New Gallery Feature: Send a photo.net eCard

[guyscrivner]

Sorry, you will have to cut and paste my Click Here links. For some reason they do not work.

[bens]

Excerpts from "About Us" --

 

"From its inception, the site has aimed to be a "photography learning community", in which more experienced photographers, both avid amateurs and professional, provide mutual support, as well as being a resource for those interested in learning about photography. Since the site has been in existence since 1995, it is common to find contributors on the site who are now experts but who first visited the site years ago to ask beginner questions."

 

"The audience consists of photography enthusiasts and would-be enthusiasts, but with a significant number of semi-professionals and professionals. In recent years, with the growth in digital photography, there has been a substantial increase in novices visiting the site to use it as a learning resource. The audience is predominantly (80%) male. Although the audience is drawn from the entire world, especially contributors in the Gallery section, it is is predominantly American."

[darrell_m]

Brian, right from the top you state it was an idea you came up with yesterday.

There's a photo I took yesterday which I think is my best ever but by the end

of next week I'll probably be wondering what exactly I saw in it. The ecard

is an idea with some merit but the more I think about it and the more I read

on this thread the less I like it. Now, whilst appreciating you are a busy man,

I wonder if you could address the following concerns<br>

1: The entire database of photos are currently displayed in a way the contributers

did not expect when they uploaded their images. I'll be delicate here and say

i find this somewhat troubling. Others may be a bit more pissed off about it. How do you feel?<br>

2: The opt-out option. Does it exist as a feasible option? I think a simple

yes/no/i don't know at the moment/ answer will do it for me here, as opposed

to a answer questioning whether we want the traffic or not.<br>

3: Do you acknowledge that the ecard offers avenues of abuse which were highly

unlikely to have been exploited before?<br>

</p>

<p>If the 1st point troubles you it presents an opportunity to withdraw the ecard

for now and further consult members, other elves, family, friends and so on.

As you say, it was a spontaneous idea and perhaps you have implemented the idea

rather too quickly. I don't know. With some thought and consultation it may

greatly enhance PN but as it is it doesn't work. Even if my concerns and the

concerns of other people on this thread are ill-founded you are at least now

aware that these concerns exist and might lead to some contributers withdrawing

works from the site. Surely not the result you wanted for your good intentions.<br>

</p>

<p>Finally, inspired by Guy, I sent myself this rather lovely ecard, just to see

how well it worked. As you will see Brian, the quality of the photo is greatly

diminished, as is the quality of the site if you carry your plan through in

its current incarnation.</p>

 

[ Link to ecard removed. Those URL's are intended for the recipient of the ecard, and the ecards URL's are only valid for a few days or until the recipient has seen the message. I don't want Google robots indexing ecards. So, don't post links to ecards. -- BM]

[mottershead]

I will implement an opt-out feature for subscribers.

 

The quid-pro-quo on this site is that people upload photos for critique, rating, sharing, and public exhibition, and this is paid for by advertising, for which we need visitors and traffic. If you want your photos on the site, using our bandwidth, servers, sys admin staff (me), etc, you have to let us try to drive traffic to those photos and to the site generally so that we can display ads and pay for that bandwidth, etc. That covers whatever traffic-generation mechanisms we come up with, including eCards. You don't get to opt out, and you don't get to pick and choose which features of the site your photos will be involved in. If you don't want your photo on the site, don't upload it. If you aren't a subscriber, and you do upload photos, you don't get to attach a lot of strings to how they will be featured on the site.

 

However, subscribers pay for their bandwidth, etc, through an annual subscription fee. This is why we do not show ads on the photos of subscribers, and why we don't show ads on Gallery photos and portfolios to visitors who are logged-in subscribers. eCards, as they have been implemented, are a mechanism for emailing links to photos, accompanied by a message, packaged in a way that makes it easy and gives people a motivation for doing so. Specifically, it ties into the somewhat bizarre social convention of "sending a greeting card". I don't see why someone who has posted photos on this site would not want to facilitate mailing links to the photo, but I guess it is a case of giving the customers what they want. So, there will be an opt-out for subscribers, which will allow them to restore the status quo ante of no ecards for their photos.

[bens]

Thank you Brian, VERY much appreciated. Your responsiveness and understanding encourages me to help the site succeed as much as ever (for better or worse perhaps!).

[working camera]

What's all the fuss about.

 

From how I read it. No one is sending any pictures anywhere. They remain at photo.net. Sleep well in the knowledge that your precious imagery is still snuggly nestled away in their folders at PN and not roaming the streets of cyberspace unsupervised. The "e-card" is just an additional link device and changes nothing really.

 

If policing the intellectual property of your images is an overriding concern to you, then do not (I repeat do not) publish them on the web. If you are concerned that your images may be "stolen" then post up with a copyright notice across the image area. It looks ugly and nobody will want to view your work but it does have less chance of being stolen... or alternatively the best security is simply don't post photos into the public domain at all.

