Promoting Photo.net

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by landrum_kelly, Aug 24, 2016.

  1. I have taken recently to posting a photo to Facebook, then linking almost immediately in the "Comment" section to the same shot as presented on Photo.net. Here is an example:
    [LINK]
    It allows me to get more people to see my photos "out there," but then it invites people to come here to see them larger. (I typically post the large version, so that people can see what Photo.net can do that Facebook cannot.)
    While they are here, they might also notice that we have a continuing thriving intellectual exchange about techniques and content of actual photos--a real photo community, something that Facebook cannot quite ever be. (The same may be said of Flickr.com.)
    So, I invite others to try the same strategy--whether on Facebook, Flickr, or anywhere else. It promotes Photo.net in a constructive and helpful way to people who might not know that this site exists, and it's no skin off our noses, either. It takes about ten seconds to link to here from another site, where doing so is allowed.
    We all want this site to succeed, so why not double-post (or triple-post!) and get more people to come here? It's a win-win situation for all the sites involved.
    We have something special here. Let's let the world know about it.
    --Lannie
     
  2. but then it invites people to come here to see them larger.​
    Do you see an increase in the views of the images so linked? On your facebook posts, there is no indication that the photo.net image is any larger than the one posted on facebook (which when clicked upon opens "large" anyway).
     
  3. This sort of thing should have been announced as a member incentive with reduced subscription fee offers ten years ago. There are so many bigger and better designed sites out there now and with the shrinking membership here, what guarantee is there that new users would stay? Plus, those who are meant to look after people are still on their high horses pushing personal agenda so I can't see there being any significant change of the site surviving beyond five more years. That is a shame as it used to the most informative group of people and mods aside all well nice.
     
  4. Good initiative Lannie.
     
  5. Thanks, guys.
    Dieter, perhaps I need a better lead-in, such as "For a larger version with discussion, click below, etc."--or something like that. I am open to suggestions.
    --Lannie
     
  6. That might help Lannie - but as I already mentioned, by clicking on the image on facebook, it opens large - so what's the incentive to click on another link to see it at the same size again?
    In addition - IF anyone clicks on the photo.net link, they will quite likely not explore any further but return to facebook after viewing the image from the link (and possibly the discussion).
    It appears to me that many people on flickr view and "fave" the image right from the overview pages which display images in a similar size to those on facebook; they hardly bother to click on one to open the larger view.
     
  7. I have been doing what Lannie is doing for several years now. It use to be easier when the photonet/facebook app did it for me! My friends would all click the link, bringing them to PN to view the photo. None, zero, zip, nada, ever made a comment about the photo "on PN". They did however comment about it on FB.
    but as I already mentioned, by clicking on the image on facebook, it opens large - so what's the incentive to click on another link to see it at the same size again?
    Dieter, I'm confused by the above statement. No matter what size photo I upload to my Timeline on FB, clicking on it only yields a "slightly" larger view. It in no way compares to the "large view" on PN. Perhaps I'm not doing something correctly.​
     
  8. Dieter, I'm confused by the above statement. No matter what size photo I upload to my Timeline on FB, clicking on it only yields a "slightly" larger view.​
    I have little experience with images and their sizes on facebook - I went to Lannie's facebook account, clicked on some of his images and what opened in facebook was the same size as what their largest version is on photo.net. Maybe it all depends on how large one uploads on photo.net and facebook? Lannie's images seems to be 1500 pixels wide - and display the same size on facebook and photo.net. I can't comment on what's available or possible on facebook, I have no interest in uploading any of my images there.

    I searched for your account on facebook, and clicked on the cat image - it opens at 1500x1000 wide. None of your others do, they seem to be uploaded in a smaller size only.
     
  9. You may be right, Dieter, but at least the name "Photo.net" gets some exposure--and that does have an effect. "Name recognition" is why we have advertising. Is Photo.net perfect? No, but we want it to be, and, if we don't promote it, who will?
    Users of a site offer the best testimonials. I say, write or say "Photo.net" as often as possible--until people can't help but remember it--and go to it once in a while. Keep the name out there. LINK to it! People have a compulsion to follow links, so give them links.
    Above all, keep the best of the Photo.net tradition alive.
    We know what we have here. Let's let the world know.
    Again, I am open to other suggestion as to what WE can do as members/contributors to keep the name alive in the public consciousness. There are millions who would use this site if they only knew the fullness of what is available here. There simply is no other site quite like it. I don't care who gets the credit. I don't care who gets the profit. I just want this site to survive--and flourish--for all the present and potential users out there.
    Maybe NameMedia can also advertise the name some more. I have no idea. I don't know what its advertising budget is. We do know one thing: "It pays to advertise." We can help, even if we are not stock-holders--because in some essential sense we are, even if we don't get financial dividends.
    --Lannie
     
  10. Lannie's good deeds are surely positive for Photonet and even better if many follow his example. Personally I not using Facebook, but I promote Photonet on other sites mainly related to arts.
    However, I believe the most important action is for the Administration to put heavy resources into all the tools of search engine optimization, as many of we would do when it comes to our own sites.
     
  11. Anders, I have often thought that there must be better ways to promote Photo.net, but the fact is that I simply do not know how it might be done. We are talking marketing here, definitely not my field.
    I can yet see that there is a marketing challenge: how does one easily "sell" the first-time visitor to the site the idea that this is a special site? One tends to see that more and more over time, as one comes to appreciate the complexity and usefulness of the site. One cannot tell that from a quick glimpse.
    It is for that reason that I have emphasized what we can do by way of promoting name recognition. Name recognition is still a core principle of marketing, I assume. (It sure works with political candidates, especially at the state and local levels.)
    So, how does one get the name out there enough? You may be right about search engine optimization. I really do not know. I do think that it must be done. Without more and better name recognition, the site is likely to decline in the face of stiff competition, I fear.
    --Lannie
     
  12. As I previously have mentioned, some 60% (as far as remember) comes to Photonet on the basis of search engines. Good search engine optimization made by the PN administration's efforts might be behind some of this but surely more can be made.
    Recognition by photo communities is essential. Try look at the Design Flot Blog and it's "Top Twelve Photography Communities": Photonet is number three. But look at "Five Incredible online communities to get genuine feedback on your photograhies" - Photonet not included. And the same is the case for : Best Online photography Communities that can help you big time" - Photonet nowhere to find. Google "Photography communities" - Photonet is far from the top search result.
     
  13. A good effort, Lannie. and good luck with the recruitment. I found this out when I looked at recruiting for an organization once and learned that attrition was foiling the numbers all up. In other words, '' the bucket has HOLES in it." Clear as can be. Attrition. Oft discussed reasons many old names have kept membership but do not have much to contribute. I speak for yours truly. I likely will not renew paid membership. But who knows. Aloha. gs ...... FYI, let' s see a marker set on fulfillment of the following :

    "...we're putting final touches on 2.0 (yes we are almost there) and our time will be spent chasing more value we can bring to the subscription offering and spend less time chasing ad dollars to support our site and its staff." ( Glenn Palm on the marketing model recent statement on unwanted ad spam)
     
  14. Thanks for starting this discussion, it's pretty much what I suggested in today's thread (Saturday, Sept 4th here in Japan) about the collapse of PN2.0. I had
    no idea this thread even existed and this is exactly what we need, a place where people can contribute ideas on how to
    broaden our admittedly shrinking base. But it must be a collaborative, communal effort involving both the membership and the moderators and one that is discussed and fully supported my
    the majority of the pn community. We need to be informed - whether by e-mail, a special feature on the pn homepage or a one-time
    announcement sent to all members when they log in to pn - of the current problems and the need for their input and ideas. It's important to understand that we are in a struggle for our survival as a
    community and that we need everyone's ideas on how we can attract new (and younger) members. Specifically, we need
    to hear from new members about their experience here, how they feel about the site and how it can be improved. There are
    certain matters that deserve priority consideration and the survival and growth of pn is among the most crucial. A free
    discussion of ideas is always stimulative and can move things in surprising and rewarding directions. That's about it for now, off the top of my head. Thanks again,
    Lannie, for getting the ball rolling (and before the miserable experience of 2,0 at that!)
     
  15. Jack, I think that we need a collegial, round-table organizational model in order to have a true community. Unfortunately, what we have had for some years is increasingly the top-down command-and-control model--that is, bureaucracy, the very antithesis of community.
    --Lannie
     
  16. That's my take as well, Lannie. I'm not at all sure that the "front office" realizes this, though. They still seem quite
    defensive about their reasoning and their actions.as if to say "well, you don't know what we know."
     
  17. as if to say "well, you don't know what we know."​
    That sword cuts both ways, doesn't it? Someone who uses the site on a very regular basis (and who really does know a LOT about photography) and who also knows how to design a website would be ideal.
    First two requirements for the site:
    (1) ease of access to our galleries, i.e., put them on our main pages--as lists, not as images (which take time to download);
    (2) quick and easy display of forums--at the top with drop-down menus is fine and does not require changing anything that I can see.

