Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum

Discussion in 'Nature' started by Laura Weishaupt, Jan 23, 2018.

  1. The quotation marks I was referring to were around the term Hand of Man which is a direct quote from both the posted guidelines being discussed here as well as the first reply to your initial post in this thread.
    Simple as that.
    Be that as it may, I'll leave you to it both in this thread and any deriving from it.
    Too much animus right out of the gate.
    It's unnatural.....
  2. I like "Second Nature" and "The Other Nature." Taking pictures is a second nature for me.
    Jon Eckman and DawsonPointers like this.
  3. Snowy.jpeg Shorteared2.jpeg
    I'd like to have places to post pictures like this Snowy and Short-eared that I got yesterday, but I also really like the MiN and would prefer that nothing happens to dilute what we get posted there.
  4. I like the "unlimited" or "unrestricted" descriptors, but the name really doesn't matter much to me. I would like it to be nature, and I would like to see it limited to one post. I'd like to see everyone's work and have it be their best stuff. I don't want to step on toes, but some people's images (maybe mine, actually) aren't as good as they think and I don't want a bunch of posts from them spoiling the experience we are striving for. I'd also like us to not have any repeat posts from MiN to this new thread - must be a different image.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2018
    DawsonPointers likes this.
  5. Tony Parsons

    Tony Parsons Norfolk and Good

    Hi, Laura,

    Thanks for that kind comment - with my grumpy attitude, I need all the friends I can get !!:)

    Few more title suggestions :

    Natural elements
    Balance of Nature
    Natural images
    Natural simplicity

    May I just say that I don't feel that a 'High Horse' is particularly natural .. .. ..
  6. Here’s another potential name “Witness Nature, Share Nature on Fridays”

    May I suggest the guidelines as being:

    “The focus of your submission must be nature. If humans or structures are visible, that’s OK; but, it is the natural element of your photo that must be the prominent . ‘Likes’, ‘Replies’ and comments from other PNet members will help to guide you for your future posts. Another thread to post your nature photographs is Monday in Nature (MiN) and these are the guidelines”
    Tony Parsons and Bill J Boyd like this.
  7. This is, of course, true and I thank you for stating it plainly.


    I'd be against adopting Dawson's guidelines. If you open the door to humanity in this new weekly thread, open it. Don't just allow for a teensy weensy crack. If someone wants to post a figure of a human being looming large in a natural environment, that should be encouraged as a way to approach nature photography. If I have a photo of a person helping to clean oil-damaged birds on a beach and the bird takes up much less space than the person, there's no reason why that photo shouldn't be allowed in this less restricted thread. You've already got one thread with a severe human restriction. Either unrestrict this one or forget about it, because by adding yet more restrictions to this new thread you're merely paying lip service to something and not embracing alternative visions of nature photography.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2018
  8. Please, Please, Please submit a suggested revision rather than a critique. I thought I addressed your concerns by saying "‘Likes’, ‘Replies’ and comments from other PNet members will help to guide you for your future posts.". I don't want any individual(s) to be the gatekeeper of the thread.
  9. I didn't know that I missed crows and ravens until I saw this.
  10. Fair enough.

    Here's a quick draft of the kind of introduction I would write:

    "This weekly thread is meant as an alternative and companion to the Monday in Nature thread where humans and human-made objects are not allowed. In these alternative weekly threads, contributors are encouraged to interpret "nature photography" as they see fit. The thread is open to a variety of creative ways to see, to photograph, and to interpret nature, with no imposed restrictions other than there being a relationship to what you think of as nature. A photo may be tightly or loosely aligned with nature. [Sometimes, getting the viewer to think a little harder about the connection to nature can actually make a profound photographic statement about nature itself.] So, please, think inside or outside the box. Variety is the spice of life."

    (The sentence in brackets could be omitted as it might seem to advocate for something rather than simply allowing for it. I included it above just to help make a point about the rationale for allowing certain more loosely-related types of photos.)
  11. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    Fred, thanks for your comments. The rest sounds good, but I would be a bit careful about this part. As Bob Atkins (who started this forum two decades ago) once told me, humans are part of nature also, but clothing is human made. Therefore, to some, "nature photography" means clothing optional photography.

    However, I am sure that is not what a lot of us have in mind. :)
    Tony Parsons and DawsonPointers like this.
  12. LOL. Hadn't thought of that.

    I'm sure we could come up with wording that would be suitable, or even a disclaimer saying something like, "Nudes, which is how some people define "nature photography" are restricted to the "Nudes" section of PN and, for the purposes of these nature threads, cannot be included here."
  13. Funny! Good catch!
  14. I like Dawson’s proposal. If tweaks are needed, they should be minor. I would not support Fred’s ideas, as I think they risk totally changing the overall subject content that people have come to desire in this forum. I may (or may not) support conservation, various “interpretations” of nature, activism of various types. But none of those are what brings me to this forum or what I want it to trend toward.
    DawsonPointers likes this.
  15. Rod, just to be clear. I'm NOT suggesting any changes to the forum itself. I'm suggesting an approach to a specific weekly thread that's been proposed. You may still disagree with my approach, which I'm fine with, but just wanted to make sure that the specific scope of my suggestion is understood.

    I'm also not suggesting anyone's individual work trend toward anything. That others may have alternative approaches to a nature thread needn't in any way undermine or threaten the integrity of anyone else's work.

    I understand some degrees and contexts for exclusivity and likemindedness when working in a particular genre and at the same time understand the benefits of a diversity of approaches and visions to a given subject or genre.

    Obviously, it will be up to the group and moderator to decide what degree of regulation there is to be and just what rules are to be imposed. I would advocate the least amount of regulation and the fewest rules for this particular thread.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2018
  16. "If you open the door to humanity in this new weekly thread, open it."
    I strongly disagree. This is a nature forum and the focus needs to be nature, not humans.
  17. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    I wouldn't get too hung up on what is or is not ok for the new weekly threads. I know that since we allow beyond PSA guidelines, it is going to be even harder to define. I would say just try that for a few weeks and see how it goes. If there are images a lot of us feel that they shouldn't belong, such as scantily clad people, I would image that members will point that out. However, please don't get into debate about politics and environmental issues, not that they aren't important, but they are often heated and will spoil the fun and friendly environment we try to cultivate here.

    And the never-before-posted image guideline is merely a suggestion. I sure will not search the posting history for each participant and, for example, tell Laura that she has posted the same image two years ago in June. Sometimes I can hardly remember what I have posted a week or two ago without checking the threads.
    DawsonPointers likes this.
  18. Fred,
    I think I do understand what you are and aren't suggesting. I certainly didn't figure you were trying to change photographic styles of individuals. I also think your suggestions may have no major negative impact on the forum. But weird things happen sometimes, totally unforeseen. I just know that for ME, I like this forum because of the posted nature images (narrowly defined) and the advice given for locations, equipment, techniques, etc. related specifically to doing nature photography. I'm hoping it will continue primarily in that direction. Perhaps wide latitude for this new thread could work fine. Like you say, neither you or I will make the decision. :)
    Fred G likes this.
  19. Wow,

    This thread has given me a shock of Déjà vu. Just like the crabby old days on ("GET OFF MY LAWN")

    I, myself, am an authoritarian when I'm giving the orders and a libertarian when I am being given orders. I note that I am not alone in this tendency.

    There is, in any case, a fine line between the "Leader Principle" and "Democratic Centralism". o_O

    If this seems off-topic to you, then I'm happy for your innocence.

Share This Page