 

Photo Net is part of the public domain. The public can freely visit the site and view images having arrived here via search engines with links to PN. It is in PN's interests and by extrapolation member's interests also for more people to visit the site. At least the e-card concept is an internally monitored process so it comes with a degree of control.

 

If you do not want people looking at your images it begs the question of why post them up to a public site, particularly one that has the through volume of this place.

 

I would have thought that it is not in the interests of PN to pass on personal information. If they did it would kill the site pronto. People would leave in droves.

 

Relax and enjoy the new feature.

 

C.

[darrell_m]

Hi Craig,<br>

glad you posted cos it led me to your portfolio, which is excellent. I will

be back there to comment later. I agree, the photos are already online and ripe

for abuse and, seeing the old format, I opted to take the risk. However I think

the ecard introduces a new aspect. It encourages <i>non-photographic </i>participation

on the site and my fear is that the new non-photographic participants are far

less likely to share the concerns for copyright that the photographic community

will. I could be wrong but if I'm not....<br>

A further concern is the quality of the reproduced image. Click on the link

in my earlier posting to see what I mean. The quality is painfully diminished.

Better still, send yourself an ecard of your own Portrait of Eliza, a heart-stoppingingly

beautiful image. See what happens to the quality of that photo and then come

back and tell me you are satisfied with this quickly conceived and executed

idea. Imagine someone sending said image to whoever they want with their own

text added to it and photonets logo at the top of the page and suddenly it might

not seem like such a good idea to you.<br>

Brian, thank you for your further thought. I hope all opt-outs can be retrospective.

Also, I wonder if it wouldn't be best to apply the ecard only for images uploaded

as of today. There will be many photographers who infrequently check their portfolios

and so will not be aware of the new context in which they are being displayed.

[davidmccracken]

Brian, <i>"I discovered that most eCard sites are pretty cheesy."</i><br><br>Isn't this making photo.net cheesy?

[darrell_m]

er...sorry Craig, you can't click on the link from my earlier posting as Brian has removed it. Shame really, cos it did ilustrate my point quite well.

[mottershead]

I don't think the photo.net eCards are cheesy. I think they are nice, even if I do say so myself, since I designed them. Except for a different header, they look very similar to the regular photo page, which I also designed. The main difference is that the personal message is displayed instead of the regular Critique discussion, and the links are somewhat different.

 

Thinking less of photo.net, or of the eCards, because someone can potentially write something vulgar about a photo in a private message is like thinking less of the New York Times because some people use it to line their cat box.

 

You can't control other people to that extent, and if it were important to me to control other people, a community web site where anybody on the Internet can post is not the place I would be trying it.

[laurie_m]

Darrell, I sent myself an e-card. All it did was send a link that when clicked took me to the photo on PN. It appeared to be the same thing anyone would see that clicked on my photo from my gallery. I don't see how the quality would be diminished. Perhaps I'm missing something.

[mottershead]

Laurie,I don't think Darrell was talking about the quality of the image in the eCard. It is the same image.

 

What Darell posted was a link to an eCard that he sent to himself. It was a photo of statuesque nude girl. As an example, Darrell's message was a series of crude remarks about her anatomy.

 

Darell is concerned that people will write vulgar things in eCards about the photos, and that this will diminish the photos and the site. He seems concerned that by allowing the links to the photos to be sent with private messages (i.e. "eCards"), he loses control over how the photo is presented to people, and surrenders that control to whoever chooses to send an eCard.

 

I don't think it is possible to have this level of control over what other people do. To me, it seems like an artist hanging around in the museum where his work is exhibited, listening to the comemnts, and trying to have ejected anybody who says anything vulgar about his work, on the grounds that the vulgar commenter is framing the work instead of him. The only way you can maintain that level of "control" over an image is to keep it in the back of your closet in a shoebox.

[darrell_m]

the ecard i sent myself linked back to an image about half the size of normal,

horribly compressed, and just plain poor. Damn, it was sad. i hope no-one sends

ecard links to my photos as they are already bad enough without this added handicap.</p>

<p>perhaps brian, it would be ok to allow me to repost the earlier link. Delete

it in 24hrs before google and other search spiders pick it up, but leaving it

up long enough for other pn'ers to see my point whilst the thread is topical..<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ecard?ecard_id=248B5996517D1DBF023A90817DB1D57D">http://www.photo.net/photodb/ecard?ecard_id=248B5996517D1DBF023A90817DB1D57D</a>

(forgive the cheek)

[mottershead]

Darrell, the image is the same as one sees by default on the photo page. If one normally sees the "medium" view (i.e. the version that has been resized by photo.net), then that is what one will see in the ecard. If the "large" view (i.e. the original) is what one normally gets, because it was already a reasonable size for web display, then that is what is displayed for the ecard.

 

The only difference is that I thought with the ecards that they should be sized so that no scrolling of the photo would be required on a typical monitor. So the HTML code specifies them to fit in a 512 pixel square. If the normal view is bigger than that, then the browser is going to resize them on the monitor. Some browsers don't do a good job of interpolating. Other browsers do fine. I didn't notice with the ecard that you posted that there was any degradation in Firefox. If you have a different browser, there might have been a problem.

