I would like to see some photos from people that post.

[geoffs]

I know that its not a prerequisite that one should have photos on photo.net.Many people like to post and reply to

posts in the forum,without having a portfolio and that is their choice.I believe though,that being able to see someones

work,after reading a post from them would convey so much more.

For me it would add another dimension to the posters thoughts, whether they be contentious, or thoughtful and

helpful. I would dearly love to view a few images from such a member.

What do others think.?

 

Geoff

[carbon_dragon]

Having a good portfolio is a heck of a lot of work. I've tried posting a few pictures, but it's not a time priority for me (at least as a non professional). I do post pictures sometimes when I post though.<div></div>

[dave_s]

There was a long discussion on this topic a couple of months ago, but I think it fell off the bottom of the 'Casual Conversations' forum. A number of the photo.net sages are people whose hobby is internet photography forums, as opposed to photography. I don't see any way they can be forced to post their work, and quite honestly I'm not sure there is any work. They are fairly easy to spot.

[Matt Laur]

As much as I think it can be very helpful or telling when you look at a given person's own choices of work that they

think (here, in this context) represent them, the choice by a poster to not show any of their work actually DOES say

a lot about them. Whether they enjoy playing the cypher, or have some commercial reason to avoid showin their

good stuff in low resolution here, or pehaps realize that their photographic skills and insight aren't in step with their

conversational talents... one may have to guess why that work is absent, but it is indeed conspicuosly absent.

<br><br>

Deciding to chime in on conversations while not providing any visual context in a setting where - ultimately - visual

communication is what it's all about... that tells you a fair amount about who's doing the talking. I can understand

some people's urge to be mysterious, but without a very compelling reason to be that way, one is usually left to

conclude that they're far more interested in talking about than practicing the art. Nothing wrong with that, of course,

but it does carry with it a bit of credibility baggage that can weigh down some conversations. To each their own.

[joshroot]

Before this thread turns into another time-waste of a conversation that has already been had multiple times, allow me to state the official photo.net stance on the subject:

 

Photo.net does not require anyone to have a portfolio of work uploaded to photo.net in order to participate in the site or community. There are multiple reasons why someone may not be interested or able to upload work and we respect that. Users without portfolios are not second class citizens in any fashion. Their contributions should be judged on their accuracy and usefulness in the same way that anyone's contributions should be. If a someone is giving you accurate information, it doesn't matter how they came by that information, as long as it is accurate. Likewise, if someone is giving you incorrect information, it doesn't matter if they have 500 excellent photos in their portfolio. After all, their information is still just as inaccurate.

 

This is not a stance that will be changing.

[constance_cook]

Drop in Dave. There a ton of work at my place and in my office. I have no intention of having it batting around the world on the internet.

 

I've been a photographer for 18 years. Ask the movers who moved dozens of crates of photographs (40+) when I moved almost 2 years ago.

 

I have sent prints to PNs I wanted to have them or who had a particular interest in something/somewhere I'd been, or to someone I thought was a friend -- but on the Web? No.

 

I know a lot and share it when I know there isn't someone who considers a type of question "theirs". If it is "theirs", I leave it to them.

 

Everyone who doesn't do it your way is not a liar or a dilettante

.

Conni

[photo_dark]

Well, for starters, I don't feel the return on a photo.net subscription is worth the cost, so my 'portfolio' on here is 5 images that I like, although they are not my best. I feel that being forced to look at hundereds of ads on this site more than justify my usage of it. For me personally, the forums here are a nice deviation from my day job, which is not photography (yet). There are plenty of interesting and talented people here, and the conversations are typically interesting. Further, I typically enjoy trying to help others out, as I wouldn't be where I am now if a few people didn't make the effort they did to help me out when I started. <br/><br/>Photography is, for me, a side career (I make money doing it) and a passion. I've taken thousands and thousands of images in the last 5+ years, and hope someday to make it this living. Currently, there is one place where you can find my portfolio... on my website. Which is not listed here as I don't see any benefit in doing so. My website is for my current and prospective clients, not for other self proclaimed 'professionals' to critique. <br/><br/>Either way, here is one of my favorites from the last two weeks. I make money shooting people, but landscape will always be my passion and why I got into photography in the first place. Happy Canada day! (10 days ago)<br/><br/>

 

<center><img src=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2656367904_d767e1f213_o.jpg /></center>

[hjoseph7]

"I know that its not a prerequisite that one should have photos on photo.net.Many people like to post and reply to posts in the forum,without having a portfolio and that is their choice."

 

Some peple just dont have the sofware or hardware to create an album. I Started posting here on photo.net since 2001, but back then I was shooting film and did not have a scanner. It wasn't until 2006 that I created an album.

[Michael R Freeman]

><i>"Deciding to chime in on conversations while not providing any visual context in a setting where - ultimately - visual communication is what it's all about... that tells you a fair amount about who's doing the talking."</i><P>

 

One of the most highly respected nature photographers on this site (<a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=79334">link</a>) essentially has no portfolio here. And yet his technical knowledge of the Nikon system is probably second to none, his photographic talents are considerable, and when he does post, the content that he provides to a discussion is both very useful and accurate. While he does provide a link to his website on his member page, if he did not that would not make his forum contributions any less valuable.<P>

 

To ignore or discount the forum contributions of a member just because he/she may not have a portfolio here (for whatever reason) would be both foolish and shortsighted.<P>

 

Yes, seeing a members portfolio *may* give some additional context to his/her forum posts. But not always. On the opposite side of the coin, I have see some photographers who have good work shown in their portfolio post consistently inaccurate information in the forums.

