Sad demise of Photo.net

[arnabbanerjee]

Is it only me? or may be not...

 

I am a longtime member of this community, but for last 1 year or so, I am

watching the quality of this site has degraded significantly. Look at the top

photos, look at the discussions in POW - some of the best photographers dont

even post their photos anymore. The discussion forums are less informative and

not thought provoking - top rated photos are either too fabricated, over-PSed

and mostly ordinary (a few good photos still getting posted - but very few of

them are here and many of those not getting good ratings from those random

raters)

 

This site, IMO, is becoming a more casual amateur's site - from a serious

amateur-pro site. I feel sad, but can't do anything about it.

 

May be I am completely wrong - I hope I am..

[emre]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0004xz">What happened to photo.net?</a> (Nov 6, 1997)

[jautey]

Sort of hard to go from 'non user' to 'serious amateur' with out the 'casual amateur' step ain't it?

 

Relax, soon todays 'casual amateurs' will graduate to the 'serious amateur' status and begin complaining about Photo.net devolving into a 'casual amateur' site.

[jim_e.]

I'm going to do my part to make it better by being less sarcastic and cynical. I think what your seeing is the gap narrowing between beginners and pros. Digital has leveled the playing field somewhat. Sort of like the saying "God made man, and Colt made him equal". Something like that. Good photography, has become ordinary. Now the challenge is to make great photographs.

[tholte]

Emre, that is truly a classic! The more things change, the more they stay the same. Jim, "I think what your seeing is the gap narrowing between beginners and pros." I think just the opposite. Give a newbie a 16 MP camera and most of the image will be still be crap, give a pro a $6 dollar disposable and the photos will sing.

[leopoldstotch]

Heck, while we're on the subject of ye olde photo.net, check <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001222041100/www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=23">This</a> out.

[joshroot]

I've been hanging out here for 9 years now. And believe me when I say that photo.net goes through cycles, just like most everything in the world. And, in large part, the overall tone and quality has been about the same.

 

Keep in mind that as digital camera prices have dropped (particularly DSLR's) over the past few years, a huge number of people have become digital photographers. Many who had done very little photography prior to getting their new gadgets.

 

These people are beginners or slightly advanced beginners. They are going to have beginner questions, make beginner mistakes, and post beginner images. We all were there once and we all were glad that we had people willing to help us.

[jgalyon]

Since I've only been a member for 6 months it is obviously impossible for me to comment on what the site "used to be". I spent the first 3 months bitching about the rating system...and on occassion ...bitch a little now...like.......this week. But generally my experience is becoming more and more positive. I've met some incredibly good people...which is the most important thing...and the fact that many of them are pretty damned good photographers is the icing on the cake. This site reminds me of raising my three children. Regardless of how much effort you put into teaching them how to be good human beings...no matter how much reward for good behavior and discipline for the bad...in the end THEY have the most to do with how they try to live their adult lives. We can only do our best as individuals to make positive contributions to this site...and the rest is beyond our control. If photo.net evolves into something we can't live with...unlike children, we're not linked by blood...so we can simply leave in good conscience and try the grass on the other side of the fence. I love what Jim E. said: "I'm going to do my part to make it better by being less sarcastic and cynical."

[markci]

Yes, a classic. Apparently my radical suggestion of instituting user registration didn't change anything. The site has been on the verge of collapse for a decade now.

[yann1]

Over rated photos, maybe. Cynical answers, maybe. Amateur site... Photo.net is mostly made by us, the users, we criticize (or not) we rate (or not), and we post our photos. I visited another website 2 days ago, and I was surprised to receive constructive feedback 10 minutes after posting a photo, never been there before, and I remain anonymous since it's the policy of that site when you're a new member. Is that site better than photo.net ? No, but the users are more active and they have more things to say than "great", "terrific" etc. Amateurs (like me)want feedback to improve, poor photographers here don't receive any feedback by the users who are afraid to receive some negative comments after that, as a result, excellent photographs receive more than 20 comments like "terrific" and 30 or more 6/6... What for ? Is that what you want Photo.net to be ? A site of great photographers who compliment themselves for the great work they do, or a site that provides information, help, and constructive criticism ? If I were a great photographer, I wouldn't bother to ask to be rated. I thought photo.net was made for people who wanted to improve.