    Full-screen images should be an easy option, something one sees on Facebook, Youtube, etc. Why not here?
    Neutral background colors are a must. We need an "exhibition view" that shows each photo at its very best imaginable--short of a print hanging on the wall. Allow users to choose the background colors on that view, as if they were choosing the mat for a print.
    I'm not sure what else is absolutely necessary, but there were so many "improvements" that were. . . not.
    This can all be done with the new site appearances, I suspect--if one insists. I don't like the glitz, but some concession to marketing for newbies is apparently a necessity to garner more members--or at least regular visitors.
    I really do not know why a new facade could not be put on the old site. The core of the old site (this one!) is a lot more logical than it appears at first. Any big site is going to take some time to learn to navigate, and so dumbing down the site would mean loss of features.
    Of course, no changes are going to matter if the authoritarian mindset remains. You don't ban or otherwise punish customers and keep them around. The site can be very uncomfortable. If I wanted discomfort, I would go back to reality, not to a website. Fear is not pleasant. Don't use it as the mortar of your "community." Fear and community are not consistent. A true community is a comfortable place, not a place where one is constantly afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing.
    The latter is going to be the hardest to change: how to deal with people who are educated and creative.
    If they trot out the World's Best Website and proceed to govern it like a police state, people are going to depart--as fast as possible.
    The question is thus not finally about technical skills. It is about people skills. Do the administrators and moderators have a clue in that regard?
    If not, I will spew the new version out of my mouth and write off PN as irredeemable--AND I WILL NEVER LOOK BACK.
    --Lannie
     
  18. Good luck with the recruitment. I found this out when I looked at recruiting for an organization once and learned that attrition was foiling the numbers all up. In other words, '' the bucket has HOLES in it." Clear as can be. --Gerry Siegel​
    Thanks, Gerry. ATTRITION! That is the bottom line, isn't?
    That is, it is not so much about attracting new people: IT IS ABOUT KEEPING PEOPLE HERE.
    That is where the site is failing big time--and we tell them, but they do not listen.
    So. . . they keep banning the people they should worry about keeping. SHEESH!

    Ban banning and over-moderation and watch the site soar! Keep it up and watch us leave one by one, inexorably, permanently. Too many individuals leaving quietly is a de facto mass exodus.
    --Lannie
     
  19. I might add that renaming one forum "Cell Phone shots" just to put it nearer the front of the alphabet could help.
    I take cell phone shots--a lot of them--but I process them. It is an art form. Lots of people know this.
    LET VISITORS/PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS KNOW THAT WE KNOW IT.
    If most shots are made with cell phones, then TAP INTO THAT MARKET!

    Don't bury that feature (a forum for cell phone shots). CELEBRATE IT! PUBLICIZE IT!
    --Lannie
     
  20. Lannie, already the shock of 2.0 has started to wear off and people are falling back to sleep. They don't seem to realize
    or care that nothing has changed. PN is still burdened by a shrinking, aging base membership that seems content to drift
    softly into irrelevance. Today I googled photo sharing sites and one blog listed the top 20 with reviews. Smugmug was
    #1. Flikr was there, 500px, facebook of course and a whole bunch of others I had never heard of. I actually joined
    Smugmug today to compare what they had to offer with our site. Believe me Smugmug has nothing to be smug about,
    from picture quality to everything else. Interestingly Google pictures was not listed. I'm a member there and it's pretty
    good for what it is.though certainly not in our league. Photonet was nowhere to be found! How can this be so? How? We
    offer more services than all the rest of them put together, better forums, better critiques and certainly a better caliber of
    photographs and photographers IMHO. I'm also a member of Flikr which is great if you want to join their little circles. I
    really shouldn't be so dismissive, the model obviously works. It just blows my mind that such a multi-faceted
    photography site such as PN should be so roundly ignored. I would certainly like to know what the management thinks
    about this situation. As critical as I am of PN - and I can get pretty caustic - in terms of quality, it's still miles ahead of
    the competition. I don't get the bit between my teeth very often but it's there now.
     
  21. It looks like it's just you and me here now, Lannie. Lannie....?.Lannie....?
     
  22. Jack, I agree with what you said in other places in terms of a lot being up to each of us. I've sworn off the forums for a while for a variety of reasons, but wanted to be sure to respond to you. I did so in another thread that seems to have gone silent.
    Jack, I think there's probably a way you and I could start a critique/sharing group where a bunch of us may want to commit to commenting on each other's uploaded photos each week/month and get a back and forth going among us. I'd consider starting a thread inviting people to be part of that unless you'd like to do so. Let me know if you'd be interested in such a group . . . and anyone else who's reading this, of course. Yes, we can still be creative and proactive, which I'm willing to be if it's about discussing the photography—including individual photos, bodies of work, and the goals of each of us—of a group of fellow members.
     
  23. So good to see your voice again, Fred! I'd been thinking along a similar line, and posted a suggestion to that effect on a different thread ("Ideas for attracting members" in PhotonetSiteHelp). It'd be great to get a discussion going on how to make some kind of a mutual critique group model work. And please count me in among those interested.
     
  24. Jack, I think there's probably a way you and I could start a critique/sharing group where a bunch of us may want to commit to commenting on each other's uploaded photos each week/month and get a back and forth going among us.​
    Fred, as groups go from reading exchanges in the Philosophy Of Photography forums I think that's going to be a very small group.
    Today I googled photo sharing sites and one blog listed the top 20 with reviews. Smugmug was #1. Flikr was there, 500px, facebook of course and a whole bunch of others I had never heard of.​
    Jack, how can you prove that as fact? Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper? I think the popularity of the entire internet in general is slowly losing its gloss and will be primarily populated and dominated by media promoters who make the news and then report about it as if it's trending just to grab eyeballs with the rest being small talk social networking enthusiasts.
    Lex Jenkins left PN a while back and it was said he spends more time on other sites like Facebook for photography related exchanges. I went to his Facebook page and there hasn't been a posting on his site in some time. Searching his name doesn't bring up anything either. The same is true with Simon Jenkins. My point is I think we're not getting the whole story and we never will when relying on word of mouth claims read on the internet.
     
  25. Tim wrote: "I think the popularity of the entire internet in general is slowly losing its gloss ... "
    Bingo.
    That's my impression too, of Facebook, blogs, and forums across the board. People have discovered that, after taking the time (something they have less and less of) to write down their thoughts, in response being showered with rotten tomatoes, is not something they want to keep on doing -- like rats that get shocked for trying some temptation.
    I, on the other hand, like tomatoes.
     
  26. Tim wrote: "I think the popularity of the entire internet in general is slowly losing its gloss ... "
    Bingo.​
    Alas, if one has ever had to teach a course online, the gloss has been gone for a very long time now. The web was supposed to free us, but owners (public or private) still own and so the neo-feudal system of property rights continues with even more tendrils than before.
    Translation: The web has spread, but instead of liberation it has brought new chains.
    If that offended no one, then it probably was not worth writing.
    --Lannie
     
  27. People have discovered that, after taking the time (something they have less and less of) to write down their thoughts, in response being showered with rotten tomatoes, is not something they want to keep on doing -- like rats that get shocked for trying some temptation.​
    And from what I'm discovering about AirBnB and the shared economy those rats may be using their available time now by focusing more on how easy it's becoming to make money online with very little seed money.
    My landlord has now converted several units in my 30 year old apartment complex to short term rentals getting approx. $1200 a month to my $750. I may be speaking to you all as a homeless man posting from my local library in the next several months. Truly the internet is a disruptive and ever changing technology. Where it will land is anyone's guess.
     
  28. This thread has now drifted into sociology away from its stated theme. Lannie, I think we should consolidate our efforts either here or on Leslie's thread: site help>Ideas for Attracting Members. Yeah, there are a whole lot of macro changes in the internet and how people allot their time and resources but I think this particular thread should be about how we can navigate those swiftly crossing currents without swamping the boat.
     
  29. Jack, this thread is eleven days old now. It's dead--and outdated since 2.0 came out.
    --Lannie
     
  30. This thread has now drifted into sociology away from its stated theme. Lannie, I think we should consolidate our efforts either here or on Leslie's thread: site help>Ideas for Attracting Members.​
    I thought it was drifting toward figuring out the internet medium by dissecting and condensing it into more simpler concepts using real world anecdotes in order to know how to attract new members. You can't make changes and improvements to something you don't understand or know how it works.
    This is marketing 101. So who here knows how to grab eyeballs on the internet using real world examples to show it would attract new members? I have not seen one person in this thread or any similar thread demonstrate this.
     
  31. Could also start a FB group that would be accessible to all dedicated to this purpose.
     
  32. I was not sure which thread is active now, since similar topics are being discussed in at least three threads. So I am posting my response in all three in hopes, relevant persons will notice it.
    I personally have learned a lot from the forum discussions, specially by getting exposed to other photographers' works and writings which I would have a hard time finding myself. On the other hand, I agree that the forums are somewhat detached from the photos themselves (except when someone posts something as example) and sometimes tend to get more verbose without the visual counterpart.
    The photo critique forum on the other hand has the benefit of being in the forefront of action. There can be nothing like discussing photography with a photo in front. However most critiques I see usually praise the photo rather than being really critical about it. The difference can be seen when a photo is selected as POTW. The critiques posted there are more sharp and adherent to a higher standard I would say. I wish all critiques were genuine, not just pleasing. There have been times, where I wanted to be really critical about someone's photo in a constructive way, but finally decided to move on, because the prevalent culture I feel is not fully prepared for such critical comments.
    Can we have a blend of forum discussions and photo critiques combining the best of both worlds. It is great to point out the strong points in a photo and room for improvements, but placing one's work in a greater perspective bringing in examples from other photographers works, or sometimes philosophical ideas (as we do so nicely sometimes in forums) will teach us how to think and see while shooting.
    I like Fred's idea of starting a focused subgroup for critiquing each other's photos. I will be happy to join such a group, not as an expert for teaching other people (I don't believe I am there yet), but as a participant providing views. At present, I don't critic too many photos because when I write about a photo I try to do a good job taking my time, covering every aspect I can think of. Still, good photos slip through at times without getting my attention. In a small group, I will be offered a limited number of photos to critic and I think I can handle that. Also, such a group has the benefit of reciprocal critiques and that would encourage more involved discussions I think. Here are a few examples of critical discussions in the photo critic forum (where I participated) which I thought were quite successful:
    http://www.photo.net/photo/18221005
    http://www.photo.net/photo/18185634
    http://www.photo.net/photo/18222043
    http://www.photo.net/photo/18216223
     
  33. Supriyo, I'm sure there's a way that could be done, perhaps with the picture simultaneously being included in the "people I
    follow" forum or the critique forum and on the one dedicated to in depth group critiques. Perhaps there is software than could accomplish this That would be the best of both worlds where the usual praise or
    short comments would appear under the picture in your portfolio as usual and the longer, more extensive critiques would be posted first in
    this dedicated critique forum and then automatically re-posted under your picture as well for anyone to see. The point is, if there's enough
    people who are interested, I'm sure we can find a way to bring it about. I don't think it would be that difficult.
     
