stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 I've been visiting this site since the late 1990's, but I've found the content now to be less useful than when I started out. So many questions could be answered with a quick search of the archives. And most questions relate to what to buy next. There just isn't enough content on technique and lighting. And on top of that, the admins are censoring threads that refer to very useful competing sites. It also seems that many good photographers have been banned or have moved to other sites. Anyone else feel the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 If it is less useful to you doesn't that mean you have learned something here? You can learn other thigns elsewhere too. but not in the variety you find here. Technique and lighting are amply covered. Maybe you are just bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_ballard Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 IMHO, photo.net is still very relevant, but it's no longer the only game in town. I don't know of any other forum sites that really compete with photo.net, but with the ease of blogging today, there are now many blogs that provide very useful information that you just can't find on photo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilpeters Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 PhotoNet is a godsend gift. I learn more from looking at other people's pictures [this never gets old] whether they are pro or amateur than I ever will from forums, but that's just me. Ultimately, every photographer is self-taught, by practice alone. I look to the forums to learn techniques, and to avoid mistakes, still, you have to go do it yourself, thats the beauty of it. It helps everyone in the forums, if you assist someone in asking a better question. There are literally thousands of superb photographers in PN, and 2 million pictures to see, changing dayly- that alone is a lifetime of learning and inspiration. The better part of valor keeps me from commenting on any 'good' photographer misdirected enough to leave PN for lack of understanding life. I wish them well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 The interactive part of the site requires give and take. If you wish to ask questions, but not answer them, then the more you know, the less useful the site is. Perhaps it just means that you've learned a good bit of what photo.net has to offer to you. Feel free to stick around and help some other people, though. You might want to consider contributing content on lighting and technique? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul ron Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 This site operates as a train the trainers. Our experiance is what we are sharing. Experianced people are always chiming in, thus an inexperianced person learns. You, the unexperianced person, will start chiming in with your newly learned experiances. We learn by sharing and we can't expect the same people sharing the same experiance all the time, we need new blood, new experiance to help the unexperianced learn just as you did. Maybe your experiance was different and you made some observations no one else has? Or maybe you've modified and found a new way of doing the same old thing but with a new, maybe easier solution? Share some of your experiances and see what feedback you get here on PhotoNet, instead of looking for information, share with us. We are just students, not paid teachers. The more you say, the less people listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfcole Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 I'm not normally a flamer, but this just seems like a silly and pointless post. And whiny. Did I say whiny? Can I have the last 30 seconds spent responding to this back? Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 The cause to your lament is by P/N's great success. To the typical participant, it is almost certainly relevant. P/N has attracted countless new photographers with the same questions. Part of the normal profile of such a constituency is that they do not search the archives, preferring instead some personal attention, and in the usual few cases it's laziness. But it is normal given the standard distribution of interest and experience of any large group. The Admins aren't truly censoring, but editing and deleting. Censorship is, by definition, a government thing. The owner of the site has every right to do what he wants and we have every right and opportunity to go elsewhere. Yes, the editing can be annoying but so can some of us! :) There exist some relatively advanced professional sites that you might prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_van_hulle1 Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 Can you post an example of a site that has retained it's relevancy over time? By it's nature, the community here is not static. In the earlier days, the mix of more experienced to less experienced shooters was different than it is now. Too, the forums and those who participate in them have changed. But so has photography in general. Things change. This HAS been covered in previous posts over the last few years (couldn't resist). And this place is WAY better than anything else out there still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilly_w Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 I've been visiting the site for about 5 years. One of my observations is that in the past 2-3 years the number of truly fundamental questions re: technique is on the rise (e.g. <...what setting should I use for...>. And how about the growing profusion of questions best addressed via a consult with one's Owner's Manual? I find this line of questioning, indicating sheer laziness, seriously degrades the site, reducing it to a less-than pedestrian level approaching that of a chat-room. Hat's off to those suggesting a glance at the manual. That ought to become the pat response. Moderator's ought to exert more influence to retain a higher standard. I suspect many knowledgable and capable contributors grew weary of the tedious and mundane questions and have moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted December 2, 2006 Author Share Posted December 2, 2006 Yes, I think you have nailed it, Lilly. I'm happy to help folks when I can - many have helped me. But many questions are covered in the archives. Or the owners manual! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 I don't think that photo.net will tolerate a real discussion of the situation on its own netsite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 There is always a new group of folks that are getting into photography, and the same basic beginning questions will get asked. <BR><BR>Many beginners dont search the archives, or even know how to. <BR><BR>Thus basic questions will be asked "about photography" over and over.<BR><BR><b> Most all beginners want a camera solution, and want their camera purchase or wazoo lens to magically create perfect lighting. </b>Discussions about lighting are nil, folks want a camera solution, photoshop solution to make the perfect image.