You think the photos aren't good enough, leave a comment and give the reason for your low rating, improvement will follow.

[conrad_hoffman]

I think there's been a decline in quantity and quality of posts, but that's because I mostly read the b&w film and printing areas. Also, it's always been the case that things slow down dramatically during the summer. Probably more students keep the board active the rest of the year. Since I went digital three years ago I've shot zero film and become much less active in the hobbyist sense, yet I produce more commercially usable images than I ever did with film.

[phule]

The only thing in decline is the quality of the "photo.net is in decline" posts. I say we all do our part and make sure we encourage the "abandon all hope" types to really put their hearts into their next post.

 

 

Also, perhaps people should lighten up a bit.

[ronda_ivy]

I am new to photo.net. I posted some photos today and got responses today. Maybe some of you older members need to "take what you like and leave the rest." I do agree with what one member said, some of the photographs are becoming paintings because of the over use of photo shop. That is my opinion. Dorothea Lange didn't want anyone to "butcher" her work with any manipulation. That is about the way I feel. My photogrpahy is reality. What you see is what you get. Granted I may lighten a photo up, but that is about it. I am a highschool art teacher - 17 years, so I look at my photography as pure art. Some of the work on this website is too manipulated. Already today I have learned several things from my responders.

[raysgallery]

I'm new to photo.net & photography. I like this site a lot, but even I get tired of people asking, how do you press the shutter button is stead of reading their manual.

[jp.pfister]

Yes, I am that amateur. When I found Photo.net I was like a kid in a candy store, I started reading all the pages, enjoying the photos and soaking up all the knowledge. This site is amazing, I LOVE photography and this site brings together artists from all over the world to share art, information and ideas.

 

The only thing that makes me sad about this site is wasting my time reading and replying to pointless threads like this. On a good note, for every bad one, there are plenty wise, optimistic replies.

[colin carron]

'Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated' - Mark Twain

[steve_dawson1]

"The only thing that makes me sad about this site is wasting my time reading and replying to pointless threads like this..."

 

Well one thing that is wrong with this site is the constant assumption by some posters that it is somehow imcumbent upon them to provide a judgment on the original post, and, at the same time, whine to us all about how weary this makes them. If you think it's wasting your time - don't take part. If you have an answer to the original question, or a useful comment, provide it. These value judgments on the questions of others are a waste of space.

[david_henderson]

I must say I'd love to see some numbers on traffic and forum posts over recent years - I've been around a while too and things seem slow to me. Can't speak for the gallery since I rarely go there, but without having anything solid to back it up, I'm concerned that the forums are less active.

 

There has always been a drift of contributors -including "names" away from Photo.net sometimes quietly, sometimes with a bang in response to specific events, but the wheel has always kept turning because in general the numbers and overall activity level on the site have kept rising. Is that still happening?

[gary_watson]

I'm coming up on 10 years and still enjoy it. I don't post photos and don't comment on others' work--seems fair.Both the civility and bombast quotients are down, making PN in some regards boring and trivial--repetitive questions, superficial knowledge, and trolls are ongoing problems.The collegiality and fun have faded but, as noted, such things follow cyclical patterns. Generally, though, the competitive dimensions introduced with the image ratings scheme have fouled the waters. But then everything from cooking to weight loss to breast augmentation to home renos is now the subject of contest-style TV programming.That's the gestalt we're stuck with/in at present...

[david_babow]

For what it is worth, I find that Photo.net has a lot of really good information, you just have to know how to weed out the wheat from the chaff. I worked as a Commercial and Architectural Photographer in the sixties, using primarily Sinar view cameras and Hassys. I sold all of my equipment when I quit and moved to another state to take an Engineering job. I retired from Engineering a little over a year ago and recently decided it was time to re-acquire some good Hassy gear and see if I could renew my long lost love of photography. I spent four straight days reading the almost 4000 forum posts under MEDIUM FORMAT ? HASSELBLAD to refresh my memory of what to do and what not do with those amazing pieces of photo equipment.

 

Granted, there were way too many posts regarding stuck lenses and light-leaky magazines (how about subcategories for these two?) but there was also a lot of great info from folks like Q.G. de Bakker, David Odess and Kornelius J. Fleischer, and many others. I now feel very comfortable taking my Hassy gear on the road in search of memorable and artistic photos.