  34. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Agree with Donald - I am suspicious of "elite?" groups based on some of my Corporate experiences, often they turn into echo chambers, resounding with and reinforcing their own values based on their own "society". How about setting a price of entry, service -- for example, x hundred value added critiques and a helpful factor above average by double digits. Measured performance over time to stay involved and an icon after your name as long as you qualify. Considering the demographics of photographers, and life interventions, a leave of absence feature, a little like players on waivers or sabbaticals would be a good idea.
     
  35. A quick word about elitism. Those of you attributing to or concerned with elitism in the suggestion of a critique group
    should keep in mind that you think this because your own bias is to think in elitist terms. My idea was that the group would
    be casual, self forming, and voluntary. Whoever saw my post and was interested would just be part of it. I did not have
    qualifications or "credentials" in mind. Those are all ideas some of you had who were calling the proposal elitist. I never
    had any such intentions. I have lost interest in the idea and wish you all well in overcoming your own bents toward
    thinking in the elitist terms you seem to think in.
     
  36. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Fred G -- didn't mean to contradict or get crosswise with you, glad you're back. Whatever you name the phenomenon, most times when a group forms, spontaneously as neighborhood kids building a clubhouse, the fundamental human "ingroup / outgroup" response kicks in. Most vivid in my mind is a guy who crossed from "field" to "headquarters", not a common transition. He left with great plans to communicate "our" needs and influence needed change. Lasted a bit more than a month and he was a "them", singing their song. That after years as one of "us". This critique group idea may prove to be be a different thing. Possibly a voluntary association. I don't think anyone was accusing you or implying anything. Wishing you all the best, Sandy
     
  37. As I understand it, Sandy, it would be a completely voluntary group of people who would simply like to have more of an in
    depth critique of their pictures and would be willing to contribute critiques of other group members pictures in turn. It would be
    totally separate from the critique forum or the usual way critiquing is conducted today. It would be only for those who want
    it. I don't think any of the details have been worked out yet on the setup but it wouldn't impact the main body of members
    at all; of this I'm certain. Personally, I think it's a good idea and one that could provide valuable feedback to those who are looking for something like this. Obviously it's not for everyone..
     
  38. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Jack,
    If it could be like the Algonquin Round Table, drinks included...
    I try to add some value as I critique, calling out what to me is a key attribute captured. Don't know that I have what it takes to do critiques as detailed as a few I have seen that literally leave no aspect of a photo untouched. In any case, I will continue to try and contribute to the site and its community of photographers. In and out of the Critique Group, possibly. Detailed critique for an occasional image that really grabs me. Best, Sandy
     
  39. There have been times, where I wanted to be really critical about someone's photo in a constructive way, but finally decided to move on, because the prevalent culture I feel is not fully prepared for such critical comments. — Supriyo
    Supriyo, I think that's due to a confusion about what 'critique' is for. To you, and, it seems most of those posting to this thread, 'critique' means feedback for learning to be a better photographer.
    But I think to many people 'critique' means finding out how their work stands up as compared to everybody else. To that end, they want sort of a show of hands, not an argument or instruction for improvement. Think of the Olympics as the 'critique' for gymnasts; they find out how good they are. They don't expect to take instruction from any Tom, Dick or Harry who is watching, or even from the judges who are scoring them.
     
  40. Sandy,
    I read your concern and I would say that any new idea has concerns attached to it. The new critic groups could turn elitist or may not. We will not know unless we try it. I think the elitist part comes when something is a closed invitation only group, which the proposed group is not. Anybody can join the group and leave anytime. The only criterion for joining would be the willingness to give and accept critiques. It is an informal honor based agreement among the group participants, whereas the general critique forum has no such commitment attached. Thats the only difference I would say.
     
  41. Julie,
    At some point I also like to see raise of hands and praises, but a part of knowing where my work stands is also to find out where it falters (or cannot connect to others). Also praises can carry very little information, thats an issue. You can at most say, "good", "very good", or "excellent", there aren't enough shades. Also the value of that praise depends on the critic's ability to separate good from "indifferent" (I don't want to use "bad", because any sharp visceral reaction also adds value to an art I think). In the end what I am saying is I don't always look towards critiques to learn or improve, but also to see how my work connects with others. Critical comments, alongside praises do help with that. Silence is ambiguous, because it can mean either the work was not important, or it was overlooked in the crowd.
    In the past I used to request both comments and ratings for my pictures and often found that the same picture that received positive comments, had harsh ratings. While I understand that rating system on PN has it's own flaws, I tend to think a few of the raters found something in my picture that made them rate it low. However they never explained themselves in the comments. It is probably due to the feared repercussions.
    I prefer a culture where people won't be afraid to say things like "I don't like pretty landscape pictures", or "I don't understand what that grainy dark BW image conveys to me". We can then at least have a conversation.
    If people get offended by critical comments towards their work, may be we can have a separate appreciation sub-forum within the main critic forum where the only goal of the comments would be to praise a work.
    Think of the Olympics as the 'critique' for gymnasts; they find out how good they are. They don't expect to take instruction from any Tom, Dick or Harry who is watching, or even from the judges who are scoring them.​

    Some people will tender unexpected advices, others will be more introspective, thats the price to be in the community. If that hurts, clear instructions can be put in the critic request, like "I am not taking suggestions for this work, only state what you like about this work". Not that it will always work, but to some extent yes. Also, I think olympic gymnasts get their fair share of criticisms from their inner circle, so they don't seek criticisms from everyone (although there is enough criticisms and analysis of their performances in the media). I don't have a personal photographic coach to put me in my place, I have to rely on the PN community for that.
     
  42. Supriyo, it's my opinion that a good extended critique of the kind you like can/should tell you what elements of your work get across to me and what don't.
    But the long critiques you cite/link in your first post seem to me (I know you don't agree) as if the group is trying to conjure art from words; as if art's meaning is produced by collective incantations — talking artworks into existence. While the participants are clearly enjoying a good conversation (and that's always to be encouraged), it's my opinion that this can end up being highly misleading to someone who is expecting more than an enjoyable conversation.
    "An artist will find his own real strength not by listening to what is said about his work, but in the creative process itself. And it is safer for him to rely on himself to find his own identity; for it is unlikely that anyone else can find it for him." Edwin Denby
     
  43. She says as she quotes how SOMEONE ELSE thinks an artist acts. It would be funny if it weren't so blindly ironic. Maybe
    Julie is just a sourpuss because it's not HER (or one of her many quotees') conversation.
     
  44. ... what elements of your work get across to me and what don't.​
    Some elements of a photo would work for me, but not for you. Which is normal, because each of us think differently. Some elements may not work for the majority, but still work for me. That's normal too. Unless something is blatantly wrong and revealing, I don't worry about what works for some or don't, although that information is useful to know. What interests me is how one picture can have different effects on different people. How an art spawns tentacles and takes different directions and where those directions lead us to. I am not looking for someone else to show me the way, rather curious to see where each one is walking to. Thats what I like about the extended critiques. The critiques themselves are in no way part of the art, but interesting addendum to it.
    I am fine with the conversations, some of them are directly useful, some are not, but it is a good way of connecting with multiple viewers. If the photographer doesn't find what he is looking for in the comments, he/she can ask additional questions.
    I like your comments made in the POTW forum, with lots of rhetoric, and a touch of mischief. I have seen you get rebuked once, but you still contribute your comments, which is a good way to go. Perhaps you can extend your comments to the regular critic forum as well.
     
  45. Supriyo, I very much agree with your first paragraph above ("tentacles" -- I would definitely be happy to respond to requests for "tentacles").
    But, Supriyo, now that I have your attention, and going completely off topic (so you can gracefully ignore me if you choose), I would love to see a thread on contemporary photography in India, if you feel knowledgeable about it. I know a fair amount about contemporary photography in, say Africa or China, but the only current photographer in India whose work I have any familiarity with (and I admire) is Dayanita Singh. As I said, ignore this if you're not interested, but I would love to see such a thread by you or anybody else who knows the topic.
     
  46. Supriyo, count me among those who think conversations can be very much part of the art. They stimulate and inspire,
    they can be learned from and they can provide an important deepening of both understanding and emotion. The
    Algonquin Round Table folks were mentioned and I can add the Dadaists and Surrealists as well as the folks in Sartre's
    regular gatherings at Paris cafes. I approach art holistically as well as individually. There are the works and there is the
    process and I don't think there are cut and dry distinctions. Art, in many ways, is also a lifestyle or life choice. It doesn't
    end at the frame's edge or the end of the canvas.
     
