The Elves Unhinged!

<p>Pnina, I didn't say the photographer should not participate or that there's necessarily anything wrong when they do. I said it wasn't necessary. I chose to participate when my photo was picked and others choose not to or are no longer active. Again, that makes for a diverse experience rather than the same sort of experience each time.</p>

<p>Besides, often when a photographer speaks up and says too much about his or her own work, it may stifle the viewers to the point where they may think what the photographer says is actually the point of the photo. The photographer often has no better insight into what the photo is actually doing than the viewer, because the photographer will be prejudiced by what he actually knows of the scene and may not LOOK as carefully as the viewer, who may see it without such prejudice. At the same time, it is often interesting to hear photographers talk about their work. I've just seen it be too persuasive at times, to where viewers assume the photographer is RIGHT about what the photo is about when there most often is no RIGHT. The viewer criticizes something, the photographer says that's just what he intended, the viewer shuts up rather than pursue why he didn't like it and if the intention, even if achieved, might have been misguided or still led to a problematic photo.</p>

<p>I don't think this forum is about fairness. I think it's about critique. It's not a place where work is showcased, like the top-rated forums and many other forums on the site. It's strictly about a photo to critique and that's why I think it didn't matter much to Josh whether the photographer was active any longer. (Honestly, I never remember him saying this. I thought he just listened and said he was going to consider various suggestions. He obviously never got around to acting on any of them for this forum.)</p>

<p>We've become a very networking culture, and there are many good aspects to that. At the same time, not everything is a networking opportunity or a matter of all-around participation. The Photo of the Week seems to have been set up to be a bit more academic-oriented criticism thread. That's why originally Mary Ball used to quickly delete comments that were not substantive. </p>

<p>Obviously there's a difference of opinion here in terms of the photographer always being available to participate and the fairness-of-exposure aspect, which to me just doesn't come into play. However, these disagreements are good to air and discuss, and it will be up to the new administration to determine what they act upon and what they don't.</p>

<p>Fred;<br>

I'm not sure if you got my point, or perhaps I am misunderstanding you. As for picking a photo from the critique forum and active members, no, it is not necassary, but as I mentioned, a critique is what the person asked for and here is thier chance. You argued that if someone wants to critique images he or she may go to the forum and do so, but is that not what you are doing here; critiquing images? Isn't that the whole purpose of this forum: an in-depth analisis of a photo and why/why not it works? My problem with the critique forum is that I DO NOT want to hear "Pretty picture" or "Looks nice": what use is that to me as a photographer in the oppertunity to improve.<br>

You also stated that "often when a photographer speaks up and says too much about his or her own work, it may stifle the viewers to the point where they may think what the photographer says is actually the point of the photo." I am not sure that I would defend my work, but most likely my only input would be to answer any questions that may be asked (lighting, location, equipment, what is the meaning of life... .) <br>

Finally, as POW is concerned, if it is a post offering a critical analysis then go for it, if it is to complain about the "same old thing" then it should be left at the keyboard.<br>

Don<br>

P.S. The answer to that last question? Guns, God, and ice cold Dos Equis Amber!</p>

<p>Don, as I said, I think of the Critique Forum a little differently than I do the Photo of the Week forum. In the Critique Forum, there has been a specific request by the photographer for a critique. The critiques are, in that sense, tied to the photographer personally. I consider the Photo of the Week forum a little less personal and a little more academic. Each of us agrees that our work can be chosen when we join the site and we have no further choice or need to interact with the POTW. The Photo of the Week forum is, in that sense, or at least can be, more anonymous. I sometimes think the critiques are a little more honest and therefore a little harsher in the Photo of the Week forum precisely because of this sense of anonymity, where you are talking to other critics about a photo and not directly talking to the photographer. (I wonder how different movie reviews would be if the movie critic were talking directly to the director as opposed to writing in a newspaper or magazine at more of a seeming distance from the photographer.)</p>

<p>I used to agree with you about "nice photo" and "pretty picture" but have since changed my mind. I'm still glad it's frowned upon in the Photo of the Week forum, though it hasn't been well moderated for a while now. Those comments used to get deleted fast. As a photographer, when someone walks up to my work and says "nice picture" or doesn't even say anything but spends an extra minute or two looking, that tells me something. It tells me what, in a sea of millions and millions of pictures, stopped someone long enough to even bother to comment. It tells me what someone else liked, which can be helpful to some extent. It's hardly the stuff of great criticism but it's not worthless information either.</p>

