How has Photo.net changed or influenced your photography?

<p>Although I've mostly switched over to Fuji, I used my Panasonic G2 today just to have a new photo for the Oly/Panny POTW without having to dip into the archive. BTW, the ancient G2 can still hang in there with the best of the new cameras, at least on sunny days and when displayed on the internet.</p>

<p>For me, what photo.net does is a lot like what happens when you stir a fire with the poker; it kind churns the embers, folds the unburned into the already burned to make the fire (a little more) fresh.</p>

<p>I frequent a number of photography forums, but photo.net is "home" to me. Like Sanford, I find myself digging out a camera in order to have an image ready for participation.</p>

<p>A member friend and I have had a long standing fun collaboration for the no words forum. Every other week he picks a topic for submission, then I pick, and so on. We've been at it for at least a couple of years now. That alone forces me to take more pictures.</p>

<p>Recently I picked up a used E-M1, so am now participating in the thread that Sanford usually starts each week in the Olympus forum. Again, this makes me look for opportunities to use the M1, probably more than I normally would. So all in all, Pnet helps to force me to use my cameras, rather than see how pretty they look sitting on a shelf. ;-)</p>

<p>Happy New Year, all!</p>

<p>PN has influenced my photography more than I could ever imagine when I first enrolled back in 2003. It would not be until 2006 when I would finally post a picture.</p>

<p>Truth be told, I don't think photo.net has influenced my photography at all. I can't think of a photograph I've made that's any different because of something I read here, or an idea I got from a posted photo.</p>

<p>I suppose it's been a decent source of technical information though. There's a few real experts here, as well as quite a few more who have left.</p>

I think I joined PN in 2006 or 07. I have learned a lot here from several members like such as WW, or the late

Nadine O'hara. The early years were better because of more lively participation. I posted a question about the

viability of PN a while ago that got over 300 responses. I think the site has picked up some since then although

much of the user activity has been driven by just a few regular posters. I am comfortable here, still. I like this

place much better than DP Review or Fred Miranda that tend to be more clique driven. argumentative and

judgmental. I hope PN will improve but we have been waiting a long time for that to take place. Still I am a PN

loyalist and I will renew in March hoping to continue learning from others here.

<p>I joined in 2003, the first year of my switch from film to digital. A lot of forum experiences later, I feel more savvy as an image-maker because of this site, but also a bit less interested in photo.net. I'm not sure why. Probably both I, and photo.net have changed in some ways. If I interacted more in 2016, maybe I'd get more back, as well. However, I see a downward trend in activity on a number of photo-sharing sites. I suspect the shift has been to Facebook, Twitter etc.</p>

I can only echo what Dave S said: not at all. I do what i do anyway.

<blockquote>

<p>... not at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him do water ballet. [<em>Imagining Q.G. in a watery tutu. Nope. Doesn't work</em>.]</p>

:-)

<p>I joined when my main focus was on large format photography but was making the transition to digital. I relied heavily on Pnet to help me make this transition, and especially on learning how to edit and print digital images. I learned quite a bit about editing by participating in the late Weekly Post Processing Challenge in Digital Darkroom. Lately, participating in the No Words forum has proven to be a stimulating mental challenge of trying to remember which of my photos might fit in a particular posting, and then once I think of a photo, trying to remember where it might be stored in my rather haphazard storage system.</p>

<p>I suppose that some people wold rather write about photography than do it, which is fine, and I enjoy reading their well crafted and informative postings. I don't know if Q.G. falls in this category, but since he has participated over eleven thousand times in forums (!), I suspect that all this writing has affected his photography in some, perhaps subtle, way?</p>

<p>not at all, it is one of THE most annoying photo forums to use,</p>

<p>can you locate NEW threads?<br>

HOW do you find "recent" posts</p>

<p>What an antiquated forum</p>

Welcome to PNet, Jeremy.<br>Somehow, i get to see an ordered list with all threads containing new posts (and that includes new threads, of course) at the top of the page. (The most recent posts in each of those threads is found at the bottom of each.) You could have that too, if you would take a bit of time to explore the account options in your workspace. There is also that "New responses" thing on PNet's pages. ;-)<br>But, you know, the quality of a forum is not found in what button to click where, but in who you meet, what you take away from it (bringing this back on topic, see? ;-) ).<br> Will PNet change your photography? Perhaps. But not necessarily. Though i am now considering a photo of me in a watery tutu. Hmm... better not, Julie. Nobody wants to see a wet old horse. Not even in tutu. Or...?

I tend towards the same view as Dave S and Q.G.; I could not specifically point out anything different in my photography as a result of

photo.net. But I'm sure there must be some influence, as we are all, in some way, the sum of all of our experience.

 

I had near 30 years of full-time pro photography experience when photo.net began, plus good access to inside technical info as a consequence of being employed by a large consumer of film and paper. So I've never gotten "answers" directly through photo.net; my other sources have been much deeper (and not littered with the arrogant BS that photo.net often has). But I HAVE learned a lot, mainly as a result of answering questions; writing explanations has helped to clarify my thinking immensely. Occasionally, some of my hazy longtime beliefs are turned upside down, and this is when I really learn something.

 

Photo.net exposes me to different viewpoints (and helps to scratch a sort of itch), and this is probably its major influence on me. Probably it has affected my photography in some ways, but I can't point to any of them.

