" you think it is.

You know that hippies still wear snoods, right? The rest of her clothes are modern but distinctly hippie-styled, so this is either the world's laziest renfaire costume, or it's just a hippie wearing clothes like a hippie does.

Mod here.

The thing that would help the most is if people actually, you know, posted stuff?

We haven’t flocked back to Reddit, but it’s difficult to remember to stop by when almost nothing changes day to day.

Thank you!!! <3

Image Transcription:

[ Half a dozen dark-clothed figures stand some distance away from us in the badly damaged, grandiose white and gold marble halls of a Baroque-era church; safety-orange-striped hazard tape marks hazardous areas, and most of the figures wear safety orange or white hard hats, surveying the damage in soft diffused sunlight. To the left, in the distance, Corinthian-style columns tilt at a worrying angle barely able to hold up a heavy-looking interior cupola richly decorated with gold leaf. Figures directly below in orange hard hats survey the damage to the pillars but they are partially obscured by exquisitely delicate-looking low fencing, which hazard tape is pulled across and in front of. In the distance in the center of the image, decorative niches that are twice as tall as the figures in the image are partially destroyed, revealing joists and supports, and whatever they housed has been removed, although a lone white marble cross remains perched delicately above them. A gigantic gold chandelier fitted with electric candles hangs above, having received little damage, though because it is unlit it’s not apparently clear if it managed to remain functional. To the far right, a large square structural support with a small gold electric sconce seems undamaged, but a very large pile of rubble at it’s foot suggests that the roof it supports may no longer be intact. The figure at the center, facing away from us, appears to be wearing a priest’s cassock, helmet-less, his arms hanging limply at his sides as he gazes upon what is left of his church. ]

Well, in the interest of the visually impaired, I’m gonna give it my best shot in a separate comment!

If someone snaps a photo of a subject in good light, because the photographer instinctively knows what will make a good photo, but the subject is just doing their normal everyday things? We still consider it accidental.

Remember that we’re not looking for photos that were accidentally taken, like the camera was yeeted through the air and this was the last photo it captured before it shattered. That’s not what Accidental means in our context.

It means a situation that was already happening, but the moment that a photographer caught just happened to resemble a painting from the 14th-16th centuries.

We draw the line at people purposely recreating Renaissance vibes with costumes, or people doing a pose that is heavily associated with certain Renaissance paintings, or elaborate lighting rigs used in professional photo studios made specifically to replicate the lighting in Rembrandt’s work (for example).

If the photographer was trying to make the mother and child recreate an exact Renaissance pose, they’re doing a terrible job at it, but the overall effect is Renaissance-like.

Our reward circuits go off when someone mentions taking a rest.

Bee reward circuits go off for things that we would consider work.

Basically, the whole time they are face-first in a flower slurping up nectar and gathering pollen, the thing going through their tiny brains is “Fuck yeah I needed this”.

If you gave a bee the day off the general sentiment would be “What the fuck man, this is bullshit, I demand you let me go and collect nectar right fucking now!”

Banning vs. not banning are not hallmarks of leftism, rather it’s the difference between communities that are making an effort to be inclusive (a hallmark of leftism, btw) versus communities where the mods are so tired and overworked that it’s easier to ban people than adapt to the disruptions they may cause (a capitalist reflex that prioritizes being palatable to everyone over being fair to everyone because it’s more time-efficient to be blandly palatable and to enforce case-by-case fairness).

So yeah, from a certain point of view, because of the simple fact that you are being tolerated marks Lemmy as a more leftist platform.

We probably wouldn’t delete it, just leave a link at the top explaining we’ve migrated and lock it so it isn’t accepting new posts.

I wouldn’t want someone who submitted a treasured photo and got a bunch of positive feedback to lose it forever in the name of ruthless efficiency.

Me, the one who set up the community, seeing my community here, realizing I’m doing a piss-poor job at publicity: https://i.imgur.com/BZNPOxb.jpg

I think I did pretty well reciting it from memory and swapping out the details.

The average person has shaved one ant, but only because Dr. Ant-Shaver Willot has shaved 7 Billion ants and therefore he should be dismissed as a statistical outlier.

We feel it’s still too soon to make that choice but it’s a possibility in the future.

I’m still learning transcription so feedback for what works and what doesn’t will be helpful!

Pretty ironic that I gave what I thought was an exhaustive description only for someone to point out that I failed to spot something so obvious in hindsight.

Ah well, that’s the price of trying to be specific with descriptions, I could have just said “It’s a white horse and lots of people 's hands are up”.

I’ll append your observation to the text description.

It isn’t personal preference, I’m trying to do what’s best for my community, mobile and desktop users alike.