  47. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    It comes down to this: unless the photographer includes the increasingly popular detailed essay, specifying motivations, desired outcomes, and personal evaluation of results, detailed critique (ex. technical) is questionable. It is entirely subjective, filtered through the reviewer's cultural background, training, and personal photographic / artistic rule set. Of course, there may be a Saint or two among us. An image should stand alone, unexplained. When you submit for critique, you get what you have asked for, like it or not.
     
  48. Of course, that's all you can expect, Sandy. It's the chance to talk with fellow photographers that is really the best thing for me about this site. I listen to what people say about my pictures and am always glad to get comments whether in depth or just
    a friendly "nice work" - even a couple of exclamation marks from Drew! Sometimes you even get something that's really
    worth considering or information that turns on a certain set of creative neurons ( a kind of eureka moment) but it's the sharing of a passion with others that is really the most
    important thing. If some people want to be in a group where members give and receive more detailed remarks about each other's pictures, more power to them. I just want to see more commenting in general.
     
  49. You assume a particular audience that you assume you know. While many people do ask for critiques assuming a particular audience, many do not.
    To those other many, offering a picture for critique assumes that they do not know anything about those looking at it; the picture is a probe, a feeler to try to learn about that strange audience. What does it want? What does it like? Who are they? What does it do when I show it this? Or that?
    To assume an audience is to ignore the possibility that they are not like you, that the meanings and uses of their pictures have nothing to do with the kinds of meanings and uses that you are assuming in your audience, and to (appear at least to) push them into your matrix of 'doing.'
     
  50. If some people want to be in a group where members give and receive more detailed remarks about each other's pictures, more power to them. I just want to see more commenting in general.​
    I wouldn't be interested in a critique that doesn't ask questions of the photographer. And not the basic questions of execution or post processing techniques. I'ld want them to ask me about my motivations, feelings, alernative approaches and strategies. I want them to draw me out and get me to think about why I took the shot. I don't see that at all anywhere in online critiques.
    I'm having to assume most online critique audiences don't want to get into to it that deep. But whether it's a boring or interesting image, there's always questions to be asked and answered about any posted image. And providing quotes and examples from established famous and/or infamous photographers must be specifically explained by the poster how it relates to the critique, a simple task that I find rarely included.
    You have to show to the person being critiqued that you have enough intelligence and knowledge developed on your own (not by reading some book) to make for an engaging, rich and helpful critique. Or else it's just boring.
     
  51. Actually, the questions you ask are the critique.
     
  52. I think when it comes to comments and critiques, it's pretty easy to figure out and quite logical. Some people write long, thoughtful critiques. When they post a picture thy tend to receive the
    same in return, Check out Fred's portfolio for proof of this. Others are more subjective in their response ( story tellers such as myself)
    and in the main, that's what they get back. Some are witty, some are prolific commenters but brief in their remarks, some merely acknowledge that
    they like the picture; the comments they receive will usually mirror their own approach. Still others are equipment or technique oriented and usually attract the same sort of posters and
    similar critiques. If you don't comment at all, you'll likely get few in return There are many excellent photographers on this
    site who never or almost never comment and I don't care how good their pictures are, they receive nary a word. For the
    most part it comes down to you get what you give; what goes around, comes around; you reap what you sow. That's the reality, how it's always worked and the way I'm quite sure it will work in the future..
     
  53. Julie, I don't understand what you mean by that statement.
    I just said critiques don't often have the critic asking the photographer questions about their photo meaning there ARE NO QUESTIONS ASKED, which also implies or conveys to the photographer a lack of genuine interest or sensitivity to the creative aspect of photography from the critic.
     
  54. I would love to see a thread on contemporary photography in India ...​
    Julie,
    Thanks, certainly thats a great idea. India has a thriving photographic community and people save their pennies and dimes to buy high end cameras. I don't consider myself too knowledgeable about it (one reason is, I left my country more than a decade and not in close touch with any photographer in India). However, since I have been brought up in India, I have my own taste about what would be considered contemporarily Indian. Dayanita Singh is definitely a prominent figure. Also here is someone whose work I have come to like: Pablo Bartholomew
    There is a good deal of information on the internet about the aforementioned subject. One thing I have been interested in is to gather all the bright and upcoming photographers from India who regularly post images on PN from their current works shot in India. For example, I like the down to earth approach in this folder: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=895578. Since you have proposed (and I am glad you did), I can start a thread on this subject and then let other knowledgeable people pitch in.
     
  55. Art, in many ways, is also a lifestyle or life choice. It doesn't end at the frame's edge or the end of the canvas.​

    Fred, I like this statement very much. I have often thought that the dialog between the art and the viewer keeps art alive and there can be many lives and many ways. More the ways of viewing, more the art thrives.
     
  56. unless the photographer includes the increasingly popular detailed essay, specifying motivations, desired outcomes, and personal evaluation of results, detailed critique (ex. technical) is questionable. It is entirely subjective, filtered through the reviewer's cultural background, training, and personal photographic / artistic rule set.​

    Sandy,
    I do not see my work as an equation having one solution, or message. It is like, 'hey I found this interesting, what do you think'. From there, the conversation moves on producing new avenues and new truth. Even if in some rare cases I intended the work to have a specific meaning, that meaning may be quite obvious to me, and to some others. But, to some viewers, there can be a completely different interpretation (or many interpretations) depending on their cultural background. I am actually interested in those views, how personal biases, cultural backgrounds, knowledgeable insights (or ignorances) shape their views on a particular photo. I am equally interested in insightful commentaries and off-hand one liners, as long as they are coming from the heart. What I discourage are typical copy-paste phrases of generic praises that sometimes I have seen.

    In the end, I don't want to throw a challenge or a test for critics to figure out THE meaning in a photo. It is more like 'Welcome to my world. Make it your own, and feel free to take away what you want'.
     
  57. critiques don't often have the critic asking the photographer questions about their photo meaning there ARE NO QUESTIONS ASKED, which also implies or conveys to the photographer a lack of genuine interest or sensitivity to the creative aspect of photography from the critic.​

    It is great to answer questions and discuss, but sometimes there can be great monologues from commenters which I can empathize with. I can then write something in response and that way there is an exchange of information without any direct questions being asked. However I admit I like involved (intense) discussions about any photo. Thats why I said, I like some characteristics of the discussion forums on PN which are lacking in the critic forum. However I disagree, if a critic does not ask a direct question to the photographer, that signifies his/her lack of genuine interest in the photo. Thats too extreme.

    A critique of a photo can address the photo itself, without using any additional information that is not directly obtainable from the photo, and still do a spectacular job. Thats another way of looking at it, and many people find it as the only way of viewing or critiquing a photo.
     
  58. Jack wrote: "For the most part it comes down to you get what you give."
    Yes. That is exactly what I hate about critiquing on photo.net. The "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" venal calculation, the pandering-to in order to get pandering-from. "You get what you give" is a realistic statement, certainly true, but I don't have to like it or participate in it.
    **********
    Tim, I say that the "questions are the critique," because IMO, what a (good) critique should do is tell the artist what the picture makes you think. Your questions about a picture do exactly that. What the artist does with your questions is none of your business. He certainly doesn't have to answer you.
    There is a very famous one sentence critique of a Goya royal family portrait painting, The Family of Carlos IV, c 1800 that goes like this:
    "The baker's family who have just won the big lottery prize."
    If Goya had been the one to ask for a response from the person who said that, I would imagine they would have presented it as a question: "The baker's family who have just won the big lottery prize?" Done. (To which I imagine Goya chuckling inwardly and saying nothing, because to show agreement might have meant the firing squad.)
    Back to photo.net critiques and questions: will viewers anywhere else be able to ask questions of the photographer? Will encouraging the photographer to fill in his work with verbal answers make them stronger to an audience in his absence in the future?
    **********
    Please note that I am in no way saying that extended discussions are bad. I am saying that they are usually not anything to do with critique. The wild, all-night passionate discussions of visual art that happened for years at Max's Kansas City restaurant in New York City were influences on many, many artists. But note that they talked about anything and everything, that many of them absolutely despised each other, that anybody could and did join in at any point, that most people took no part -- just listened and evaluated, for themselves, the weight of the arguments. And that everybody could see, because people are pretty good at this, who was an ass-kissing sycophant and who was his own man/woman.
    **********
    Supriyo, your post, as they often do, has so many things I'd like to say, most of them in agreement (I have bookmarked two sites of Pablo Bartholomew's work). I'll have to pick out just one bit that I really like: you wrote "Make it your own, and feel free to take away what you want." Dayanita Singh has a collection of seven volumes of her work that are presented in a box. Around the outside of the box is written (one line per side of the box):
    SENT A LETTER
    on the way he dropped it. Someone came and
    picked it up and put it in his pocket.​
    I love that idea. There's a gap between photographer and viewer that is not a bad thing. In fact, I think it should be treasured. Critiques that dig and dig and dig imagine it can be got rid of. Discussions, on the other hand, are wonderful puttings-in-the-pockets. Tentacles.
     
  59. The ship is taking on water. It is slowly sinking and the customers have been leaving for several years. IMO it is not
    format, or groups or conviviality. It is a flawed business model taken on after Phil left. The pumps in the engine room
    have failed because PN is so far behind others. IMO nothing will bail it out except a large infusion of sustaining cash.
    It is sad as this was always a more friendly boat than the others plying the photographic seas. But the water is
    relentless in its rise. It is only a matter of time.
     
