Rob Galibraith Forums online - sort of.

[jim_larson1]

The Rob Galibraith forums are back up.

 

BUT. . .next week they will go behind a subscription firewall. If

you don't cough up $25, the forum will be inaccessible.

 

Copy your favorite posts off this forum while you still can.

[Jeremy Stein]

You might think about the fact that the same economic forces that have caused this change at Rob Galbraith are active here. If an insufficient number of people subscribe to photo.net (a subscription site, BTW!), then maybe this site would disappear or go the same way also. Consider carefully whether this site and its answers and its photo display facilities are worth a lousy $25/year to you - all of you!

 

I do not speak for management here, but I suspect that this site is not all that far from needing to do something similar, or even just vanishing.

[phoneguy]

Yeah, it's always nice to see the "Prolific" Icon without a membership next to it.

[dglickstein]

I too am interestined in how someone, who hasn't paid for membership, gets the prolific icon. Sure, they post a lot, but...

 

Maybe a forum moderator can explain. Thank you in advance.

 

dG

[phule]

http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons/

[dglickstein]

"Members with the prolific poster icon are just that: prolific."

 

You are right, it doesn't say PAYING members, just members.

 

I certainly understand: when I click on Mr. Larson, it shows 3,299 total posts--I'd say that's definately prolific.

 

Thank you for making it clear.

 

dG

[phoneguy]

You can just sit around and post photos to W/NW to become prolific. Does that mean you're prolific?

 

People need to get off their a$$es, and cough up the $25. It's that simple. It would be nice to see PN not end up like the RG group.

 

Mike

[lovcom_photo]

Why should it bother anyone to see a prolific poster not pay? Big deal. It's not your problem...it's up to the management of PN to determine and enforce policy, and if they allow it, why should any of us complain?

 

I'm a paying member, and to see "prolific" members not pay is no concern of mine.

[jim_larson1]

Prolific. Non-Subscribing.

Yup. That's me.

 

You are certainly free to make your own judgments regarding my status. I do not object. My record speaks for itself.

 

* * * * * *

 

We can also discuss various moral and ethical implications of online posting and online subscription. . . .there is more than one legitmate viewpoint on this issue. Such a discussion, however may be slightly off topic in this particular forum. (note that there is a forum discussing this point at the moment at Rob Galibraith).

 

* * * * * * * *

 

The intent of this thread, however, was to highlight an item of news interest to Canon EOS users.

 

A number of threads in *this forum* have links to information in the Rob Galibraith forum. Particularly since Chuck Westfall, a head Canon Technical expert (not a user -> a paid Canon employee posting as a paid Canon employee) posts regularly on that forum. Many of his posts are of direct interest to this community.

[peter_white2]

There will be no firewall, except perhaps for new posts. But old postings, from before the sale, will be available for viewing by anybody. The $25 fee will be for people who want to post, and probably for people who want to read new postings, but that isn't clear. The exact wording is that they will "enable public viewing of the historical content".

[jim_larson1]

Hmmmm. My understanding from reading RG forum last night and this morning is different from the announcement currently posted. I suspect (based upon the general uproar on that board) was that there has been a change of plan.

[digitmstr]

>>We can also discuss various moral and ethical implications of online posting and online subscription...<<

 

There is/are no implication(s).

 

You either want to support the COSTS of running this forum or you don't.

 

Simple...

[bbond]

First of all, I don't meant to flame the site or it's members.

 

I was going to pay for a real membership, but decided to wait a bit while I tried it out to see how I liked it. The quality of work and photographers at this particular site is, for the most part, top notch and obviously so. However, the quality of the site itself and it's functionality is not. Take this forum for example. If I was to pay money for a membership to any website, I would expect a much higher quality forum. Good ones can be found for free all over the place. Don't get me wrong, the information in the forum is, again, top notch and very helpful. It's been an invaluable resource for me, a beginning photographer, but the functionality is severely lacking.

 

Another turn off is the rating and ctitique system. There's a lot to be said about it and I guess those complaints have all been said many times in other parts of the forum so I won't bother repeating them. However, I would like to say that this has been the main source of my waning interest in posting images to this site. As a true beginner I expected helpful comments and critiques from some of the great photographers here. I got none. Very disappointing considering I could've really used the help (still could actually). Unfortunately, if you're not an established photo.net photog or part of the "clique" it's difficult to break in.

