A follow up from February...

<p>Following Josh' leave as editor in chief, there were two lengthy threads that showed this community to be engaged, interested into its future and pretty full of ideas: http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00bMFp and a thread relarively short after repeating the same: http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00bQIF. <br>

It seemed it was picked up:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7428567">Cara St Hilaire</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Admin" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/admin.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 20, 2013; 03:52 p.m.<br>

We'll be asking for your feedback in the coming months. Also, we'll have a beta for you to see and use as well. We will want feedback from the community for sure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A good thing; a community stays vital when the community knows it has a future. It does not need heavy-handed taking care of, but it needs some guidance and sense of direction.<br>

Now, going back to topic of the March 7 thread, the traffic still seems very slow. I do fully realise that you cannot turn around a ship in 2 months, and that's not what I'd want to ask here - but I do think it is really getting time to open up what the plans with photo.net really are and throw us a bone. The amount of posts per day is lower than I've ever seen, critiques looks to be slowed down. Facebook updates seem more rare and focussed on relatively small areas of the site, rather than promoting things as the Photo of the Week etc. Only the off-topic forum is back to its overheated debating, resulting in noticeable moderation and banned members - which, no matter which way you look at it, is a loss. Basically, there is nothing driving me here, nothing to keep enthusiasm up. If anything, I see less direction today than I saw two months ago. And I see less people contributing.</p>

<p>So, please, can we have a blog post with some previews/link to beta version of the projected changes, and with a primer of a strategic plan on how to keep this site vibrant, alive, attractive and engaging. Please?</p>

<p>Hi Wouter, Cara has been doing an amazing job in the very short time bringing new content and contributors to the site. She has already recruited a number of new writers (my last count over 10) and is just hitting stride as the editorial calendar is looking the best it has ever looked - since I've been here. The principals of photo.net are investing in it so upgrades are on their way and rest assured the gremlins are being addressed. Please be patient, just because you haven't seen a beta site in 2 months doesn't mean we aren't making progress.....we are and we expect we'll have timelines soon! </p>

<p>I was very annoyed a year ago for being banned on the OT<br>

forum. I felt is was lack or knowlede underatanding AND<br>

LACK OF ABILITY TO READ MY POSTING. OR even understand it/.<br>

It ;left a lingering bad taste that still had not left me.<br>

I do not hold it aganist PN but only the person who acted to ban be and would not discuss it or listen to reason.This was not an issue of opinion but actual fact in law.<br>

I sondidered dropping PN. I think others have had bad experiences here and are now gone. Possibly never to return.<br>

Nothing is forever. </p>

<p>Glenn, I appreciate the quick reply and good to see that there are a lot of new articles on the horizon... more content is not a bad thing, of course. The server time-outs / double posts somehow never really affected me - good to know they get solved, but I wouldn't expect anything else. A beta - good news, and I'd love to be of value there.<br /> But, to be honest, it addresses only part of what I raise. The real point (for me) is to engage. Timelines, new iterations - good. But how is this site going to engage? How to draw in great photographers, and keep them in? How to get more critiques being shared, more discussion on photos, rather than gear, peripherals or off-topic debates?<br /> I like this site, that's no secret. But it's feeling increasingly like a desert. Maybe I'm really just overanxious, but I hope to hear a bit more, and a bit more strategic. Will a redesign and the new content bring back the type of interaction you seek, and what kind of interaction is that? Fluffy stuff, but the fundamental useage model of a website should come first in any plan. It's on that level that I'm missing clarity. It's not something I expect you to put up for discussion, but to give rough outlines on a vision wouldn't hurt. A blog-post, not a discussion.</p>

<p>Walter, while I did mention banning people, this isn't my main point. Though, yes, banning is a heavy step to take, which I hope is always being taken with due care and in good consideration of all pros and cons of doing so. The problem with banning a member is that it takes a bit of the community with it; exclusion is never really a good thing for community spirit. For that reason, I mentioned it in my OP.</p>

<p>I have been using photo.net for over a decade now, and I can't help but wonder if the lower participation Wouter mentions is due to most of the questions already being asked. Photo.net, without adding another member or another post or article, already contains a vast amount of information. I know I have often done a search on google, ended up here, and never had to post a thing. One of the simpler things photo.net could do is assemble, present and promote the collected wisdom here better, as I suggested with Nadine Ohara's passing.</p>