  60. Dick wrote: "The ship is taking on water. It is slowly sinking ... "
    Oh come on, you can do better than that. Try this:
    "The sea roiled like water in a pasta pot about to boil, an apt simile thought Captain Samuel Turner, because if they didn't fix their engine soon he and his crew would be floating face down like overcooked manicotti—bloated, white, limp and about to be consumed by something that wished it were eating ahi tuna instead." — Alex Bosworth, Ketchikan, Alaska
    Courtesy of the 2016 Bulwer-Lytton contest
     
  61. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    I'll leave watery comments to others, not a lot of that where I live.
    “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” Fellow named Churchill said that.
    He also said “Never give up on something that you can't go a day without thinking about.” Didn't a bunch of us learn that lesson through PN 2.
    The trick is to get those who care to stand up and do something to make things work better.
    Don't much appreciate defeatism. Rather go down in flames doing something useful than standing by neutral or pontificating. My attitudes are mostly out of fashion nowadays, at least on the Coasts. But as Ruark said -- "If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them."
     
  62. I'm in agreement with you, Sandy, except for that part about "the Coasts", being from San Francisco, myself. It's
    fashionable to theorize and criticize and do nothing. If you don't like the way things are run, be one of those who are
    trying to change things. If you don't like the way people critique pictures, then get out there and show us how it should be
    done. Do some commenting on pictures yourself.
     
  63. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Jack -- before this conversation mutated, it was about promoting photo.net. No question that community participation, including both critique and photo analytics are a valuable feature to both current and potential new members. As you know, I do some critiques nearly every day. Though I don't track it, I usually have done more than I've got. I have no method other than commenting on images that I find compelling or interesting. I don't always even critique those I follow.
    Main thing is for those who like this place to find a way to help move things in a positive direction. "New" names or "old".
    As to the coasts, I can only speak from personal experiences compared to here in Montana. No offense intended. It is not generic, but certainly mass media reinforces my perception. As in every case, and place, one can usually find kindred spirits.
     
  64. “Never give up on something that you can't go a day without thinking about.”​
    That sounds more like an addiction.
    Or else how do you explain why we keep rearranging the discussion deck chairs on what others see as a sinking ship, a POV I don't share BTW?
     
  65. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Tim -- just responding to the sound and fury observed, whatever that may imply. Rather than rearranging the chairs, remember The Birkenhead Drill. If you have to go, make the transition with class and style!
     
  66. I just came from Facebook. Not much to be said for that site, except for one thing: vitality.
    This used to be a more vital site. I think that I would be asking what might be able to bring back some of the vitality.
    We do straight photography here, and apparently that just doesn't quite have the draw that it once did. That's the shame of it all.
    --Lannie
     
  67. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Dunno, Lannie. I arrived with the start of this year from another photo site as well. What impressed me, and still does, is the photo quality and wide diversity of photographic styles. The other thing I like is the higher level of conversation, both technical and artistic. I do believe the "volume / velocity" but not the quality of participation has declined.
    I have looked at quite a lot of other photo sites, I don't know what you mean by straight photography. I don't do Facebook, Twitter, or any of that, but I don't see a whole lot of difference in photo styles on Smugmug, Zenfolio, etc. Can you expand on what kinds of things might be missing?
     
  68. That's a good question, Sandy, I'd like to know just what features people find so appealing in other sites. Are the members
    more creative, more innovative. I don't know. I became a member of Smugmug (the leading site in terms of numbers) and
    was certainly not impressed. Flikr has some good photographers but the level of exchange between members seems pretty
    basic. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Facebook is like having your own homepage but with all the qualities of an echo
    chamber. Maybe the pictures are presented bigger or clearer or something. Somebody clue me in. Conversation there is
    limited by space considerations and is generally pretty mundane, I think. Google Pictures, a mixed bag and even more
    parochial than we are. So who is the shining star we are to pattern ourselves after? If you can point me to a better site than this one, I'm ready to pack my bags and head over there.
     
  69. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Jack, you've hit it on the head. Conversation, and relationships, admittedly electronic, missing to a large extent elsewhere. As I look at some of the other sites, I find a lot of features that seem geared toward Pro and Part time pro photographers, but little conversation. In fairness, there may be more available as a member than as an outsider. There seems to be quite a lot of complexity to wade through at the start, getting set up, and beyond the basic membership level, it gets pricey fast. $240 a year on the most recent I looked at for mid level. If you have a large audience and are able to sell some photos occasionally, I suppose it is a wash. If it comes to that, I'll do the Birkenhead Drill, stay here to the end, but I will prepare somewhere else to go.
     
  70. I have sampled some other sites over the years, and still have memberships that are active on a couple. PN is still unique. It is the best. I have some photos on Flickr, but putting more up seems rather pointless.
    When I say that PN is not vital, I simply mean that the level of interaction seems rather low. That's simply about numbers, I suppose.
    How to get the numbers back? I really don't know, although I am glad that Glenn has left these free-wheeling threads open so that people can freely offer their input. Maybe some people will yet come up with more ideas.
    --Lannie
     
  71. I have a suggestion. If we have to encourage newcomers by paying them special attention and posting comments to their photos, we need to first identify them. Right now there is no search mechanism for locating new members. I think we need that mechanism in place. We can then write helpful comments to their photos and feel them welcomed to this site.
    We should be able to search members by date of joining, number of photos posted. If anyone has any other searching criteria in mind, feel free.
     
  72. Yeah, I remember Glenn in his apologia, as 2.0 crumbled into dust around him, quoting some unnamed member, saying
    something to the effect of "when I want to go back to 1995, I visit photonet." as if that one remark proves without a doubt
    that we are irrelevant and mired in the past. How so? I mean in what way? Is it the look? Is it the features? The layout?
    The ease of use? An old an decrepit membership? Are we an elitist clique?.Unfriendly to new members? Too strict in our
    policies? Too lax in our policies? I'd sure like to know what the vision is. Not in glittering generalities but specifically. I
    mean how can you design something if you don't know just what you want to create?
     
  73. Supriyo, actually there is but it couldn't be any more effectively hidden. I just found it myself not long ago, It's called New
    User Introductions and it's in Site Help and Community, the same general grouping of forums where this thread is located.
    It would be a great place to start welcoming new members into the community. Easy and pretty effective, I would think.
     
  74. I don't do Facebook, Twitter, or any of that, but I don't see a whole lot of difference in photo styles on Smugmug, Zenfolio, etc.
    Facebook is like having your own homepage but with all the qualities of an echo chamber. Maybe the pictures are presented bigger or clearer or something. Somebody clue me in. Conversation there is limited by space considerations and is generally pretty mundane, I think.​
    I've given Facebook a good try but I just can't get into its convoluted interface that I found out is not determined by Facebook administers but controlled and organized differently site to site by the individual hosts.
    This makes it confusing to me on a whole other level when the overall dominant FB design motif is identical site to site but the Timeline, Reviews, Visitor Input sections and any other minor custom graphic is added, rearranged and/or hidden in a not so obvious manner to show to the visitor that this is a unique FB page site design. It still looks too much like any other FB page but with rearranged furniture.
    And I had email alerts to any comments to photos I posted on FB sites that feature visitor submissions turned off because I got tired of my inbox of FB alerts telling me someone I don't know "Liked" or commented with a quick meaningless one liner. I mean posting a photo to any FB page acts like a dragnet for social rubberneckers.
    Photo.net is unique and more enjoyable for me in that it ISN'T ANYTHING LIKE FACEBOOK but how to promote that concept as a valued aspect seems way too subject to the whims of folks who don't know what they want. That's a tough target market to nail down.
     
  75. ** begin parody **
    I am a proud member of leaf.net. Every chance I get I go to the forest and collect special leaves. My leaves. I bring them back and post them on leaf.net. I request critiques of my special leaves. I don't understand why more people don't want to look at my leaves. Look at the perfect smooth edges of this one! At the lovely serrations of the margins of this one! The delicate colors of this one ... or this one ... or this one! Possibly this one is a little flawed in its stem attachment, but I like the forcefulness of its knobby stem end. Why can't we get new people to comment on my lovely leaves?
    ** / end parody **
    And, compared to the number already existing and rate of new production, there are probably far fewer leaves on this earth than digital photographs.
     
  76. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Parody and Max's Kansas City, next you'll be talking about the Lion's Head or the Frog Pond!
    As to the parody, I can take it or leaf it. ;-)
     
  77. ... but wait, wait, there's more!
    We should all donate all rights to our ... erm ... "valuable" ... (*worthless*) images to photo.net! What's worthless today can be valuable tomorrow if keyworded with GPS and event, etc. Getty does historical stock; photo.net could be micro-history stock.
    We would do this, not out of the goodness of our stony hearts, but because we love our worthless pictures and can't bring ourselves to delete them (given that many of us are not spring chickens, we might save the relatives having to surreptitiously delete them all after we're gone).
    Photo.net could become the photo adoption center for the internet; find your photos' forever home! Re-home your little darlings!
     
  78. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Julie, There might be a good idea in that. Possibly there could be a way for those who care to participate to donate specific pictures that could then be sold to benefit photo.net. Value to participants, boosting corporate income and through that, keeping a familiar site going.
    As to the archiving, unlike the boxes and boxes and boxes of family photos and slides resident here, electronic images really aren't much of a burden for inheritors. They can be kept in a tiny space until media changes obsolete them or they are discarded. We won't be around to worry about it.
    I have often thought that it might not be a bad thing if my present collection of images was just somehow gone. The best would be retained in my memory, and still provide a foundation for new work. My computer might even run faster!
     