 

You can't control what people will write in an ecard message. Another thing you can't control is what browser people will use.

[darrell_m]

I'm a sad microsoft IE6 user, automatic resize turned off, monitor 768 x 1024 and the image was squashed to bits on my screen. Brian, maybe you should test the ecard on several monitors before fully implementing it. I can't help but think again that the idea has been hurried into.

[davidmccracken]

I do think Darrel has a point. You don't even have to be logged in to send an e-card. If you go to the community pages it is pointed out to you that there are probably more visitors to p.n online at any given time than registered members. Non registered visitors are requested to leave their own email address before sending an e-card but that could be made up.

 

I wonder if anyone else agrees with Darrel.

 

I do get the feeling that this is a cheap way of attracing people to P.N. and will attract the kind of attention that no one wants. Time will tell.

[darrell_m]

hi David. There have been a few people expressing concerns in this thread.

Much to his credit Brian quickly addressed them and has said he will make a

change to the ecard as it currently is. however, I am suprised that more people

aren't protesting. Although the addition of an ecard is not an enormous change

it is still quite significant and I would have expected the masses to come storming

the barricades. That they haven't suggests somewhat that Brian and others could

be right in thinking it will prove a popular innovation. We should know within

the next day or so whether a sh**storm of protest is brewing. I've gotta go

to sleep now but hopefully David you will pick up the fight for me, and twist

more concessions from the evil, all powerful Mr. Mottershead.<br>

brian-this particular artist is not lingering in the gallery waiting to pounce

on his critics. He's at home, comforted by the thought that if barbarians start

writing all over the note left beside his work, the museum guard will intervene

to stop them. He'd only be worried on hearing the guard simply gave them a bigger

pen. Also you haven't really addressed concern 1 from my earlier post.

[kslonaker]

I like it - I like sending e-cards and what better than to use my own! When you send the card, it does have your name and copyright, so I don't see the problem. I've had my images all over the Web and didn't give permission to most. However, I make sure I post only low-resolution images to try to limit anyone actually printing my pictures.

[working camera]

Darrel Sincere thanks for kind words re my PN folio. The reality is I'm an average photographer and produce little beyond stock level of imagery. Much I have posted up here are snaps I've taken along the way. That may sound self-effacing but I do know quite a few real photographers across a number of genre. So I can't kid myself that I am not that which I'm not.

 

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me how precious folk can be about their photography around here. This attitude greatly inhibits a primary function of this site, ie. a valid discussion over photography in general and the works offered for viewing within PN. The only places at PN I see honest (sometimes brutal) open discussion are the W/NW threads at the Leica and Street Documentary forums. That's one of the reasons I support this format for those forums. They generate vigorous debate between serious practitioners of the medium. That is supposed to occur right across the site but is stifled through folk being way too precious IMO.

 

To control of quality issues, I haven't been working for the past year but you should see how poorly some of my former clients have treated my imagery.

 

http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/

 

Quite a few of the pics at this site are my stuff. Once an image is realised into the public domain it takes on a new life. The imagery developes an identity all its own. As others interpret it for their own purposes and through their own eyes, the author of the image relinquishes a degree of control. That's part of the image making process. I would encourage others to let go their imagery and have it live.

 

C.

[working camera]

Sorry, that's Darrell of course.

 

C.

[DuncanBowers]

Laurie, in case that was a dig, as we English say: Dont take the P***

[WJT]

Now I'm sure the following ideastream would only become manifest in the minds of the most minuscule and minor number of PN vistors:<p>

"Hey lookie there Butthead, what a <i>great</i> non-idea! I can send hundreds, no thousands, of links of my very fav PN pix ANONYMOUSLY to whomever I choose while appending all manner of juicy BS to them with total impunity. Oh Joy and Rapture!"<p>

Yeah...way to go Brian old buddy. This constitutes a significant change to this site, and a significant change to what I agreed when I first became a PhotoNet patron.

[charodiez]

Another one who would rather have the "right" to decide whether to have this option activated or not; and that the photographer is the only one who can choose to have this new facility implemented for their images.

 

Brian, if you finally implement the "opt-out" facility, will this be applied only to the future uploads? What will happen to all the images we currently have in our portfolios?

 

By the way, I fully agree with Ben S� comments.

[pjmeade]

Brian, I think it's a great idea.

 

Of course, you may have to set up a new category for cheesey ecard shots! ! !

[salvatore.mele]

I often send links to my photo.net shots to my aquiantances, and I like a lot the idea of doing it in a nice way with a personal message through the eCard feature. Another great idea of Brian's: thanks!

 

Should someone else use my photos, what the h**l, they can cut and paste a link anyhow, so I do not care. That's the internet after all.

 

However, I would love the possibility of being able to send the LARGE version, though, and not the resized one.

 

Could we arrange things such that if the "send as eCard" button were pushed while viewing the LARGE version, the eCard is generated with the LARGE version without resizing to the medium one? This I would really see as a great bonus.