<p>It's also true that much of traditional photography in decline, first it was film, and now digital cameras are being supplanted by cell phones. I watched my mother in law take a "Kodak moment" picture of my kids this past weekend, then proudly show off how nice it came out. She used to use film, then she had a digital camera, now she's a cell phone user. Her images meet her needs and she's never asked anyone how to get better photos, let alone join an internet forum. People like her were never going to come here, for film, for digital, for cell phone tips. What has changed is that nowadays, many young people begin with cell phone cameras and because they are able to get the results they want, they never look for anything "more". Contrast that with your old farts, like me, who grew up on film. We started out with a horrible camera (most of the time) and as time and money allowed, got more skilled, got better equipment, and asked tons of questions. Digital came of age and swept all our old expectations under the rug. Thirty-six exposure limits? Pah! Thousands!</p>

<p>To get people to come, the curiosity must be there. Is it?</p>

<p>Banning a long time member, particularly one who is both a talented photographer and an active contributor, along with heavy handed deleting of posts, are both coffin nails in the casket. I want to think that PN can turn around and once again be a vibrant community of photographers sharing ideas and opinions, but what I am actually seeing is more in line with Wouter's observations. A steady decline in critique and commentary, a veritable ghost town. I have tried to get feedback on images but none is available, I have also tried to find work to comment on but frankly since most of the good photographers have gone it is hard to find any images I can relate to enough to engage. I am assuming that alienating the long time members is considered the price to be paid for bringing in the new and exciting new members. I wish you all the best of luck with that.</p>

<p>Patrick, I am still curious enough to read your postings. I do know some young photographers who want to take their hobby beyond blasting a thousand shots in the hopes of getting a good one. That being said I do understand your point and it may well be a factor.</p>

<p>My question is where are all these forum members leaving and going to. Where else is there to go on the internet about photography that is more compelling and intelligently "folksy" than this place?</p>

<p>Of course it is spring and colors abound so maybe there are quite a few members out taking pictures. Can't stay in front of the computer all the time. </p>

<p>Wonder if it's easy for folks rattling off cell phone shots to post them on PN or does it require a special app.</p>

<p>Patrick, good point on the quantity of info already available.... and then still. Two points in reply, which I think can hold possible answers for this site to get more lively again<br>

First of all, I do not know what traditional photography would be - I have precious little experience with film, and only got really hooked when digital was already on the rise. It doesn't matter (*). My interest isn't in the medium I use, but with photos. Learning what makes a good photo, what doesn't. How to get an image that gets a message across. That's not only about process, medium... but about approach, intent, understanding visual communication.<br>

Among those millions of cell-phone using people, there are plenty that are interested in photos. Not in bickering about Canon versus Nikon and what's more, but interested in <em>becoming a better photographer</em>. Learning, and sharing with more established photographers. Make no mistake, there are great cellphone photos out there too, and still a lot of great photos made. They just don't arrive here. While we could all learn from one another.<br>

It's this area, in my view, where many of the other large photo sites do come up short. Flickr delivers it to some extend, but with a lot of noise thrown in. There is an audience, a new one, that does not have to alienate the old one. But the emptier it gets here, the less likely they are to come.</p>

<p>Second, the wealth of info available here is not easy to discover. The learning section needs a better structure, but the there is also insufficient cross-references to the applicable forum threads. Some forum-threads contain a wealth of info, but the problem is finding it. Yes, you can google it, but suppose I want to know more about a specific lens... why not a "product page" (as those already exist) and show links to applicable threads. In this same context, have ready-made articles avoiding the most recurrent (technical) questions ("Adobe Camera RAW does not recognise my files from my brand new camera" / "should I get a 7D or 5D?" etc.). Easy discoverable content is an easy way to draw people in, and use available content to keep people here.<br>

<br>

Well, I'm repeating myself....<br>

___<br>

P.S. It gets said too often too "I learnt to shoot on film and back then.... ". It does make the site come across as a place of the elderly, to be honest. I can imagine young people being driven away by it. It's great to hear photographers with 30 years of experience..... but if all that experience amounts only to lamenting the current state of photography, then we're running towards extinction.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I learnt to shoot on film and back then.... ". It does make the site come across as a place of the elderly, to be honest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not <strong>THAT</strong> bad. I don't even remember the last time anyone mentioned film in the EOS forum. Let's just hope we don't get questions about how to run Photoshop on an Apple ][ or we're really in trouble...<br /> .</p><div></div>

Heh, Generation K...

 

With respect to cellphone shooters coming here, there just isn't a compelling reason. From 10/11 through

10/12, I shot with a cellphone exclusively, did projects. etc. And during that time made a lot of

acquaintances with cellphone shooters who took that capture medium very seriously. The energy is with

Instagram and to a lesser extent then, Facebook (IG was not part of FB then). It's about networking

and sharing photos - IG and FB make that *very* easy. When I thought to ask if they considered

photo.net, the answer was always, "Why?"