  79. Sandy, the thing is (seriously, this time), local newspapers used to be the community archive. As we know, local newspapers are pretty much gone, so nobody is keeping 'small' visual history any more. If there were a way to get whole communities involved in archiving projects, I think it would have real value to everybody, now and particularly in the future. I also think people might really enjoy contributing to such a project.
     
  80. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Julie -- a year or so ago, there was a situation with some fantastic historic wartime photos, discovered in a family estate. The deceased or husband of was a fabulous photographer unknown and unpublished. The heirs were looking for a home for the photos. At the time I researched a bit, and found a couple of places, one in Colorado, I think, that would accept photos. I'll see if I can resurrect the thread -- it was on a different site.
    The tiny newspaper out here, a weekly, has been running a series for years, going back in history, year by year. They do post some photos of the times, but rarely. Don't know what kind of archive they have, but can find out. I worked on a somewhat higher circulation paper like that back in high school. They had bound records going back as long as they were in print. Unfortunately, paper copy, microfilm or even older computer media are an increasing barrier. If prior to the Dark Ages everything had been electronic instead of hard copy, things would have been a heck of a lot darker.
     
  81. If you get the local elementary and high schools involved in documenting the students' wider community as well as their own lives, using photo.net as their archive/display site, you might get young people accustomed to thinking of photo.net as their photography "home" -- the place to do more organized and enduring projects and work, as opposed to Facebook as the place for chitchat blah blah snaps. It would seem reasonable that students used to working on group projects via photo.net would branch out to use it as home for their personal work.
    As an example of a photographer/educator working with schools, see the efforts of Wendy Ewald and her Literacy through Photography program.
     
  82. Lannie, I'm lost !
    Please tell us where we are with your good suggestions that : "we need a collegial, round-table organizational model in order to have a true community" - or has that disappear in the maelstrom of exchanges ? I thought it was a good start for a reflection on concrete actions.
    And, by the way, I would suggest that Fred withdraws his vicious attack Sep 09, 2016; 06:36 a.m. on Julie's integrity and excuses himself. It is ugly and not worthy of PN. For me, Julie is one of the most intelligent and well formulated discussants around.
     
  83. ... excuses himself ...​
    Anders,
    This is a public forum. Everybody is welcome here. I don't think it is appropriate for one member to ask another member to 'excuse himself'. If anyone writes something offensive, moderators are there to take care of that. If you don't like somebody's comment, the best policy is to ignore it (as Julie did with Fred's comment I believe), not harp on it and start a fight.
    I am kind of tired of these forum fightings and the recent debacle of PN 2.0 has given us a chance to unite together. We may have our differences, but in one place we all come together as brethren, that is our love of photography. Lets put that up in the forefront.
     
  84. >>> And, by the way, I would suggest that Fred withdraws his vicious attack Sep 09, 2016; 06:36 a.m. on Julie's integrity and excuses himself. It is ugly and not worthy of PN
    Yes... It's behavior like that, along with backhanded insults and shenanigans over the last four or so years that have driven many members away from photonet, to other places like Facebook. Also, why would anyone new witnessing that after coming across photonet, want to stick around and participate?
     
  85. Brad,
    Do you have documentary evidence to back up your claim? You have given some specifics such as 'last four years', and 'gone to facebook'. Do you have proof to show that this many members moved to facebook or other places in the last four years, and the forum fighting is the primary reason for that?
    Also, people don't fight in photo critique forums. They are quite cordial to each other. It is quite possible to ignore the forums and stick to posting photos. Why did those people who never post in forums and are only interested in photo critiques or ratings leave?
     
  86. Maybe we all need to take a deep breath. The one thing I’m sure of, Anders and Brad, is that fanning the smoldering embers of divisiveness is not going to solve any problems. Julie H. had a very apt allusion to PTSD—which I translate to “Post Traumatic Site Disruption”—on one of these threads last week, and I think that’s what’s flavoring a lot of these oddly tangled threads. Now that the initial shock has passed, I think our photonet community would more quickly return to being the place we all enjoyed if we can quietly let the past become the past, and start thinking seriously about what we want the future to look like. And to that end, I’ve got some thoughts on Julie’s and Sandy’s discussion here before the thread got sidetracked…I’ll be back in a moment. And I plan to touch another third rail.
     
  87. Julie and Sandy - I like those ideas about broadening our reach to students a lot—the future of photography is in the hands of kids who are now discovering how much fun it is to see their world reflected in the cell-phone images they make. Those are the people who are going to be tomorrow’s professional photographers and artists, and there is so much a site like this could do to support their development, and to support schools’ educational efforts. There’s a problem, though. And here I need to insert two statements: 1) this is not about censorship—everything I suggest is intended to ensure that the whole photonet community continues to get what they want out of the site; and 2) this is not about prudery—as a watercolor artist I participated in figure drawing sessions for years and fully appreciate the aesthetic potential of the human form. So the problem: I really enjoy photonet, and yet I can’t tell work colleagues or young photography enthusiasts about it because one of the first things they do is go to the critique page to see what it’s all about and you can guess the reaction. Now imagine if it were a middle-school administrator checking out the site…we’d be banned so fast we’d get collective whiplash. So here’s the thought: if nude imagery had its own critique area, accessible to paid members only, that would do two things: it’d keep our public face one that would be less likely to turn off a goodly proportion of half the population (and so allow some of us to bring in new members a lot more easily), and it would undoubtedly almost instantly increase the number of paid members. So. Third rail. Touched. I hope I survive.
     
  88. >>>Do you have documentary evidence to back up your claim? You have given some specifics such as 'last four years', and 'gone to facebook'. Do you have proof to show that this many members moved to facebook or other places in the last four years, and the forum fighting is the primary reason for that?
    Documentary proof? Seriously? No. But I have been on photonet for a long time. And do have friends that have moved over to FB due to the behavior here, and haven't been shy talking about it. Also, up above the notion of elitism was brought up. I suspect that also drives many away who would otherwise be interested in joining.
    To be clear, this has only to do with the forums, not other areas of photonet.
     
  89. >>> The one thing I’m sure of, Anders and Brad, is that fanning the smoldering embers of divisiveness is not going to solve any problems.
    And neither will sweeping the problems and causes under the rug pretending like they don't exist.
     
  90. And neither will sweeping the problems and causes under the rug pretending like they don't exist.​

    Brad,
    Nobody is sweeping these problems under the rug. I am just saying we have had enough of it and the discussions and criticisms of such problems in previous threads. You are not mentioning anything new. I am saying, we stop harping on what has taken place and start thinking about the future, as Leslie also said. Believe me, human behavior will hardly change in future. It is important to think, how one can ignore the worse and bring out the best that is within us. No one is perfect. Now I can harp on the off-hand comment you made about elitism and ask you to explain yourself, but doing so will only waste everyone's time here. So lets move on. If you have any new suggestion to improve PN (besides asking people to be more polite in forums which we all share the responsibility of), lets hear that.
     
  91. >>> Brad, Nobody is sweeping these problems under the rug. I am just saying we have had enough of it

    We? Got it Supriyo. In other words, move along, nothing to talk about...
    You're not interested in hearing someone else's views that don't conform to yours, though you do seem to be speaking as a leader for the we on their behalf.
    >>> Now I can harp on the off-hand comment you made about elitism and ask you to explain yourself, but doing so will only waste everyone's time here. So lets move on.

    Why is it necessary to harp? Somebody brought the subject up above and it resonates with what others I've talked to have felt. No worries. Don't want to wast everyone's time.
    No worries, I'll move along, nothing to see or talk about.
     
  92. “Post Traumatic Site Disruption”, PTSD, I like that one. Made me laugh.

    Talking about problems of decent behaviour here on PN, my impression with social media, is the it is much worse elsewhere, and that is one of the reason why some of us are fairly active in PN Forums. It is a haven of peace compared to many other places on internet.
    That we have cases of fights and conflicts is just a sign, that we actually care about the quality of exchange and ideas on PN. It is therefor so much more important to denounce it, when the nastiness flows over. Mostly it is hidden in emails according to my personal experience, but when it is happening in open air here in forums, it should be stopped immediately and not just ignored. That is at least my take on the subject.
     
  93. you do seem to be speaking as a leader for the we on their behalf.​

    Point taken. I should be speaking on my behalf, although my feeling resonates with some others I have spoken. So here is my opinion: Bringing reference to old wounds and harping on what happened in the past will not change people's behavior. It will only create new wounds. The right thing to do is to speak up when a conversation is about to go out of hand and politely remind both parties their responsibility to maintain a civil and logical discussion chain. Everyone loses their cool at times, so blaming a certain group of people for the decline of PN is another way of creating more divide. When you blame others, think of the last time you lost your head, or gave in to provocations.
    Somebody brought the subject up above and it resonates with what others I've talked to have felt.​

    I don't understand what you mean by elitism. Didn't understand the first time it was mentioned in this forum. There was simply a proposal of forming a critic group to better address each other's photos and see if that helps to improve the quality of critiques on this site. There has been some recent discussions about the decreasing quality and quantity of photo critiques on PN.
     
  94. Talking about problems of decent behaviour here on PN, my impression with social media, is the it is much worse elsewhere, and that is one of the reason why some of us are fairly active in PN Forums. It is a haven of peace compared to many other places on internet.
    That we have cases of fights and conflicts is just a sign, that we actually care about the quality of exchange and ideas on PN. It is therefor so much more important to denounce it, when the nastiness flows over. Mostly it is hidden in emails according to my personal experience, but when it is happening in open air here in forums, it should be stopped immediately and not just ignored. That is at least my take on the subject.​
    Anders, I like your comment and fully empathize with what you said. However in my opinion, policing and chastising people in open forums won't solve the issue. For me, it is almost another form of bullying. I stand by what I said in my last comment: if an altercation goes out of hand, intervene by all means. If something was said and ignored and got hidden behind piles of other comments, reviving it doesn't teach anyone much of a lesson.
     