<p><br />Fred, you are right that asking for critique in general of ones work ,is different from ones work chosen by others( elves in this case).</p>

<p>I also think that the photographer participating in the process is not to appologize! but I saw many times , questions asked by members critiquing a given work, and saying that they are sorry it is impossible to have some clarification by the photographer, and it can be about situation, or technical ones,and I agree with Don that it can be about :<br /> ((<em>lighting, location, equipment, what is the meaning of life.</em>.. .)</p>

<p>If the POW is more of an academic ( orienation) direction, it is important , IMO, to have , (eventhough not always necessary of course) both side participating, and why?<br /> Because as a learning purpose of the POW discussion I think it has a better result when it is a dialogue of a chosen work, critiquing by members, and answers(when they are being asked ) by the Photographer .</p>

<p>I like as well the idea that we have different points of views, as this is an enriching /widening our horizons of photography, as well as creation in general.</p>

I actually like the less active moderation. It tells me something about a person or critique when I ask for x and get y. If we

never see the y's we loose something. For instance, I asked Fred and Arthur for examples here and was given arguments

instead. I could have just been indulged, that would not have been difficult and would have helped me. Despite that, I still

learned something about them and their points of view when they declined. Let us see it all I say, and as Fred has said so

many times, pass over the critiques you don't find helpful.

 

Getting back to Fred's point, there are many ways to achieve breadth. One might be an objective method. There are 25 or

so categories of images on pnet. Each week, select randomly from 1 category until all 25 have been chosen from and

then start again. That would give us an objective, complete representation. Would anyone want that?

 

Thanks for the thread Fred....interesting to me. JJ

<p>Jeremy, I'm not sure what you may have concluded from my not posting the examples you requested. I explained part of my rationale. The rest is a matter of time and energy. I felt I explained what I meant sufficiently. It would have taken quite a bit of time for me to go through portfolios choosing an array of photos that I think would make good POTWs. As that's not my job, and is the job of the elves, I was not willing to spend that kind of time to illustrate something I had already explained.</p>

<p>I don't care much for the objective method you choose. Random is not always a good thing. I think choices made with intention and variety are a much better way to go. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water in this case.</p>

<p>My contributions to the PotW threads are very irregular, but I have to say that the current streak of images does not inspire me much to contribute much more. It seems to me many people overlook the main reason to have diversity in the PotW: the discussion that follows. When I see a photo that is 80% last week's photo, I know where the discussion will go. Now that's boring. Not the images fault, not the fault of those who contribute either - suggesting either of these as the reason the PotW is not what it used to be is simplistic.<br>

<br />I full agree with Fred about the lack of diversity, for the simple reason that I'd love to see diverse discussion, more people joining in because different photos appeal to different 'groups'. It would be an enriching thing, and much more educational than it is now.</p>

<p>At the same time, I can understand to some extend the sentiments expressed that the current threads are dominated by a limited number of people. There is truth to that. What I cannot agree with is that you blame those people as the reason you do not participate. That's simply a cheap way out. If you do not like the way this community goes (and p.net is a community, all noise on NameMedia from Martin might be entertaining, but completely irrelevant to this discussion), then do your best to change the community. It is ours. Ours to make, ours to break. Yes, it needs a good reciprocal relation with the p.net management to convince them that the community is quite good at steering itself (unless we talk guns) - but hey, that's again up to ourselves!<br>

<em>(Luckily, the vast majority in this thread is constructive, I know, and I might be preaching to the choir now - but it's BS anyone here now has to defend his/her passion to contribute to p.net, and it derails a good and needed discussion).</em><br>

___<br>

Long intro, sorry.</p>

<p>How about a rotation schedule for the category to which a photo was submitted for critique/rating? Week 1 - architecture, week 2 - Macro, week 3 - Portrait, and so on?</p>

<p>Since you mentioned me . . .<br>

Actually, I think the type of pictures picked for the POW may be <em>due </em>to their being picke by a NameMedia employee. From the casual look I've taken of their other sites, NameMedia is not providing anything at all intellectually demanding anywhere.</p>

