Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum

So; what has changed?

Dawson Pointers, I still have a private e-mail from Bob Atkins in 2014. He told me not to rely on common sense, since many people lack it. In other words, I have learned a little more and hopefully have gotten wiser.

Dawson Pointers, I still have a private e-mail from Bob Atkins in 2014. He told me not to rely on common sense, since many people lack it. In other words, I have learned a little more and hopefully have gotten wiser.

Sorry for my ignorance Shun, but who is Bob Atkins? I looked for his profile on PNet and came up with very little. Is he the guy that used to review Canon stuff?

I think that I mentioned earlier Bob Atkins created this forum over 20 years ago. Photo.net started with only one general photography forum, and the Nature Forum was the second forum (and first forum with a specific theme). Bob was a moderator on photo.net for years and indeed reviewed a lot of Canon equipment. We were casual friends back in the 1990’s and he invited me to join here.

Bob has faded away from photo.net in the last year and I haven’t heard from him recently.

Bob Atkins

Googled Bob Atkins. The info he provides seems current.

Haven't been active out here for quite some time, mostly because I haven't been very active in photography lately and also because I was having to log in daily, which just annoyed me. There is another reason that I'll get into in a bit. But I do still lurk from time to time, and this thread caught my interest because I was 'scolded' a time or two for posting inappropriate pics in the MiN thread that I had no idea went against the standard (though once I posted something in humor that I knew did not meet the standard that apparently only I felt was funny). Anyway, my suggestion for the thread title would be 'Nature Unbound,' and I would allow whatever someone interpreted as having 'nature' as the focus - and just live with what some might consider poor choices. The thing about 'common sense' is, in many instances, one person's 'common sense' is another's 'nonsense.'

The other reason I stopped participating out here was that the site added the social networking convention of "Likes." To me, this simply breeds cliques and reciprocity. Another thread I follow somewhat is the 'Post Processing Challenge' in the digital darkroom forum, and I notice that some folks like nearly everything posted, but imagine what the poor sap who's new to the thread thinks when he/she posts something and no one or very few 'Like' it because he hasn't become one of the boys. Frankly, if I was in charge of a forum the focused on pics vice discussion, I'd forbid 'Likes,' at least on the picture contributions. If someone wants to 'like' a discussion point, then that's a bit different, and certainly replies to picture posts would be acceptable, as they require a bit more thought and generally have a purpose.

And now I'll go back to lurking.

the social networking convention of "Likes." To me, this simply breeds cliques and reciprocity.

I am with you on this. That's why I try not to "like" photos but only comments. Sometimes it's difficult when there is an exquisite image that I really wanted to "like". ;)

A "like" is a rather mild comment. From the beginning, critique and rating has been a major part of photo.net, but I almost never participated. Over the years we have had a huge amount of complaints about "mate rating," one person opening multiple accounts to give him/herself high marks over and over, retaliations to give each other low ratings on purpose .... I think that is generating far more trouble than it is worth. I take pictures for my own pleasure and don't really care about what others think of my photography. If I see an image I like, I wouldn't hesitate to click on like, but I don't at all expect people to reciprocate.

Starting from Nikon Wednesday, we now have quite a few weekly image threads for Canon, Mirrorless, Fixed Focal Length .... The thing is that just from a small JPEG image displayed on the web, there is no easy way to tell whether it is captured with an Olympus or Pentax camera, whether it is an SLR, mirrorless or a phone camera, or the lens is a zoom or fixed. Since there is no easy way to tell the difference, we essentially use an honor system and don't argue whether a particular image qualifies or not. However, if there is a weekly black and white or monochrome image thread, and someone keeps on posting color images there, I am sure that is not welcome.

What is unique about Monday in Nature is that for the most part, we can indeed tell, based on a small JPGE alone, whether it meets the nature guidelines or not. Obvious there are some gray areas and many borderline cases. That is why we post guildelines, including references to the PSA, and have these discussions.

Some members here have art and visual communication background training and experience, myself included, so, when I "Like" someone's work it will definitely be for reasons other than outlined here. I'ld suggest in order to remove any doubt that it's not for reciprocity or any kind of social back rubbing reasons, just read that member's profile which may or may not indicate not all "Likes" are alike.