[jennifer_durand]

I am new member to Photo.net and before I registered I thought long and hard about

joining and using my own name and e-mail address. I was concerned that very few women

contributed to the site and wondered why. I felt unneasy about having my details on the

net and wondered if I would be bombarded by spam. Within a very short space of time I

received an inappropriate e-mail with sexual innuendo from a newly registered male

person on Photo.net. This was a shock I must admit. This person browsed the site and was

able to access my private e-mail address with ease.

 

In spite of the above I decided to formalise my membership with PN for a year. I don't

know what can be done to protect members from abuse and inappropriate e-mails other

than to make paid up membership compulsory in order to contribute and access members

e-mail addresses.

 

I believe that members should be able to choose if their e-mail addresses are given to

third parties. I believe in transparancy and for accountability therefore everyone must give

their personal details to Photo.net in their application. Perhaps a more comprehensive

questionnaire for membership might be appropriate with questions about motivation for

joining Photo.net.

 

Where members want or need to remain anonymous and use a nom de plume this should

be allowed. This may create an environment where women feel more comfortable

conributing. I would like to see more women active on PN but understand their recticence.

 

I would hate this site to close, its a valuable resource for so many photographers of all

ages and levels of experience.

[hjoseph7]

I love this site. I think the quality has improved significantly since 2001 when I first joined. What I don't like about it is the "3.0 Monster Raters" that seem to jump out of the woodwork as soon as you post your photo for critique. Then they got the nerve to give their 'best buddies' a 6.0 or 7.0 for mediocre work. Well that's the thing about photography it's very subjective depending on who your audience is. I'm doing fine selling my pictures, although I admit I need improvement.

[jim_horton]

quote:

"Give a newbie a 16 MP camera and most of the image will be still be crap, give a pro a $6 dollar disposable and the photos will sing."

 

That's true to an extent, but quite a generalization. A newbie with a good DSLR and a bit of PSing can ('can' being the key word, not necessarily 'will always'), in minutes, make a photo technically as good as some pro's average shots. There was another (actually, many) other posts devoted to the discussion of the delta between 'good' and 'great' photos, and the fact is that it's simply easier for a newbie (such as myself) to get technically good--and with a little luck, some editing, and a lot of culling of attempted shots, even artistically good photos. I'm not sure if the gap itself has necessarily widened--but the relative position of the gap has moved upwards.

 

Back in the film days, that wasn't a reality, so the notion that digital photography has leveled the playing field is somewhat valid--yet from some of the better work from the pros I've seen here there is still a long way to go for most newbies (again, including myself) to get work that a random group of pros might call 'very good' or 'great'.

 

But I have an analogy from my fulltime field--software development: Some of the grousing I hear does remind me of what I heard a lot of in the days when windows and visual '4th Generation' programming languages first came out.

 

The old 'gurus'--who would spend all night at a dark DOS screen writing assembly language code just to move a dot on the screen--got really huffy when pre-built libraries of code and drag-and-drop form building enabled a newbie to code an effective, fully functional Windows program in minutes.

 

Sure, a lot of the programs were was bad, because--just like photography--it's more than just the automated/technical stuff that makes your final product good or great. Yet some programs written by newbies were decent enough (just as some newbie photos are) and it really riled the ones who 'paid their dues' that someone would be able to create in two hours what used to take two weeks.

 

Yet as always the cream will still rise to the top and the button-pushers will be separated from the true artists (I think that analogy works for both coding and shooting).

--Jim

[lovcom_photo]

It's not just this site that is degrading. It's all the sites I've lurked in. I think the worse being dpreview dot com.

 

The trend is for more and more people being more amazed at the gear then at the pictures one can make.

 

I'm not sure what the owners of such sites can do about it. Sure they can start more aggressive banning, but even then, they're not likely to ban someone that is polite, talks only gear, and never shots photos.

[see_r]

""Jim, "I think what your seeing is the gap narrowing between beginners and pros." I think just the opposite. Give a newbie a 16 MP camera and most of the image will be still be crap, give a pro a $6 dollar disposable and the photos will sing."""

 

There is some false logic here flawed by overgeneralization and short-sightedness. While this statement may be true for certain extremes, it certainly doesn't hold true for the entire set of photographers. For example, you don't account for natural talent, ie. those 'newbies' who have more talent than many pros ever will have.