Neglected categories

One key problem here at PN is that while some categories are very active some

are not. Fashion and nude create a lot of interest where as documentary, news or

sports does not. I'll give you an example. By the time of writing this text <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6888140">this sports photo</a>

hasn't got any comments. Had I put it to the fashion cat, there would be, in my

experience, about 4-8 comments by now. The point is, it is a sports photo. It is

photo that has required detailed pre-planning, renting goods and finding places,

getting the people together and lots of post process. There were 35 layers in

the Photoshop while doing it and the size of it was over 550 Mb. - And it

deserves no comment!?!<p>

I think we need some kind of a random reminder to courage members visiting other

categories. I have proved it to myself very definitely that crossing photo

genres does add the tool box.

As an ex-sports shooter (extreme sports type stuff) I'm always interested in seeing the sports areas of the site get mroe attention. However, the fact of the matter is that sports photography is never going to be as interesting to people as babies, or nudes, or kittens. That's just human nature it seems. No ammount of "reminding" is going to change that.

 

The way I would like to address this is to set up "critique groups" where those of us interested in sports photography (or any other subject) could get comments from each other. Rather than waiting for the few comments that would come from people who aren't interested in the genre.

In the old days in der DDR (not Dance Dance Revolution), ve hadt vays of making you comment.

 

The last thing I need or want is a weekly reminder-- "You have not commented lately on topic (fill in the blank)."

Very nice pix. Put it in the Nude Category. Regards.

Josh, critique groups, isn't that basically what the categorizing is all about.<p>

"..sports photography is never going to be as interesting to people as babies, or nudes, or kittens" Never? Isn't that a bit like raising hands in the air and surrendering. Is there a way how to promote a certain type photo genre. I guess the natural way would be to produce better photos, so good photos that they suck interest.<p>

I am a man and I love women. I love how they look, how they feel, how they taste, their scent. I am not anti-nude, not even anti-porn, but isn't it really a bit sad that to get interest to a photo you've got to take a women and objectify her here and show the bits that make your blood circulate. I could easily give a name here just to show how easy it is to get attention with nude snap shots.<p>

Back in the seventies, while we in Finland were still under heavy influence from the SU our public broadcasting company told the truth in a controlled way, to put it nicely. Back then I thought, that we should have the American free way of media. Now, we have it and the state of media is worse than ever, because there is no responsibility. It's all about commercialism and going over here the bar is lowest. I think a site like PN should be active to show that other types of photos beyond the generally liked ones can be good too. I mean this is supposed to be educational site too. I think there could be a theme stating: "Cast your net - peek another category today! Comment one photo beyond your normal batch!" I mean, it's not like saying everything is better in the DDR than in the BRD. It's just saying, please, open the door and see more good photos.

... campaigns ...<p>

Have you ever though about weekly campaigns. Sort of - "This is the sports photo week. Please, comment one sports photo this week. Next week - journalism."

I just put my actions where my mouth is and commented at least one photo in each category. Josh, I earn a slap in my back.

<I>"There were 35 layers in the Photoshop while doing it and the size of it was over 550 Mb. - And it deserves no comment!"</I>

<P>

None of that matters. If people think the photo is good, or at least controversial, it will get comments. How difficult it was to produce isn't a factor.