<p>Perhaps if someone approached the new editor-in-chief, she would be open to allowing the selection of the POW to be made by a Photo Net member or a rotating group of members, which would lead to a diversity of pictures being chosen.</p>

<p>This might be a win-win solution for POW participants as well as for the site.</p>

<p>Personally, I think this site also needs some type of photo arts journal, which could also be edited by some of those on the site inclined toward that sort of thing (Does anyone remember <em>Shots</em>? I don't know if it's still around, but it wouldn't have to be that grungy). Ratings and one-line critiques and some other features of the site can become kind of dispiriting after a while. This too could be a win-win kind of proposition for members as well as for the site. </p>

 

<p>Hello. I've passed along the wish list for more diversity and also requested the photos are recently uploaded to ensure they are from an active member. If I could make a request to keep any POW complaints here in the forum, rather than the member's photo? Just out of respect for the member who may have a photo chosen as POW. Many thanks!<br /><br />martin h: The Elves are and always have been volunteer photo.net members.</p>

<p>My apologies to the volunteer elves, in that case.</p>

<p>However, it has been said a couple of times that the elves are growing a little old and weary of picking the POW, and since there are no more of their kind, it's time to turn the selection of the POW over to Photo Net volunteers who have names, who can be criticized for their choices, but who can defend them too.</p>

 

<p><<<<em>it's time to turn the selection of the POW over to Photo Net volunteers who have names</em>>>></p>

<p>Not a good idea, IMO. Don't want constant criticism of elves' choices and certainly no need to make it personal.</p>

 

<p>I see your point about not wanting to make it personal, but as to not wanting constant criticism of their choices--well, there already is.</p>

<p>So why not try something different?</p>

<p>That's what most of us are suggesting. Something different. I just don't think it's a good idea to name the elves and Cara has already said, as was Josh's policy, that we shouldn't use the POTW to criticize the choices of the elves. Thus this thread in the Site Help forum.</p>

<p>I<em> don't know who nominates the elves, ? but I think it can help to add new team of elves once in a decided period of time. New team is a new points of view.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I'm quoting myself, ( sorry).... but I really think it is a better idea than nominate members of the site. As we have a new member replacing Josh, I think we should wait to let her enter the post ,and see what will be her results.</p>

<p>I agree with Pnina. Change the team of elves, but not just once, but regularly, would maybe solve the problem. <br /> As I have mentioned earlier, there are other forums available on PN, where any photo can be suggested for discussion, by any member that choses so. Photonet is rich of unbound opportunities..</p>

<p>Yeah, there's not even a discussion about how volunteer "elves" get picked. Is there a "volunteer for elf duty" page somewhere on the site? And by the logic of keeping the identity of POW selectors hidden beneath their elfen disguise, shouldn't equpment reviews be done anonymously too? If you spend $1,000.00 on a camera that was well reviewed by Bob Atkins, and you don't like it, isn't that more significant than not liking an elf's choice of the POW? Why not protect Bob too?</p>

<p>Anders , thanks, but that is exactly what I thought, once in a decided period of time , lets say a choice of elves for two years, or any given decided time. That will bring new points of view to this POW Forum.<br>

<em> </em></p>

<p><<<<em>And by the logic of keeping the identity of POW selectors hidden beneath their elfen disguise, shouldn't equpment reviews be done anonymously too?</em>>>></p>

<p>Martin, maybe someone could do a tarot reading to help decide on the elf situation. </p>

<p>I don't think it's a matter of logic that it seems reasonable to keep the elves anonymous and not keep everyone else on the site anonymous. That's just me, though, a purveyor of illogic.</p>

<p>I think it's a perfectly good idea to decide all this through a tarot reading. Just don't do it through one of the web cam-enabled, pay-by-the-unit-of-time "100% checked out" psychic readers on tarot.com, as it might end up costing more than you think.</p>

<p>Anyway, it's one thing for our elfen friends to be anonymous, another entirely for their method of selection to be anonymous.</p>

<p>The fact remains that the Elves have and do make the choice of PoW. To that end, attempting to hijack (IMO) the selection process by airing out grievances is somewhat fruitless. That said, I have no issue with the grievances made here (its another way to provide feedback to the administrators) but judging form the responses relating to PoW, I'd suggest the site is as active as ever and to that end remains 'healthy'. There are many reasons why 'good' photographers come and go on this site, none the least of which are a result of other site contributors/subscribers. </p>