<BR><BR> One could spend two days setting up lights, gels, reflectors, doing relamping on an interior shot for a high end commercial shot of a house. Most ALL folks will ask what camera was used, and avoid ANY questions about lighting. when they see the images one shoots after 2 days of hard work. A pro might have an extra van full of lighting equipment, the amateur wants to know what wazoo matrix intergalactic strobe they can buy to give the same results. Its like asking a pro writer/author what pencils, typewriter, laptop, program one uses when one writes a story.<BR><BR> Setting up a pro shot is work, folks want a Purchase solution to give them the same results. This is the reason many folks chase the perfect camera, the marketers dogma has them believing that the latest gooberflex camera will make them a pro.<BR><BR> The marketers dont want you to know that a pro could go down to home depot or walmart and buy some lights and cords and use a 1/2 century old TLR and shoot a better lit still shot than an amateur with his new gooberflex camera and flash. <BR><BR>A pro normally doesnt use lights from Home depot or walmart, but knows where they could be used in an emergency shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 It's probably not relevant for you, and we've seen over time that some people will reach a level of technical porficiency and find the forums less interesting. For those who want to view and comment on photos there may be other sites with better searching/tagging, and for those who are interested in gear there are better sites with in-depth reviews and links to forum discussions. The original site owner came back to run things recently and has stated that he wants to focus more on the shopping aspect as well as orienting forums toward Q&A that leads to ... shopping. There are a handful of sites where pros tend to congregate but this isn't one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted December 3, 2006 Author Share Posted December 3, 2006 I like to have decent equipment, but I realized long ago that I needed to really learn the craft of photography. That's why I've enrolled in a number of workshops over a number of years (zone system, creative lighting, studio lighting, large format, etc.). So a site that's just trying to help folks stuff Christmas stockings (and get ad revenue) just ain't what I'm looking for. Oh, well, I'll check in once in a while. But I'll spend more and more time at other sites, such as s_t_r_o_b_i_s_t_dot_c_o_m. Sorry for the funky spelling, but I understand that it's a banned word here. Odd as it's a great site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 I am fascinated by the developments in flash technology.for instance, Is digital TTL flash really metered through the lens? How does the preflash work in a dedicated flash? Is the Canon and Nikon and Olympus systems different (proprietary) and how does it mate with the focus points? If one steps up to a Quantum Q flash, how does the QTTL system work with the camera module? I did a search on this the other day and I couldn't get a real fix on the technology. There is a new Vivitar 285HV. Is it as reliable as the old one,anyone testing it? So,there seems to be plenty of room for new "static/non status quo" articles. Now,how to skim off the algae that accumulates on the top is sometimes vexing. Examples: A title heading like " Telephoto lens" I just ignore. A user that wants to know how the self timer works,had the camera for a year and no manual ( this is know as the eBay spinoff. So how to say don't be a shnook without being a shnook). Positive changes though. Mainly not so many ad hominem digs from anonymous trouble makers. It is still welcoming to all,but there are other places out there,as the man says. Also, wish to see more of the insight of Bernstein and the good writers like Philip Greenspun,who tell it straight talk and pithy too.. I guess this is Everything Else Feedback Time. Aloha Nui Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 If you've taken workshops you're ahead of most people here. You know more than the basics and I think possibly the best way to improve your photography is by photographing and getting feedback on prints, not scavenging here. Also, there are other sites which discuss technique and aren't afraid of competing websites (or blogs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 But isn't it the case that the nature of your relationship with the site changes as you get more experienced? By which I mean that the balance between learning yourself and helping other people to learn changes and practically speaking you spend less time reading (your benefit) and more time writing(others' benefit). If you find the content less interesting then I'm sure Photo.net would appreciate your creating some useful and compelling stuff yourself. If you know the site is short on detail on some important aspects, then I'm sure people would respond positively to you volunteering to fill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Some do, most don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 "Anyone else feel the same?" Yes, but.... Photonet was something of a social gathering back when I first started dropping in. It's no longer a cozy old boy's club, it's gotten bigger and more involved in various aspects of picture making that holds no interest for me. In that respect, it's not really very relevant anymore. That's okay--it's wasn't created to cater to my needs any more than anyone else's. I seldom post anything anymore but I pop in occasionally and see what's up and sometimes use it for opinions on photo materials and equipment. As for the administration's censorship--that and photo ratings and people getting PO'd and leaving have always been hot topics of discussion. It's really not important. It's a website. It's not a long term relationship or a bonding experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donald_bray Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 It's a good question, I asked myself similar surfing numerous photo sites over the last year prior to recently joining. I believe all these sites have some relevance. I like photo.net's size, extraordinarily simple and readable layout, something extremely rare on the web and certainly not shared by any of the new photo sites: all adopt the modern mantra of cascading multi-colored features and 'user selectable' everything all at the cost of simplicity and readability. I attribute our shared ennui to two things: 1. Photo.net's size, both an attribute and an annoyance, dumbing down by mass and popularity. 2. Photographic mediocrity raised to a very high level due to #1 in conjunction with the affordability of very good quality digital equipment. History repeats, as this happened with the advent of desk top publishing: suddenly millions with a computer were publishing... Also, altruistically with no insult intended, familiarity breeds contempt, to some degree. Anyone "visiting this site since the late 1990's" has to have seen it all before. But it's a conundrum as the inrease in content and members has to assure new photos, new insights, new ideas, no matter how rare they may be. In today's technology, age and size can be an attribute: meta data, meta.photo.net? For me, there's still lots to see and learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.wesleyalmond.com Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I've been reading info from this site for over 6 years. This is the first place I go for photo research. This site rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now