No People Allowed

I would add,

when an artist is asked to move his/her photo to a different forum, in some cases the person requesting did not understand the context or the motivation of the artist in posting the photo. Instead of merely handing down the verdict, a dialog or discussion can be opened with the artist and in the process someone may just learn something. If after such discussions, it is clear the person posting the photo was rogue or intended to create nuisance rather than being serious, the photo can be moved or removed. Just a suggestion.

• To be completely honest, I would have no problem with the Nature forum dropping the PSA rule structure. I was actually surprised a couple of months ago when I read that those guidelines were in place. I've had trouble with rules and conformity my whole life. This is why I choose to seek out the solace I find in a pristine environment. No rules (or at least the illusion of such).
  
• What I would have exception to is dropping those rules in regard to the weekly Monday in Nature thread. The quality of work displayed on any given Monday can be spectacular, in part due to the restrictions in place. It is by far my favourite internet stop and I love it the way it is.
  

I've enjoyed the Monday nature thread and feel it's one of the best on PN. But that doesn't mean we can't also have another with somewhat looser guidelines. Would there be any interest in a W/NW titled "Nature + H. O. M. (Hand of man) ?

April 1st will soon be here, anyone up for a try on that date? Should be interesting. Doesn't have to be a regular feature, just a fun place to show the ones that didn't qualify for the strict guidelines.

Glenn

It's a good idea, Glenn, but the truth is there are no restrictions now for someone that wants to post a nature picture with 'the hand of man' in W/NW, is there?

 

That's true Gup, but it just changes one set of rules and restrictions for another, also I believe it's a no words forum. One of the things I enjoy is hearing the back story of what went into the shot, it helps me to learn. To tell the truth I'm curious what such a talented group as the Monday in nature photographers will come up with.

 

I have a few that would qualify and probably get some chuckles.

What I would have exception to is dropping those rules in regard to the weekly Monday in Nature thread. The quality of work displayed on any given Monday can be spectacular, in part due to the restrictions in place. It is by far my favourite internet stop and I love it the way it is.

I think many of the works in the Monday in Nature forum are spectacular, and a recent visit to a few latest threads gave me that impression. However It is possible, that some great photos (which depict nature but otherwise do not meet the criteria) got left out due to the restrictive guidelines. It can be argued either way IMO.

I don't think the quality of the MIN threads has much of anything to do with restrictions. The restrictions are there to make sure the posted photos conform to the thread viewers' preference and desire to see certain kinds of photos. There can be plenty of quality images that do not meet the criteria set forth in the guidelines, but still depict nature effectively. I also saw some poorly executed, mundane images there that satisfy the guidelines perfectly.

• "also I believe it's a no words forum"
  
• W/NW actually means it is up to the originator of the thread to decided if the thread is to be a W (words thread) or a NW (no words thread).
  
• GlennS, when I responded earlier I mistakenly thought I was talking to Glenn Palmer which is why I posted questions. I'll try to be more careful in the future.
  

Geez, where to start. Why don't you ask the mods of the Nature Forum (Bob Atkins and Shun Cheung) about the guidelines that are in place for this forum before deciding that they have no place here, or are somehow restrictive, editorial, or somehow unworthy of your respect.The nature forum is about Nature photography. It's not about interpretations of nature photography or what you want it to be because you think it should be that way. I've rarely seen a discussion about what kind of photography should be permitted in any other forum. Yet this rolls around in the Nature forum, often by folks who don't participate here with actual nature photography. Perhaps I should post an image of a Virginia Creeper caressing an oak tree in the Wedding forum and lay out an argument for why it should be permitted. Well, it's a marriage of sorts, isn't it? Though a Russula with an oak is actually the perfect marriage, both organisms giving and sustaining one another for life. How do you think that would fly in Weddings and Social forum? I think the mod of that forum would deem it unsuitable. But, hey, it's what I think, so shouldn't it be ok? Well, no.

I don't think the quality of the MIN threads has much of anything to do with restrictions. The restrictions are there to make sure the posted photos conform to the thread viewers' preference and desire to see certain kinds of photos

You couldn't be more misguided. Those guidelines were established with the mods when the thread started 4 years ago. Those guidelines for the forum as a whole were in place already. Unfortunately posted guidelines for any forum are lacking on the new site, and it is a problem.

AND . . . nature is not coyote centered or rock formation centered and does not depend on either of these for its existence. Yet photos of coyotes and rock formations, but not people, are welcomed.

Why are humans being singled out?

Humans are singled out because nature photography is about nature, not humans. It doesn't matter if anyone opines that humans are part of nature.Go look at the PSA rules and you'll see that some human/nature interaction is permitted, but you'll find that nature is the priority, not the human end. Nature photography is about nature.

The coyote's world IS coyote centered. Same goes for rock formation, or anything else in nature. A nature photographer is centered on the subject, and the best nature photographers have a keen understanding of their subjects. They get that understanding from time in the field with the coyote, rocks, birds, trees, water, and they are centered on the nature of the subject. The coyote's environment DOES DEPEND on the coyote for balance, health, and existence. There is nothing in nature that is not necessary to nature for existence.

I also saw some poorly executed, mundane images there that satisfy the guidelines perfectly.

Where have you been? I watch photographers grow. I see photographers begin a process as they become inspired to pick up an camera and try nature photography, or some new aspect of it for the first time. I see them get better and better. Most of us get better because we learn new things. It's hard to be excellent every day. Few are great at the beginning of any process. What you say is "mundane" may be the first photo a person has taken. The effort is to be respected, not trashed as "poorly executed". People come to photography web sites for a lot of reasons and are at every level of competence. Everyone is welcome.