<p>I joined in '97, got and lost "Hero" status, tossed off the Nikon forum/site overall, and came back to a much-diminished site that had become a bit of a backwater. There's just so much more out there now that PN can't deliver. Got a lot in the late 90s. Can't say it was ever better. No plans to chip in much more.</p>

<p>When I joined in 2002 it was useful for me. I had been shooting a lot but living in Cambodia for many years, where I got basically zero outside information. PN had a lot of great film photography back then, so I spent a great deal of time reverse engineering images I liked. Within a couple of years Photoshopping skills seemed to become more important than 'lensmanship', and I lost interest. </p>

<p>I blame every selfie I take on photo.net's late Al Kaplan and a friendly Dutch guy who pointed me at a used 15mm. I know a lot can be found in here although I haven't been looking for everything yet. - I believe it helped with shopping decissions and I should have asked more / bought less on my own.</p>

<p>Jeremy Rundle. It seems that you're looking for things that are quite reasonable, do exist, but you just haven't found them and are thinking that the site is inadequate because you haven't found them. Meanwhile I have always opened photo.net on a page that orders new threads in the order in which they were posted. Furthermore I can and do tailor this list to reflect my preferences, specifically by including/excluding those forums in which I have an interest or not. This "unified forum " combines all those forums ! have not excluded from the full listing. I can also render in a specific colour those threads I've previously opened. Its called "New Responses since your last visit " albeit that it would probably be more accurate to term in "new responses since your last visit but one"- or something like that anyway. This feature is what I've bookmarked and have used as my primary access to Photo.net for many years. I can identify unanswered threads within the listing because each thread indicates whether and if so how many responses there have been since the add "last visit" datum. You can access and configure this stuff simply enough by clicking on "Unified View" under "forums" and looking at the blue matrix of options at the top right of the list. </p>

<p>But in one sense you're right and that's the fact that Photo.net started in the dark ages and hasn't always had the money/resources or even the will to keep things up-to-the-minute. Some people do find this place kind of clunky. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, back on topic, I have a few shots that I owe to Photo.net in the sense that if I'm visiting a place for the first time, I may well post a question here seeking locational advice. Of course I do follow other routes too. But that's literally a handful of shots a year. In general I'm pretty much in line with Dave Sims and QG, and the benefit I get is more along the lines of shopping help and improvement in post processing since the digital darkroom and me have an occasionally fraught relationship. </p>

 

<p>pnet hasn't so much changed or influenced my style of photography, which has been pretty steady since the 60's. I do enjoy making friends and seeing what other people do. I am always inspired and impressed by the visual creativity of other people. </p>

<p>I have always found photography to be a solitary activity, so it's been important to have a social dimension to it in some way. To that end I belong to several photographic communities, both online and 'in the flesh'. It's difficult to be precise about how these interactions improve my photography, but I'm quite sure they are essential, and photo.net is a valuable component in the scheme of things.</p>

<p>I am in the process of moving from digital back to film and the folks over in BW processing have been very helpful with my developing questions, tips and so on. </p>

<p>No real change or influence. The biggest plus about PN is that I see the work of photographers I have never heard and exchange views with a number of interesting people. I also have an opportunity to pass on some of the extensive knowledge of wet-process photography I've acquired in 60 years as a pro and amateur. At the same time there's likely to be someone on PN who has handled or worked with the countless cameras that I've never got my hands on. I try to make comments from the point of view of the working creative, where producing a result is more important than talking or theorising - I never know just quite how much other PNers welcome and act on this :-). <br>

I did contribute to the RPS forum for quite a while, this was OK but very amateur dominated, and also apug, where I annoyed quite a lot of people. one of whom I remember stated that the difference between analogue and digital photography was like the difference between sex and masturbation (nobody but me challenged this). PN does have its extremists, such as one gentleman who lays down the law from morning until night in over 11,000 postings but has posted a grand total of one picture (largely out of focus and with blown highlights) but hey, nobody's perfect!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... in over 11,000 postings but has posted a grand total of one picture ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have not found there to be <em>any</em> correlation whatsoever -- <em>in either direction</em>, good or bad -- between the number and quality of pictures posted and the number and quality of thread comments posted.</p>

<p>Fine. Julie, if you feel that way, I have no interest in arguing with you. For me, a photographer's work is what gives him/her credibility. In your case, for example, your website reveals a number of well-executed images with a clear personal point of view, which is why I respect your opinions even if I don't always share them (or even on occasion understand them). </p>

<p>Although I began my education in still photography, I started working in television instead, which is the basis for my professional career. Although I've continuously owned an array of photo gear ever since high school, I regained a much more serious interest in still photography only just a few years ago.</p>

<p>I first hung out in another, Nikon-centric forum for about a year (where I mastered much of my modern Nikon knowledge-base), then searched a rather esoteric question on Google one day, and found the only answer to be on photo.net. I joined photo.net in 2011, just about the time I had purchased my first FX body, a Nikon D3s.</p>

<p>What I get from here, which I don't get from friends and family, is that I get to talk about photography. When answering others' questions, it also benefits me when researching the most up-to-date answers, prompting me to discover and evaluate new gear, and to consider and vet new approaches. Often, other members' questions and comments will prompt new personal photographic goals (often, in the most oblique way), and anything that inspires me to shoot more is good thing.</p>