Jump to content

What has happened to the Canon Forum?


brian_blattner

Recommended Posts

<p>It has been at least a couple of years since I have posted anything on the forum, but I will occasionally drop in to see what interesting things that I may have missed or to see what is happening; however, I am quite surprised at the lack of posts in the Canon forum from the last time I visited the forum.<br>

I would have thought with the digital camera boom where just about everyone has a camera now that the traffic would be much higher than in the past, so this has me wondering what the difference is.<br>

Are our lives just busier now?<br>

Is it that everyone that owns a camera is an expert now and doesn't need advise anymore?<br>

Could it possibly be the popularity of other social environments like Facebook, etc?<br>

I have always enjoyed visiting the forums so many interesting conversations take place. I have never felt qualified to provide advise because I did not feel knowledgeable enough to do so, so I have mainly remained an invisible participant, but I would like to know your thoughts on WHY you think there has been a decline in the Canon forum and will this be the way things will be in the future. I really hope not because I have learned so much from this forum specifically.<br>

Thank you for your thoughts and opinions.<br>

Brian Blattner</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As far as I can see this is a general Photonet phenomenon, classic manual cameras possibly excepted. What is left for us all to talk about? Lots happening elsewhere on the web. Most of the questions have been asked. We're still here, but just listening rather than talking. I think there is something to what you say about everyone now being an expert.</p>
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tastes change, the internet as pure entertainment has evolved astronomically and people move on to more exciting things like social media, hookups, shopping, porn and video. Typing sentences in little boxes on a cyber bulletin board is pretty dad burn old skool for people used to IM and texting. If anything, YouTube and FB shallowed up most of the casual internet traffic during the last 5 years. Many younger folk were raised on closed networking sites like FB and no longer visit websites or know how to Google, setup an email app or save a bookmark.</p>

<p>Most forums I visit have seen a significant slowdown in participation but there are a few photo forums that are a lot more active than here.</p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There is a big cultural shift that has happened, especially with the ease of posting photos on the web. When photo.net started, it was much harder to get digital photos - most people shot film and many didn't scan - and it was much harder to upload. The new generation that grew up with the internet has far more interest in photos than talking about photography. Sites like flickr, Facebook, Instagram and Tumblr are far more attractive to younger people for whom photography is integrated into their daily lives rather than being something to discuss endlessly. The photo.net forum population has aged and tends to live by past modes of operation, i.e., talking about photography.</p>

<p>While that has impacted the forums, photo.net has an active community who do post photos, and if you look at the newsletters, you will see that there is a lot going on here beyond the forums. There are new people posting images and commenting on other people's images, which contribute to a growing community interested in showing, sharing, and getting comments on their photos. I see this as a positive change, it's more photo-centric, doesn't have endless debates about the same old stuff, and will help to keep photo.net current rather than looking dinosaur-ish, which the forums often do.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You ask some very good questions, and I think you came up with a lot of the reasons why there is less "traffic". It's all of the forums by the way, not just the Canon forum. If it's film related, it's easy to figure out. Less and less people are shooting it. If we're talking digital, the bloom is off the rose now. When digital first came out, everyone was amazed at the quality they could get themselves at home w/ a simple inkjet printer. Even film shooters got into this, as they discovered they could scan and print their film negs w/o a darkroom and the necessary skills that go w/ that. Now, a lot of people have realized that their idea of getting a big, expensive DSLR and shooting lucrative wedding gigs did not happen. Galleries are not hopping to exhibit the work either. Those expensive ads of the handsome young guy (but not TOO young) standing confidently w/ the latest DSLR and white lens hung around his neck were just that. Ads. So if I'm not getting pay gigs, if I'm not getting gallery exhibits and or sales, what the heck am I doing w/ all this really expensive stuff? It's a relevant question. It will probably lead to a thinning out of the herd, and the people that remain enthusiastic will be those who have a passion and a vision? That sounds awful trite though, doesn't it. I suppose that what I mean is that the people that remain enthusiastic will be those who enjoy making images for their own sake. For themselves, irregardless of anything else.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a general trend among forums in general, not just here on Photo.net. In fact, the local hiking forum I have frequented

and moderated for several years is shutting down this week due to a combination of dwindling posts and financial issues.