Ask yourself why you want to impose your own idea of what nature photography should be on others who have a clear understanding of what nature photography actually is? You don't want guidelines or parameters imposed on you, yet you disrespect them and want to impose your own ideas on others for your own sake. You just want things your way. Your desire, in fact, almost insistence, on having it your way is what this discussion has become. You can post non nature in just about any other forum. The OP's question was answered on page 1.

Lots of emotions here. Laura, I don't expect to convince you of my viewpoint, or vice versa. The least I can hope for is to understand each other's POV and THEN disagree, not before that. I think I fully understand your and other's POV, which is to experience nature photographs without any evidence of human presence. I can respect that. I also don't mind when you use that point of view to define the whole genre of nature photography (hey it's your definition, I can interpret nature in different ways). I don't mind if there are guidelines posted in forums for what kind of images are expected there. What I am against are hard restrictions, guidelines and restrictions are not the same in my opinion. I don't care who set up the rules, whether its the mods, or a society. I have the same reply and argument for everyone.

"Nature photography should not have the hand of human" - The reason I don't agree with that is (if you care to read), in real life, I usually don't experience nature in that way. Nature is always with us, whether we are in the wilderness or in a city. For that reason, I find it unnatural to carefully avoid all human elements in order to call something a nature photo. When I shoot, I don't impose restrictions on myself. I follow my heart and I don't think my work will fail in depicting nature even with human elements present. I don't think having human elements in a photo necessarily cause distractions from nature or make the photo human-centric. It all depends on the context. One has to see the photo to judge, and for that, the photo needs to be allowed in a forum first.

Perhaps I should post an image of a Virginia Creeper caressing an oak tree in the Wedding forum and lay out an argument for why it should be permitted. Well, it's a marriage of sorts, isn't it? Though a Russula with an oak is actually the perfect marriage, both organisms giving and sustaining one another for life.

I think thats a cool idea. Images like that might just motivate me to check out the wedding forum frequently.

Ask yourself why you want to impose your own idea of what nature photography should be on others who have a clear understanding of what nature photography actually is? You don't want guidelines or parameters imposed on you, yet you disrespect them and want to impose your own ideas on others for your own sake. You just want things your way. Your desire, in fact, almost insistence, on having it your way is what this discussion has become.

I am not imposing my ideas on anyone. I am sorry, I don't have that kind of power. I am simply offering my point of view and hoping someone else finds it useful in appreciating nature photography. I am in fact against imposing any hard rules or restrictions at all, and rather let the photographer display his/her images freely. I am in favor of treating each photo individually in it's own context, rather than painting everything with a set of rules. Does that sound like, I am imposing anything on anyone, or disrespecting anyone?

"Disrespect" - I have seen disrespect at full work in this thread. Disrespect for minority opinion, intolerance for people who don't post pictures in the nature forum, and any new idea perceived as potential threat. I have seen wise, learned people ridiculed, 'oh dear'd', treated as children for even attempting to explain an alternate viewpoint. So next time, you or anyone else refer to disrespect, please put on your impartial glasses first, and scan the whole thread.

Where have you been? I watch photographers grow. I see photographers begin a process as they become inspired to pick up an camera and try nature photography, or some new aspect of it for the first time. I see them get better and better. Most of us get better because we learn new things. It's hard to be excellent every day. Few are great at the beginning of any process. What you say is "mundane" may be the first photo a person has taken. The effort is to be respected, not trashed as "poorly executed". People come to photography web sites for a lot of reasons and are at every level of competence. Everyone is welcome.

I have a lot of poorly executed photos in my own portfolio, some of them from my early days of photography, others the result of blotched experiments. I don't delete them because they help me to identify a future direction and my personal journey. I respect them as testimony of where I started and how far I have come. But they are still poorly executed photos. Thats what they are. I did not refer to poorly executed photos to insult the photographers (I didn't mention anyone by name, or single out individual images), I was counter-arguing another poster's comment that the restrictions in the Monday in Nature forum ensures that only high quality images are posted there.

I think thats a cool idea. Images like that might just motivate me to check out the wedding forum frequently.

You don't seem to get the joke or the irony. Don't think you will find any or much of any of those high-sounding pretentious "interpretive" kookies in the wedding forum. No wonder we can't find any of your images anywhere. Now I am glad to find an icon on this new forum that looks like it's rolling its eyes. :eek: - Hahaha - from a mere mortal.

You don't seem to get the joke or the irony. Don't think you will any of those in the wedding forum. Now that I know where you are coming from, I am glad to find an incon on this new forum which looks like it's rolling its eyes. :eek:

I turned around the joke on Laura. You probably didn't get that. Thats OK. Do carry on with your childish comments and emoticons. I am off for now.

The joke is on you Supriyo - is that your real name?

You may want to start an "Interpretive Images" or "Anything Goes" forum. Think it may be well received by some photographers.

is that your real name?

The derivation of the name Supriyo is Bengali, Indian. Perhaps not as common to some as Tom or Jane.

No wonder we can't find any of your images anywhere.

Can't find Supriyo's images? Just look at the over 700 images in his PN gallery. (Click on his name in this thread and then click on Portfolio when the link box comes up.) I've been very inspired not only by looking at Supriyo's photos over the last year or so but by reading some of his very carefully thought-out critiques and forum posts. Supriyo is a dedicated photographer and community member respected by most who come into contact with him.

Moderator Note:

Multiple posts weren't necessary and I can't figure out how to delete one of them..............and my frustration with the new site continues.

It was an hitch. I don' know why. Your multiple post and your reference to it, I have removed both.

The OP's question was answered on page 1.

Indeed.

Additionally the thread is declining into an hole.

Accordingly this thread is now closed.

William