<p>Brad, I have my photos accessible on Facebook and get bupkis with regard to any social exchanges, no members posting their photos for me to comment on or vice versa. I don't know what act comprises sharing photos online.</p>

<p>Some folks seem to get more attention than others on Facebook for no detectable reason. How someone gets a following or generates any social activity on their FB timeline baffles the hell out of me. I don't get FB email alerts from Photo.net members commenting or wanting to strike up a conversation, just former high school classmates asking me to friend people I didn't know even back then and certainly none wants to talk to me. I go to FB timelines of some of these former classmates and it's like a ghost town with very few responses, mostly from immediate family members. </p>

<p>Facebook to me is structured and designed to remind me how lonely and somewhat click-ish it is there.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have Facebook, Google+ and twitter accounts (see my profile here for details) and none of them are really very social. Google+ is developing as a hangout for photographers more than Facebook (which seems to favor mostly instagram and cell phone self-portraits).</p>

<p>Even on Google+ in photography related groups there doesn't seem to be much discussion going on. Then again, what discussion there is really isn't very useful or interesting anyway, at least not to me.</p>

<p>I can't see anywhere competing with Instagram to be "where the action is" wrt cell phone images. If you want to get noticed, that's the place to try to do it.</p>

<p>BTW we have a "Phone and Mobile Photography" forum here. It's not very busy - <a href="/phone-and-mobile-photography-forum/">http://www.photo.net/phone-and-mobile-photography-forum/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> "When I thought to ask if they considered photo.net, the answer was always, "Why?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This might very well be the case for cellphone shooters, and understandably so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"With respect to cellphone shooters coming here, there just isn't a compelling reason."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Likewise, I can't really think of a compelling reason for photo.net to woo cellphone shooters - their primary motive for posting is to share, perhaps praised, but surely not to be critiqued. Besides, what's there to say, really, about the average cellphone picture anyway? </p>

<p>If photo.net wants to stay true to its roots, in my opinion efforts should be geared toward encouraging engaging participation in critique forums, revamp the "Learn" section, reconsider the rating system, and a long list of other changes and improvements. </p>

<p>There was a time when many of the best in the business had a presence here and were active. I'd like to see the return of that. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Besides, what's there to say, really, about the average cellphone picture anyway?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Other than when someone else takes one of you in a group luncheon get together, you have no control over how red your skin ISN'T, how eggheaded and bulbous your head ISN'T (cell's crappy wide angles) and how bad you generally come across which I'm somewhat in disagreement considering my PN self portraits I've posted in my gallery where IMO I seem quite the strapping fellow.</p><div></div>

<p>I think the cellphone & sharing thing is exactly the key. The cellphone user snaps a pic, sends it to Facebook (or wherever) to share with friends and family, not to be critiqued. A lot of these pictures are of low quality, a lot are not. Depends on the cam... er, phone they use. But they have a circle of friends there, to show them to. They have no friends here nor do they care what a "real" photographer thinks of their pictures. It's like reverse Lomo.</p>

<p>Let's go back 30 years. Mom had a 110 or 126 or Disc camera and took pictures. She shot only for herself and her family and some came out good, some didn't. She knew that if she wanted a "nice" picture she'd have to go to a photo studio or get Aunt Jane with the big camera to take the pictures. Same sort of thing as today's cellphone user except that for many of them, the photos are good enough that they don't want or need to get better. </p>

<p>So again, if you want those folks who will never buy a traditional (one-function, take pics) camera to come here, because traditional camera use is on the decline, what's the draw? Or is the audience more expected to be the much smaller number of folks who use traditional cameras? Traditional dedicated cameras like the DSLR aren't going away, but maybe the P&S camera is. If the cellphone is the new P&S then you're always going to have little traffic from those users who just want pics, and pics to share online.</p>

Tim,

 

What a great photo! Thank you for posting it. I belong to a book reader's chat room. Most of the members have never read a book on photography. It is a friendly group. Every now and then a member will post a poorly lit, badly composed, off color photo of a child or pet. Your photo above is worthy of POW consideration by comparison. Still, everyone says what a great photo it is. The are talking about the context, cute child, nice looking kitten, rather than the quality of the photo itself.

 

I get the feeling that is the way most people consider photos today. They just want to show their new boyfriend or pet to everyone, not make a studio worthy portrait.

 

BTW, I once posted on that book chat how a photo of a child could have been improved with better lighting. (Taking a photo of a child in front of a brightly lit picture window is not a good idea.) Just about everyone yelled at me that they thought the picture was fine, they could see the child, and I should not be so critical.

