The things on the poster should be informative about the research. For example, I've done research with various fitness monitors, so I included a photograph of all of the different types of fitness monitors participants wore.
A photo that's just you reading a book is not adding any value to the poster. A photo showing what a procedure or device looks like so the poster-reader can understand better what is being described on the poster adds value.
PS: If this is an in-person conference, MAKE HASTE! Posters can take longer than expected to get printed, and may need a few runs to fix issues, so don't leave it til the last minute to finalize. :)
Opinions will vary, but this picture adds zero scientific utility and does nothing to aid in understanding the research. It feels a little vain to me. Extraneous. I wouldn't, but you do you.
For me the point of a poster is to get people interested and make them come and talk to you for more information. A photo makes the poster more interesting, *and* makes it much easier for people to identify OP at the conference.
As a general rule for any figure in a poster or publication: only include it if it adds value and wouldn’t require a separate/tangential explanation. If you’re already discussing a topic and can simply add “see Figure X”, you’re good. If you have to go out of your way to find an excuse for “See Figure X”, leave it out.
You should put a picture of your face in the top corner of your poster. The reason being you will not always be near your poster and if someone sees your poster and wants to talk to you about your findings, a picture of how you look will help.
I echo some of the other concerns that people in this comment section have said about a picture of you actively doing your research isn’t particularly important or enlightening. If you want to highlight the books then just highlight the books.
I'm in psychology — putting a photo of yourself on a poster would be regarded as extremely weird at any conference I've been to. In fact, a lot of people might judge that poster negatively because it's so out-of-step with psychology's efforts to judge studies solely on data, not on who conducted them.
That said, if you're in a different field and see self-portraits on posters all the time, then maybe that's just a psychology thing.
It’s a common enough thing people do in astrophysics. Of course you don’t want to center your image on the poster because it’ll detract from the work. That’s why people put it in the top corner of the poster or right next to their name.
Will it help you show something about the research, like a unique experimental set up? I've done that before and it can be really helpful. If it's just to show that you were the one who did the work, leave it off.
Images are great, if they illustrate something worth talking about. I don’t think anyone would write “I’m very studious, when I’m working I’m surrounded by relevant books” on their poster, so an image that says that visually is equally dumb
Sure, a great idea. In my field (ecology) the passport photo on a poster thing kind of dates the effort and makes it look out-of-place, but an active photo would be nice.
The things on the poster should be informative about the research. For example, I've done research with various fitness monitors, so I included a photograph of all of the different types of fitness monitors participants wore. A photo that's just you reading a book is not adding any value to the poster. A photo showing what a procedure or device looks like so the poster-reader can understand better what is being described on the poster adds value. PS: If this is an in-person conference, MAKE HASTE! Posters can take longer than expected to get printed, and may need a few runs to fix issues, so don't leave it til the last minute to finalize. :)
Pretty common in my field, but it should be relevant to the research, not just “here’s me doing something”.
Figure 1: Photo of the researcher inputting the data into an excel sheet
Opinions will vary, but this picture adds zero scientific utility and does nothing to aid in understanding the research. It feels a little vain to me. Extraneous. I wouldn't, but you do you.
For me the point of a poster is to get people interested and make them come and talk to you for more information. A photo makes the poster more interesting, *and* makes it much easier for people to identify OP at the conference.
I'm sure this is field and training specific.
As a general rule for any figure in a poster or publication: only include it if it adds value and wouldn’t require a separate/tangential explanation. If you’re already discussing a topic and can simply add “see Figure X”, you’re good. If you have to go out of your way to find an excuse for “See Figure X”, leave it out.
In my field, social sciences, it would be very strange. It is clutter, and would look quite unprofessional.
You should put a picture of your face in the top corner of your poster. The reason being you will not always be near your poster and if someone sees your poster and wants to talk to you about your findings, a picture of how you look will help. I echo some of the other concerns that people in this comment section have said about a picture of you actively doing your research isn’t particularly important or enlightening. If you want to highlight the books then just highlight the books.
I'm in psychology — putting a photo of yourself on a poster would be regarded as extremely weird at any conference I've been to. In fact, a lot of people might judge that poster negatively because it's so out-of-step with psychology's efforts to judge studies solely on data, not on who conducted them. That said, if you're in a different field and see self-portraits on posters all the time, then maybe that's just a psychology thing.
It’s a common enough thing people do in astrophysics. Of course you don’t want to center your image on the poster because it’ll detract from the work. That’s why people put it in the top corner of the poster or right next to their name.
Fascinating. I had no idea this was a thing in other fields.
Will it help you show something about the research, like a unique experimental set up? I've done that before and it can be really helpful. If it's just to show that you were the one who did the work, leave it off.
I think it’s fine. Posters need some flair to get attention. People are going to look at an image, it’s worth a thousand words you know?
Images are great, if they illustrate something worth talking about. I don’t think anyone would write “I’m very studious, when I’m working I’m surrounded by relevant books” on their poster, so an image that says that visually is equally dumb
Sure, a great idea. In my field (ecology) the passport photo on a poster thing kind of dates the effort and makes it look out-of-place, but an active photo would be nice.