I never click "Like" on a poster's image just to even the score or to get them to like my work even though that member may have given me more "Likes" than I've given them. If their image presents a different and unique vision and approach to me, I let them know it with a "Like". I don't need to be told my work is good or "Likable". I know it already because I make photos to please myself and that's what I expect from others. I have very high "Pandering" sensitivity so often times when posted images look too commercial as if they're from some stock photography agency, I pass it by. As a former art director I've seen enough of that

So I do appreciate and value the fact someone looked at my image and then acknowledged it with a "Like". No one likes to live in their own echo chamber but I know I would put more value in a Photo.net "Like" over a Facebook "Like" because I'm more certain about the company I'm keeping. And besides today in the news Facebook & Twitter have been accused of catering to social media marketing companies that sell fake followers... The Follower Factory

Obviously the 'like' factor is going to be acceptable to some and despised by others (though 'despise' might be too harsh a word), and it isn't going anywhere regardless. Perhaps there is less of a sense of obligation to 'reciprocate' at some sites than others, but I think it is human nature for most to reciprocate generosity, and in the social networking world, it's almost mandatory if you want don't want to be shunned (no pun on 'Shun' intended). There is a local wildlife photographer who could take a snapshot of dog scat, and it would be 'faved' by hundreds of her flickr followers (and some of her work is well-deserving of such).

Tim and Shun make valid points, and the horse has left the barn on the issue anyway. But I think it's a convention, particularly in forums that are picture-centric, more likely to turn people away than attract them, though we'll obviously never know how many turned away. Regardless, it's not really a conversation suited to this thread, so I apologize for bringing it up.

Bill (Jordan2240), no worries about being a bit off topic. Most people are going to have an opinion on about everything. In any case, the "like" is a photo.net site-wide forum feature and therefore is not something we can enable or disable for this forum only. I hope that people don't take a "like" too seriously, as apparently a lot of people do with photo ratings on photo.net.

On the other hand, there are a lot of fine photographers on this forum and others. I feel that a "like" is well deserved in a lot of cases.

BTW, speaking of daily login, I no longer have that issues using Google Chrome.

Shun, yes, I see I've remained logged in for a couple of days now. That solves the login issue, now if I could just get re-interested in photography...

But I did think of another possible name for the new forum - "Human Nature" (perhaps a bit too cryptic)

Jordan2240, Tom, Shun and Mary, thanx for sharing your perspectives on 'likes'.

My perspective on 'likes' has diverged from yours (subjective badge of merit) over the years. Now, it is that if someone has taken the time to take a photo, post process it and then share it here on Pnet, I like that. The effort made by the poster should not be an empty, unrequited experience IMHO. If you find a photo exceptional or if you have other critiques, you can always reply and state that.

I will NOT 'like' a photo according to my personal standards. For example, it contains a gun or some depiction of cruelty. My new-found naivety makes me happy and I hope my 'like' encourages others to continue to share even more of their photos (I think Pnet needs that too). We can all learn something from every photo whether it is about the photography and/or the subject. My ¢¢ from a lousy photographer; but, someone who enjoys looking and learning from at the photos posted here, and who tries to give back by posting my (lousy) photographs, now from Uruguay (I'm Canadian).

I haven't had to log in on my last few visits either. I'm also using Chrome. This makes for a more streamlined experience and will be the difference to whether I stay or not.

I also give a thumbs down to the 'like' feature which I feel just cheapens the whole experience and reduces the uniqueness of what P.net once was. Why is it so important to mimic the rest of the web? I would prefer P.net had the courage to march to its own drum... I sometimes end up in turmoil not wanting to discourage someone and end up hitting 'like' whether I consider the shot worthy or not. This is dishonest, to a degree, but easier than criticizing the shot openly when no criticism was requested.

I also tend to 'like' a shot based on the effort that went in to the post-production. If an effort has been made to sharpen, crop, adjust, etc. that will enter into my decision. If the poster couldn't even bother to straighten a horizon, adjust an incorrect exposure or the focus point is off, then I will ignore it. This is based on what I myself do before uploading an image.

I'd describe myself as ambivalent concerning the "like" button, so I could take or leave it. I agree with jordan that "like" is not particularly objective, but I disagree that a great photo wouldn't get likes because the poster isn't "one of the boys", as I know it would get my like and probably others.

I will comment on how I use it, both in giving the like and interpreting a like on my photo. As opposed to DawsonPointers, I use my personal reaction to evaluate the photo. I don't give a bunch of likes just because someone has posted, is a regular, whatever. I "like" a photo if I think it is really good, maybe 20% of the posts or less. My hope is that the person getting my like will use it the way I do when I get a like. When I get a like, I first notice who gives it. If it is someone that likes a bunch of photos, including some that I don't think are very good, I pay no attention to it. If it is someone that is usually somewhat critical in their evaluation, I will use it to tell me that I'm probably doing something right. If I don't get many likes and it is a photo that I thought was great, I will reassess whether my eye toward my own photos is accurate. So, if it is used correctly - and it won't always be - I think it can be useful. My longwinded 2 cents.

Deiter, that's great. Nature Unlimited is also the name of a lighting company serving the mid Atlantic and also the name of a wildlife tour company in Mumbai. I actually looked this up because I thought it was the name of a magazine.

 

It would work here too.

....

Good, let's do it!

Good, let's do it!

I'll second that!