<blockquote>

<p>...They are talking about the context, cute child, nice looking kitten, rather than the quality of the photo itself.<br>

I get the feeling that is the way most people consider photos today. They just want to show their new boyfriend or pet to everyone, not make a studio worthy portrait.<br>

BTW, I once posted on that book chat how a photo of a child could have been improved with better lighting. (Taking a photo of a child in front of a brightly lit picture window is not a good idea.) Just about everyone yelled at me that they thought the picture was fine, they could see the child, and I should not be so critical.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand that POV from a social aspect, but socially to me it doesn't interest or enrich me personally as a photographer or creative person so I don't see value in participating in it. It just becomes a "do you see what I see" gawk fest along the lines of funniest home videos. It gets REAL OLD, REAL FAST!</p>

<p>I don't know if this is the kind of "photo sharing" activity Brad mentioned above and if it is, I'll stick with Photo.net's social networking scheme. </p>

<p>Hi Wouter - I didn't want you to think I wasn't responding. I haven't had much time in the last few days to catch up on my forum reading. The number of posts may be decreasing but the overall traffic and uploading is still vibrant. I am anxious to have the site beta as well and as soon as there is anything to actually share, we definitely will and get feedback. It take a while with a site that is as vast as this one, as Glenn mentioned. There are so many things to consider and our schedule is dependent on the designers and those behind the scenes. <br>

Based on notes from former, current, new, and lost members, I do know the negative tone in some threads is one thing that is having a major impact on forum activity. We can all do our part to keep it positive. That alone will keep the forums more vibrant. <br /><br />As for making it easier for cell phone images to be uploaded, that is something under discussion as well. We certainly aren't Facebook of course, but it would be great to have a simple way of uploading photos. <br /><br />Thanks for reaching out.</p>

<a href= "http://www.flickr.com/cameras?s=rank#brands">Some interesting flickr statistics</a> on what people

are shooting with...

<p>Cara, thanks, it wasn't specifically meant at you, but I sure appreciate getting back to me :-)<br>

And I sure agree on the community being responsible for the atmosphere on the forums... talking down cellphones because many cellphone-photos are not that great is a nice example! (for those doubting a cellphone as a serious camera, look at the work Brad did with it, and we're back reminding that the photographer is a whole lot more important than what he holds in his hands).</p>

<p>Wouter, I don't think there is any inherent prejudice against cellphone photography, and I know this thread isn't specifically about it but I'll expand on the thought because it has been mentioned.</p>

<p>I can understand the feeling of resentment when photography as an art form is reduced to choosing the right apps and options. In the context of photo.net's apparent mission to dispense knowledge and advance the art form, is a literal point and shoot cellphone snapshot really worthy of discussion just because it was made with an iPhone enhanced by Hipstamatic, Blanko film and John S lens with no apparent effort from the author except to compose and hit the shutter?</p>

<p>The same image shot with any "regular" camera will likely look simply awful but somehow becomes high art when the output is square, rendered with false colors with a hint of retro look familiar to anyone who is old enough to have used instant film.</p>

<p>Brad's work is the rare exception, and unfortunately likely diluted by the flood of "anyone can be an artist" apps.</p>

<p>I challenge everyone in this thread to offer a thoughtful critique to any of the cellphone photos on the front page and post a link to it here. Give it a try and it'll become quite apparent that there's really not that much to say.</p>

<p>My thoughts - Cell Phone Photography or iphoneography for many will be the first experience and interaction the next generation of photographers will have with photography. Some (hopefully many) of the more curious and intelligent will branch off and want to learn more about photography beyond using their cell phones. How many of you started with a DSLR at 4 or 5 years old? My guess is you started with a disposable or a point and shoot, BUT as a result of your experience there - you became more curious and wanted to learn more. Will critique worthy photos come from cell phones? Maybe, maybe not, but be open to the idea that it might actually get people excited about photography and want to learn more about the art! </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6309921">Glenn Palm</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Admin" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/admin.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 26, 2013; 07:52 a.m.</p>

 

<p>My guess is you started with a disposable or a point and shoot, BUT as a result of your experience there - you became more curious and wanted to learn more. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There's the rub. We wanted to learn more because the pictures were terrible. With a good cellphone camera, the pictures are not terrible. There's no incentive for many people to seek more because what they have is adequate for their needs, and they simply don't want to do anything more than share with their facebook friends. A few will want more and advance and maybe even join photo.net but not the majority. Catering to the cell phone crowd won't hurt but the users who need photo.net do tend to find it on their own.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I challenge everyone in this thread to offer a thoughtful critique to any of the cellphone photos on the front page and post a link to it here. Give it a try and it'll become quite apparent that there's really not that much to say.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the front page of what, Michael? Facebook? Photo.net?</p>

<p>Could you provide a link to the page you're referring?</p>