  95. I wonder if, in the future, having an ombudsperson for the site might help resolve the kinds of issues that don't lend themselves to resolution on open forum? I realize that moderators fill part of that role, but sometimes there's a lot of value in having input from someone who's independent of the particular forum where the issue arose.
     
  96. >>> Talking about problems of decent behaviour here on PN, my impression with social media, is the it is much worse elsewhere, and that is one of the reason why some of us are fairly active in PN Forums.
    I've been on FB for five or six years and have around 300 "friends," most photographers and artists, including many from photonet. Zero issues or problems. It's a much different atmosphere.
     
  97. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Hey, just got back in a bit ago -- great promotion for the site / way to increase membership! Maybe a "Hatfield & McCoy" forum, or "Photo No Holds Barred". Jeez Louise!
     
  98. This thread is a poster child for how to drive people away from PN.
    I have over 500 friends on FB and although I regularly disagree with some number of them, no exchange has ever come even close to the level of acrimony in this thread and in fact most threads at PN. I don't know where Anders gets his information from but my own anecdotal take on social media is the opposite of his. In fact several people who I never much liked at PN I get along very well with on FB.
     
  99. Gordon, I might be wrong. There are surely peaceful places on Facebook where good things happen.
    I must say that the term "friend" has been devalued since clicking on a picto qualifies for the term. Brad, put it between quotation marks which seems right.
    Supriyo, be assure, that I did not write my message to Fred, lightly. I agree, that vicious public attacks on individuals shouldn't be answered by public bullying. It should in fact be answered by a moderator taking down the attack without delay and eventually calling the member to order by email. It did not happen ! Thus my writing.
     
  100. Leslie, I agree on the nude issues. Paid only is a good idea. Or, I'm wondering if separating the membership of new members (not affecting existing ones) into a default without access to the nude section, and a nude-access one that requires a further application, check boxes, etc.
    **************
    On the fighting found in this thread, I actually don't think it's necessarily a bad thing from a teaching (school's) point of view. One of the most useful things a young person can be taught, or learn on his/her own is how to sort out discussion of issues, ideas and beliefs from personal attacks. This applies to every aspect of life, and if one doesn't learn how to sort it out -- on the fly -- it really handicaps a person. This is true of relationships as well as in receiving and giving good advice and information; sorting out valuable criticism as well as genuine non-phony encouragement on the merits, from stuff that is neither.
    The cool thing about photo.net is that it's all there in the record: why did that person leave that fulsome critique here and make that nasty comment there? Track his allegiances back in history and think about when and where comments are *really* about issues, ideas and beliefs or are in fact tribal machinations common to all people at all times, from little kids to old-timers like us.
    Being able to sort comments about issues, ideas and beliefs from comments that are intended as personal attacks is an incredibly useful and necessary life skill. Because many participants on photo.net have a long history, often ten years, strung out behind them, relationships and motives can be parsed, intents revealed.
     
  101. Anders, I invite all of my FB friends over for dinner every Saturday night. This makes for a lot of dirty dishes to wash but it's well worth the effort to keep my good friends close. Besides, I need those clicks on my pics to keep my head big.
     
  102. Gordon, virtual reality has arrived as a living fact ! What do they eat ?
     
  103. My guess is that it would mostly be finger foods: digital tid-bits. Or if consumed in larger quantities, I suppose it'd be mega-bites.
     
  104. I usually serve crow.
     
  105. Serve them some grilled smileys with red pepper, garlic and black cardamom and a cold beer.
     
  106. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Reverting to the original thread, Promoting Photo.Net, here is an issue. Politics. We Have a few fine, sly provocateurs. One posted a photo today with an anti war theme. Well, ask yourself what would be happening today if Hitler and the Axis powers had won aided by the pacifist philosophy. Wouldn't be much of a place for Judaism, Christianity, those with genetics issues (Eugenics would be the rule), Blacks, well Adolph wasn't really very fond of them. The list goes on. Without the Greatest Generation, we would likely all be speaking German or Japanese. And let's flash forward to the present ISIS. Whatever your take on pacifism I can't imagine that that would be a regime that most would care to live under -- die, convert and / or be a slave. No, War is never desirable, just necessary sometimes if civilization is to survive. I don't come here for politics, I come here for photography. I would rather not find these kinds of issues here, but I will not be silent in the face of propaganda.
    Note: the individual who posted the photo blocked my comments -- possibly rebuttal was too simple? Bon Courage!
    Moderators -- if you censor this, skip a step, just throw me out. Otherwise, I will keep re -posting it every time I pass my computer.
    If expulsion is the case, so be it. To the folks I write to, message any time!
    God Bless!
     
  107. "I come here for photography"
    Then, for heaven's sake, don't write provocative comments like that. "posted a photo today with an anti war theme" ! Go back to photography, Sandy, like the guy and his anti-war image, I would suggest.
     
  108. Good grief. Ditto to what Anders wrote.
     
  109. Well yes, lets bring god and warmongering into the mix, that should liven things up.
     
  110. God is banish from PN just like warmongering. PN is a safehouse.
     
  111. In spite of the fact that I started this thread, I have given up on the site as a place where meaningful discussion can take place. Many of my threads have simply disappeared. The last thread I posted on Casual Photos did in fact disappear, and it was harmless. When I tried to post again, I found that I had been banned for another month--but no reason was given for the deletion of the thread or for the banning. I had just come off of a one-day ban for something, I don't remember what.
    That sort of thing is bullying by so-called "moderators." Who might be doing it is unknown. LET THE MODERATORS SIGN THEIR NAMES. I have been accused of "insulting" other posters, but in fact I once told a member that he didn't read--and I meant it, because, had he read, he would have had to revise his posting. Unfortunately, I was instantly banned, and the thread disappeared. There was then no way to show why my response was quite a civil and rational response--the evidence had disappeared. I could have explained further, but there was nothing to respond to.
    In both those cases, as in others, all of the evidence disappeared, contrary to what Julie suggested above when she said, "It's all there." Glenn has told me that he does not have time to look into such matters.
    All that I know for sure is that I have, with very rare exceptions, been among the most civil of posters, Yet, one reason given for one recent banning was "Insulting other posters--again!" THE MODERATOR WHO SAID THAT (WHO OBVIOUSLY ALSO DOES NOT READ) REMAINS ANONYMOUS AND AT LARGE. Even when I did insult another poster perhaps a couple of months ago, it was after that poster had been verbally abusing and insulting me for several posts in a row. I was banned. The other poster remained. Clearly some moderator is targeting me. LET THE MODERATORS SIGN THEIR NAMES. Otherwise there will be no accountability, and the abuse will continue.
    With that kind of nonsense, I don't give a fig at this point whether I ever post again--or whether the PN forums survive.
    I really simply no longer care. This used to be a great site. Right now. . . ? Right now I am banned for most of a remaining year from the Philosophy of Photography forum, and my banning from Casual Photo Conversations expires tomorrow.
    Do I really, really want to come back and find that Moderator X has me in his sights again?
    Frankly, I do NOT. I have moderated classroom discussions at the college and university level since 1974, and I have moderated at national and regional conferences on philosophy and political theory for decades, and I do recognize good moderation--and I do know when people are attacking the person rather than the argument.

    I also know when persons--whether other posters or other moderators--are twisting the knife.

    More of the same? NO THANK YOU.
    I will post a picture or two from time to time. That's about it.
    --Lannie
     
  112. "I come here for photography. I would rather not find these kinds of issues here, but I will not be silent in the face of propaganda." (Emphasis supplied.)


    And yet you are propagandizing, Sandy. For the record, I happen to be a pacifist. Saying that doesn't mean that the world is coming to an end or that this site has to come apart over the issue. I don't intend to pursue that debate further here, though.
    Off-topic? Probably, but at least it is interesting. Let's hear it again for the "Off Topic" forum, which is what this one is at the moment.
    And it is civil--for the most part. (I can't figure out why some were bashing Fred above. Did I miss something.)
    By the way, that is a splendid photo, Fred--second (in my mind) only to your photo that won Photo of the Week. The subject reminds me of Montgomery Clift. The mood? Well, I can relate to that.
    --Lannie
     
  113. "Did I miss something" (Lannie)
    Yes indeed you missed something for sure.
    Sorry to see that you have been banned repeatedly. I din't even know it was happening, but there, obviously, I have missed something. I always have appreciated your contributions.
     
  114. Anders, I have gone back over it again and again, and I just don't see what you are talking about. Maybe I am missing something here, but "sourpuss" is something that can be used playfully, as in "Why are you such a sourpuss this morning?"
    Of course, I have been known to miss subtle nuances before, but, again, I am just not picking up anything hostile between the two parties in question--just the usual harmless, light-hearted banter.
    All of which raises the inevitable question of how we keep from reading something bad into someone's harmless response. The answer is, of course, that we often don't--online exchanges are always ripe for misinterpretation, since we do not hear the tone of voice or see the twinkle in the eye (or scowl on the face).
    --Lannie
     
  115. Despite Godwin's law this thread continues to limp along. Given enough time, it may even get on topic again.
     
  116. Lannie, don't take being banned personally. Admins. bullying long time members into leaving, is a long standing tradition here at PN. Think of it as more of a badge of honour than a slap in the face.
     