 

Bottom line...why pay for poor functionality and no advice when I can get the info in the forums for free?

[phoneguy]

Dan, Point taken. I agree it's not really my problem.

 

Giampi, Ditto. Either you want to help out in defraying the costs or you don't.

 

Benjamin. I even agree with your statements. Technically this site is lacking big time. But if everyone's "record stood for itself" the site would have absolutely no money, and the information you have taken from this site, is still cheaper at $25, than one photo book at B&N, or other bookstores. You still reaped benefits that have value.

 

Ultimately, I think Dan has the right idea (managements call). Either you want to "financially" support PN, or you can ride on the high ground and say "my contributions" pay my membership. Unfortunately contributions don't pay the bills. I hope it' enough.

 

Mike

[lovcom_photo]

Benjamin, I would not take it personal, that your requests for critiques are ignored. Nor would I have much of an expectation that someone will look and judge my work. If it happens, it happens. I support this site primarily because I uploaded 1,000+ images and so I want to do something to defer the cost of disk space, and so $25 is not a big deal. The other reason I pay is because I like this site and I don't want it to go away.

 

Ben you are right...the forum software PN uses is cr@p and I wish they would make it work better like dpreview.com for example...they have an excellent way of organizing postings, responses, threads, etc.

 

Bob Atkins, when are you boys going to upgrade PN's sucky forum/thread management software? We all love you, and mostly support the site, so lets do get it on, sir.

[fourfa]

there is lots of archived info on why the forums are like they are. short answer - they're old servers running antique code, and no budget or fundamental desire to update.

[dglickstein]

Mr. Larson,

 

I agree with you. I was only asking for my information. And, we should thank you for spending a great deal of time adding your knowledge to this website: thank you.

 

However, I will say, Photo.net will not get another year's subscription from me again because it's not necessary.

 

dG

[bbond]

@Mike: I do have books and other online resources that make their money from advertising as I assume this site does as well. The problem is that a book can't give me critique/suggestions on specific images and my own technique. I'm not relying on this site completely for that, but something/anything would've been nice.

 

@Dan: I don't necessarily take it personally, but as far as stimulus/response goes if I can't get feedback, I have to go elsewhere. I'd assume others would do the same. I wouldn't think this site is going away, but I could see it dwindling to the more hardcore users (good news: even better percentage of great images).

 

@Andy: the fundamental desire should be traffic. Trust me, there are less obvious benefits to the owners of this site. For a photographer, running a site like this can look real nice on a resume/portfolio especially when it attracts the quality of work that this one does.

 

Unfortunately, the more people that become disinterested with the site means fewer click-thrus which means less revenue. The older the code gets, the less attractive the site becomes as a resource. As a web developer I can say with some confidence that an upgrade wouldn't be as difficult as it may appear and hosting/space is only getting cheaper.

[les]

Well, my opinion may be singular, but:

 

1) I am quite happy with the form and shape of the forum. If it is not broken - do not fix it. I do not need flashy features, I need this forum for its contents. Unfortunately - many people confuse the packaging with the contents. The packaging is totally unimportant to me - YMMV.

 

2) Considering the prices of photo equipment and the amount of money a lot of people spend on it - $25 is a measly sum to support a really valuable site like Photo.Net. If someone can afford 1D or 1Ds or 5D + a number of good lenses - then let's be serious: $25 is not going to ruin you. What really pisses me off is an attitude of many people (my own kids included, and I am not targeting any particular contribution in this thread, so stay cool) - that something for nothing is OK. Hooking up to the Internet seems to be a solution to all problems for many people - except that information has to be generated by someone, sites have to be maintained, bandwidth to be paid for.

If you benefit - you may as well contribute. This site has a very generous policy, but also very low prices of membership. Let's keep it afloat.

 

End of sermon.

[wayne_larmon]

<ul><em>You might think about the fact that the same economic forces that have caused this change at Rob Galbraith are active here. If an insufficient number of people subscribe to photo.net (a subscription site, BTW!), then maybe this site would disappear or go the same way also.</em></ul>

 

<p>This scared me enough that I just went straight to the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photonet-subscriptions?src=foot">Subscribe</a> page and paid my $25. A small price to pay....