Much lament was spilled there over the loss of information that would ensue (including from me), but people have shifted

to social media for good or for ill, and we went from hundreds of posts a day to one or two a week since about 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I really hope not <em>[that the posting on this forum are declining]</em> because I have learned so much from this forum specifically.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IF - as you state, your actual concern and premise for posting this question is <strong>that you fear that you have a diminished resource of learning</strong>, then you are looking at the situation the wrong way about.</p>

<p>If you have a photographic question or problem which requires attention, then you should firstly ask: “Are the recent responses and respondents on this forum indicating they are up to the task of assisting me?”</p>

<p>My answer to that is an emphatic: “YES! – all questions presented here draw enthusiastic, credible and helpful comments”</p>

<p>And then secondly, if you agree with my assessment and <strong>if you believe that the participants here can assist your learning, you should post your queries.</strong></p>

<p>WW</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>While that has impacted the forums, photo.net has an active community who do post photos, and if you look at the newsletters, you will see that there is a lot going on here beyond the forums. There are new people posting images and commenting on other people's images, which contribute to a growing community interested in showing, sharing, and getting comments on their photos. I see this as a positive change, it's more photo-centric, doesn't have endless debates about the same old stuff, and will help to keep photo.net current rather than looking dinosaur-ish, which the forums often do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>May be the community is growing, but not in terms of quality of pictures and not on photo.net. (This is off-topic but still...)<br>

Let me demonstrate it. Photo.net stores selections of posted pictures for the last 5 years. Go to "Gallery"->"Browse gallery". Make selection, for example, of 5 year old Landscape photos. You will see 3000 beautiful pictures. Now instead of going "Next page" go to "Previous page" and you will see the last pictures from 3000 selected. Note the rate of the last pictures. Now make selection for the last 1 or two year old posted photos and do the same: look at the last page. Do you see the difference? The rate of the pictures is less and the quality too. (While the rating system is separate topic, but I generally agree with the fairness of it on photo.net)<br>

This is about every category. I checked "Birds", "Fine Art", "Documentary". You name it. For the last years we even have less than 3000 pictures in some categories, while 5 years ago we easily did.</p>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three possible answers:

 

1. Canon cameras are so easy to use that no one has any questions.

 

2. Canon users DID have questions, but they have all been answered. (Just use the Search feature.)

 

3. Everybody shoots with phones now, but Canon doesn't make a phone. So...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would like to thank everyone for their comments. <br>

It is true that I am guilty of the very question that I posted. My personal reason was that I had gotten busy for a while where photography took a backseat to other priorities, and then when I did have some free time I spent it taking pictures instead of contributing to the forum.<br>

When I popped backed into the forum yesterday I was just a bit surprised how quiet things have become. My initial reaction was that I thought the forum would have been more active than when I was involved a couple of years ago because of the popularity of digital photography today, but many of your responses explain the drop-off along with some of my initial thoughts as well.<br>

Thanks again for your thoughts, and especially for your participation with forums like this. I really owe a big part of what I have learned with photography to the members of this forum that have so kindly given of their time and knowledge. It is truly appreciated!<br>

Brian Blattner</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Ed writes, "I'm put off uploading pictures to this site because of the antiquated file size and pixel size limits, which seem like they haven't changed since the mid-90s."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, it's a lot easier to post images elsewhere, control how they're presented and make them much larger if you want. </p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Facebook is surely a factor. There are a LOT of photonetters on Facebook these days. </p>

</blockquote>

 