  117. I don't mind being banned, Gordon. I hate being accused of insulting others by the Great Insulters themselves. Apparently they have official status and are thereby invulnerable in addition to being omnipotent and omniscient. (None dare accuse them of being omnibenevolent as well.)
    This is the first site I have seen where some of the administrators insult the customers for sport. It is an interesting customer retention strategy.
    --Lannie
     
  118. Lainnie, why don't you try to answer my earlier message and we will be back at the subject:
    Lannie, I'm lost !
    Please tell us where we are with your good suggestions that : "we need a collegial, round-table organizational model in order to have a true community" - or has that disappear in the maelstrom of exchanges ? I thought it was a good start for a reflection on concrete actions.​
     
  119. Well, Anders, I don't know what else to say. No one is at the head of a round table, because there isn't one. In addition, everyone can talk to everyone. There is no chain of command and there are no formal channels of communication. That model (the "collegial" model) may well be an unreachable ideal, but it is a worthy ideal nonetheless. When anonymous persons can insult us and strike us dead (i.e. ban us), without any opportunity to respond on our part, something has gone terribly wrong.
    Simply because we can never fully achieve the collegial ideal does not mean that we have to promote and idealize the organizational opposite: the authoritarian top-down command-and-control pyramid which would keep us lowly serfs in our place and exalt the mighty. As Phil the Great once said (though not in quite these precise words), "I could ban you all and fill the site back up with eager newcomers in a month!"
    Well, that mind-set took told with a few moderators who were present at the Creation, and they are still wreaking havoc to the potentiality of a true photo COMMUNITY.
    There is no community possible on a site where hidden figures insult and then run and hide behind their veils of anonymity, beyond reproach and beyond challenge.
    --Lannie
     
  120. The following is the continuation of my original post above before it was clipped due to the time limit after I tried to edit it:

    Well, Anders, I don't know what else to say. No one is at the head of a round table, because there isn't one. In addition, everyone can talk to everyone. There is no chain of command and there are no formal channels of communication. That model (the "collegial" model) may well be an unreachable ideal, but it is a worthy ideal nonetheless. When anonymous persons can insult us and strike us dead (i.e. ban us), without any opportunity to respond on our part, something has gone terribly wrong.
    Simply because we can never fully achieve the collegial ideal does not mean that we have to promote and idealize the organizational opposite: the authoritarian top-down command-and-control pyramid ("monocracy,"
    "bureaucracy") which would keep us lowly serfs in our place and exalt the mighty. As Phil the Great once said (though not in quite these precise words), "I could ban you all and fill the site back up with eager newcomers in a month!"
    Well, that mind-set took told with a few moderators who were present at the Creation, and they are still wreaking havoc to the potentiality of a true photo COMMUNITY.
    There is no community possible on a site where hidden figures insult and then run and hide behind their veils of anonymity, beyond reproach and beyond challenge--and most of all beyond any possibility of the rational exchange of ideas.
    Reason cannot rule in such an environment, and so, fearing loss of control, the Powers that be then resort to Fear as the social mortar: "If you say just one more word, we will ban you!" The other side of this model of motivation is the other side of extrinsic motivation: not simply fear, but extrinsic rewards as well. Thus do we have all kinds of contests and prizes and "hero" badges. I guess we shall have gold stars next, since we are all first-graders in need of guidance from on high.
    When "management" loses respect for reason and emphasizes fear, then don't expect the customers to keep coming back to that particular department store. Persons really like to be treated like, well. . . persons.
    I meant to say, "We like what this site can be. We don't like what you are trying to make it."
    We know what holds this site together as a community (however imperfect), and it is not fear and little external signs of managerial approval. It is mutual respect. One of the first changes which I saw with the New Regime was putting our names in bigger letters, even as the instant banning which the New Regime brought to the site came to the fore--with immediate banning of Gordon Bowbrick and Fred G. in one fell swoop--indicating that we were in for one hell of a ride.
    Let me be frank. I thought that those managers would not, could not last--and that our common sense of purpose and community would prevail. Alas, that was quite a few years and ten thousand bannings ago. I think that Gordon is still banned for some years from one forum, and I am banned for the remainder of a year from the Philosophy of Photography forum.
    We do know that we are not only customers but also contributors, but all that we would really like is to be treated like the adults that we are. Most of us who have been here have had some managerial experience, and we would never have tried to promote our own outfits on a face-to-face and day-to-day basis the way these guys try to run Photo.net. Everybody would have walked.
    Well, look around: The larger part of the original community that was here ten years ago has walked, and only a handful of us old grizzled bitter-enders remain. Despise our age as you will (and seemingly must), but we do know that success in the digital age is not only about facility with ones and zeroes.
    There is also the human dimension, but it has been forgotten: this is the Doc Martin of photo sites. It survives in spite of day-to-day mis-management because of the brilliance of Phil's original design. We are back in Downton Abbey, which is pleasant to watch, but you wouldn't want to live there.
    Yet, yet, we will stick it out, because we have outlived so many bastards before us. Hell, we just might outlive the site!
    --Lannie
     
  121. Lannie, I believe it is time to turn the page and come back to the original raison-d'être of this discussion, as far as I understood it.
    I have not got your experiences, Lannie, although I admit to have crossed swords with several semi-bullying members who also happened to be moderators, but it has not really put me off balance, and I have never been banned anywhere, after more than 15.000 forum postings ! (I restrain myself from mentioning the hibernating Off-Topic forum here!)
    This being said, maybe the best I could suggest is to go to the threat in the Casual forum below:
    Anyone remember the photo.net critique circles of 2002?
    Leslie Reid , Sep 16, 2016; 10:57 p.m.
    Could be interesting for our effort of improving Photonet for its users and thereby its visibility among other similar photography sites.
     
  122. Anyone remember the photo.net critique circles of 2002? --Leslie Reid​
    I actually don't remember them, Anders, but I don't know why they couldn't work--and I personally do not see them as being "elitist" in the least.
    --Lannie
     
  123. The only way I see it happening is for a new forum to be set up within the site's existing structure. It might be defined as a limited forum for discussion only and no ratings. One photograph per week per member, although that could include a photo essay of no more than four images if desired. Images will be of X by Y dimensions or no more than so many bytes and will be jpg. Discussion must be civil and no ad hominem references will be entertained. Nor will discussion of a submittors gallery or other on line publishings be included. We will discuss only the submission to keep discussion focused. Nudes which entail images of genitalia or erogenous zones will be removed as limiting access in public venues. A moderator is assigned, but posts will be removed only on the agreement of at least 3 of the permanent forum founding members. To gain an idea, here are two discussion samples which show the level of discourse a person might find useful ( fill in from past examples) Hey, we all need a constitution. Will it be a safe place. Well, safe enough. Will someone be in charge. I think so. Self moderation is the goal of course. Moderators will come from the members I think. And I do wish that things were not as dicey as Dick Arnold states, but sometimes I wonder about Image Media. I wish Josh Root were still around. Good head and good eye, Leslie. PN has indeed become a habit like my morning coffee. But I will fight over the coffee part and Facebook has become a habit now too.
     
  124. Something new is always interesting.
    00e8wX-565415684.jpg
     
  125. I love your ideas on critique, Gerry—we’re thinking along similar lines. I’m putting together a plan for ad hoc co-op critique groups along the lines of the No Words forum. Someone starts a critique thread, and the first 10 people who post to the thread become the co-op group for that thread; all comment on all the photos in the thread. Person number 11 starts their own thread, and so on. Each thread dissolves at the end of the discussion of those 10 photos. This model would make critique available to everyone who wants it, it would ensure a wide spectrum of feedback, it would encourage discussion, and it would ensure that everyone participating actually wants feedback, making the commenting worth the effort for the commenters. It’s a structure that would fit neatly within the existing forum structure, and, like No Words, it wouldn’t take a lot of oversight. Anyway, I’m still puzzling over the details, and plan to do an off-line beta test before trying it for real (silver lining department: I wouldn’t have thought of that step 3 weeks ago). What do you think? Workable? Sound like something you might like to participate in?
     
  126. {Sound like something you might like to participate in?}

    I am not much in posting my photos for critique so I can't say it would be fair to just comment on others. ( I am a fierce self critic by now) But I may be open to doing that once it gets going just to help the effort. I can't agree off hand to comment and then start a thread with one of my photos is what I mean .if I understand your thoughts. Not a party pooper I hope. But I love new ideas. And old ideas resurrected with new voices.
     
  127. I would certainly be interested.
    I'm not here especially into intimate dialogues with, what seem to me always will stay virtual individuals. I'm Interested in inspiration and learning from seeing and commenting on inspiring and creative photos of others and showing the result of my own works. If my own works can inspire others I'm happy.
     
  128. Leslie,
    I would be definitely interested. I can't be sure if I will have a fresh photo everytime, since I don't shoot on a daily basis, but in a burst every couple of months. I would like to go back to some of the old photos from my portfolio and post a picture that I think is worthwhile, but did not receive much attention in the past. Other times, I can post pictures that I have just shot. Would that work? For critiques, I am definitely up to it, and I will write critiques for photos posted to the threads.
     
  129. That would definitely work, Supriyo, and I'll be doing the same: a lot of the photos I particularly need feedback on are old ones I'm now revisiting. And Anders - your approach very definitely works, too. What I'm hoping is that each group encompasses as wide a range of approaches to photography and critique as we can get.
     

Share This Page