It's less that photonetters on it than that almost everyone is on it. The last statistic was that 3000 photos were uploaded to Facebook every second. This is not about "bloom off the rose" or anything like that. It's about how people relate to photography and where they are uploading photos. It's a big challenge, but there is definitely an opportunity, not on the forum side, but on the photo gallery side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When you upload to FB, they compresses the hell out of your images. Smooth gradients become stepped, noise appears everywhere, contrast lowers and it basically looks like crap. B&W seems to survive FB compression the best. Of course, I'm among the few that care. Most FB images are taken by drunks shooting their dinner or grinning mugs with a smartphone at arm's length. These are already so blurry and noisy the extra compression doesn't matter.</p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Most FB images are taken by drunks shooting their dinner or grinning mugs with a smartphone at arm's length.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I see hundreds, if not thousands, of photos a week on Facebook. I see a few of those, but very few. I see a lot of photos by some very impressive photographers. But I'm not one of those people who feels it necessary to knock things strictly for technical reasons, and I do actually look at the photos rather than just slam them.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff I'm so glad you are not one of "those" people. I assumed my usual sarcasm would be taken as dry humor by most here. I'm sorry if it made light of your FB friends. Nevertheless I'm confident the masses of iPhone and hashtag obsessed clickers will greatly appreciate your defense of both their art and technique. However, I would like to make it clear I have nothing against drunks or food and, in fact, I embrace both drunks and ono grinds each and every day at happy hour. With hundreds, if not thousands of images to view weekly on FB, I suspect you have a lot more photographers on your friend list than I (I have exactly 6).</p>

<p>FB mug of yours truly taken by a one armed power lifter photog (she braced herself on the tabletop):</p>

<p><img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/387359_2581561895991_928943843_n.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="671" /></p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I'm put off uploading pictures to this site because of the antiquated file size and pixel size limits, which seem like they haven't changed since the mid-90s.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of the gallery space, what Ed says here resonates with me a great deal.</p>

<p>It applies to the boards too - in 2013, do we <em>really </em>need a 700px image size limit? In the Nature forum, a weekly POTW-style thread has been started. I shoot birds, and initially was quite enthusiastic about the idea. Now, by its third week, I'm done with it, because if the point of the thread is to showcase interesting wildlife imagery, you simply can't do that with a postage-stamp sized picture.</p>

<p>I'd thought about PMing Jeff Spirer, who moderates the (currently rather moribund) sport forum - I shoot motor sports, rugby and football (all right - soccer) too, and initially thought that a simliar thread might serve to lively up that forum, but I've realised that the same problem will exist there, so I haven't bothered.</p>

<p>More generally (and note that I'm a subscriber to the idea that content is more important than style) there's no question that this site really looks and feels dated - I'm sure that will put people off. A white background and black serif font (I <em>hate</em> serif fonts!) makes it look like the very first thing I ever "successfully" popped out of Frontpage Express in the mid '90s.</p>

<p>It's pretty well accepted that images look better against a dark background: this is a photography site, so - <em>y'know...</em></p>

<p><em>For all that though</em>: PN is the photography site I visit most, and by a large margin, because it's <em>not </em>a site which gives you the sense that anything to get visits is fair game: no (or very few) asinine rumour threads; the sometimes passionate discussions about gear rarely - thankfully - descend into outright fanboyism; and some immensely knowledgeable people out there will always help you when you're stuck.</p>

<p>I've been a member here since 2005 and for much of that time was not particularly active; but now, as I say, it's pretty much the only photography site that gets my time.</p>

<p>Since 2005 I have started precisely <strong><em>one </em></strong>thread, but I've contributed (for better or worse) to a good few; and although my post up the page was really just a bit of gentle teasing, it's also The Answer to the OP's question.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Canon FD forum has been like this for years but that is understandable considering it has been almost 20 years since anything new was released.I'm surprized they still get quite a few posts and retain many dedicated followers (like me).EOS film stuff died off rapidly about five years ago as film in general went into decline.The only connection I can make with the digital form decline is that the world economy is in a bad way and very few people are buying much of anything considered high end and many low end DSLR shooters have little interest in techinical forums like this."If" and when the economy should bounce back I would think many users will upgrade and the new posts will follow.The main problem with digital will be there probably will never be a 'classic' old equipment following and the forum must always thrive on fairly state of the art equipment.I read very few posts on anything older than 5 - 7 years where over on the FD forum they still chat about equipment guys purchased at the PX during the Vietnam War.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"however, I am quite surprised at the lack of posts in the Canon forum from the last time I visited the forum."</em></p>

<p>You might have not been keeping up. The Canon EOS forum is still one of the hottest threads on PN. It could be because whatever has been said has been said...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...