[margaret1]

Over six years ago, I found PN. I don't even remeber how. At the time, I did not have a digital and really had no clue as how to go about posting photos. I remember spending nights when I couldn't sleep going through, critiquing, and learning, learning, learning. Then I dropped out for a while. I came back, don't even remember how that came about, and began posting.

 

For me, just looking was such a wonderful place to start. I really had no clue, just what I liked and didn't like. I remember someone e-mailing me and challenging a rating I had given. That made me sit up and take notice at what I was doing.

 

I am probably not the norm, but I am glad I was allowed to come and look. I love PN. I love supporting other photographers and hearing their input, good or otherwise.

 

This is just my slant. Thanks for listening.

[Matt Laur]

<i>To ignore or discount the forum contributions of a member just because he/she may not have a portfolio here (for whatever reason) would be both foolish and shortsighted.</i>

<br><br>

I agree with you Michael. Though I find that more true/meaningful on certain sorts of discussions. On technical matters, one surely doesn't need to see a creative or pleasing portfolio to know (from history) that a given contributor is a source of valid, insightful information. I think that I may be more eager to see some work when someone talks about their uncanny ability to sweet-talk nervous brides into the perfect portrait, or mentions that while someone else's take on a certain style of outdoor lighting is just fine, they get vastly better results because of some special bit of talent or experience they add to the mix. It's a lot easier to take comments like that into context when you have... some context. Making any generalities on this subject, as if it applied usefully across all of the communities, people, and topics on PN, is certainly silly.

[geoffs]

My thoughts at the moment are that I believe members should post at least some of their photographs. It doesn`t have to be a comprehensive portfolio, consisting of hundreds of photos.

Constance, the fact you transported fourty+ crates of photos when you moved tells me far less than possibly viewing half a dozen photos you have taken. I do not think a professional stands to lose anything at all by posting a few photos yet has the potential to gain admiration and interest from others,even if they are not seeking that.

 

Michael, even Bjorn Rorslett with just five images tells me so much. His contribution via his photos, gives me an insight as to where he is coming from in terms of his gear used and his psyche.

I never discount a valuable post from a member because of that person having no photos posted, but If I read an interesting and thoughtful post I yearn to see a photo by that person, imagining his/her images would be as insightful as their words. Of course I might be wrong in my assumptions but at least that added dimension is there to judge.

 

Josh because you have had or viewed what maybe a time-waste of conversations in the past doesn`t mean new members would see it like that. To assume all`s been said and done is to believe nothing changes or evolves, and it is not taking into account amateurs like me, and new members, who yearn for professional insights into, and examples of photography and knowledge.

 

Posts are not all about "information" or technical know how, many are personal opinions and some are patronising. Either way I would dearly love to see that added contribution in the form of photographs, from forum posters.

[phule]

[[they get vastly better results because of some special bit of talent or experience they add to the mix. It's a lot easier to take comments like that into context when you have... some context.]]

 

But you don't actually /have/ any context. All you have is the resulting photo. To have context would require having the /before/ photos, which are unlikely to be posted in a gallery in the first place. So, if photographer x says "my technique y gives you result z" you still only have his or her word that technique y will give you result z. The posted result, by itself, proves nothing.

[michaelchristensen]

I think the most valuable part of photonet is the advice and concern shared with others. A vast array of photographs is not needed, unless one wishes to illustrate a point for which discussion alone is inadequate. People tend to be less objective discussing equipment than technique, and yet technique is perhaps more valuable for many irrespective of your medium of capture.

 

And yes, one always wonders about the photographer, what he/she shoots, how to get those results .. it's a natural inquiry to those ever pressing questions of will this camera, that software help me achieve better results. Deep down we all think we are capable of creating artfully composed and exposed photographs, and I think we can irrespective of equipment .. sometimes having a photo does add color and perspective to frame the context of a post and is helpful, but not always needed.

[Matt Laur]

Not so much looking for proof of a particular technique, Rob, as simply an indication that the photographer making

specific recommendations seems to, indeed, understand quality results. I realize that it's no guarantee against

deliberate deception. But my sense is that deliberately mischevious advice about how a given (viewable) result was

obtained is FAR less common than routine banter by people who don't seem to actually really have much luck in the

very subject areas about which they talk.

<br><br>

I certainly won't compare my own work to the many pros that graces this forum, but I feel much better being able to

say, "A 70-200 on a DX sensor is a very useful lens for medium-distance canine event work," since someone who

wonders if I have any credibility on that front can at least get a quick sense for whether or not I'm just blowing smoke,

because mostly it seems I only shoot model trains, flowers, or dining rooms. Someone with an axe to grind, who's

willing to preach the merits of some bit of hardware or process, and is willing to misrepresent their results to score

points is... unusual, I think. Unusual enough to not worry about within the scope of this thread, anyway. Someone

like that usually sticks out like a sore thumb for other reasons, anyway. I just like to read an insightful-seeming

comment on, say, moustach-distortion in horizon lines when shooting with cheap wide angle lenes, and then click

the poster's name in order to - after a moment's glance - say to myself, "Well, there's certainly enough polish to her

work to suggest a familiarty with this sort of thing." It's also nice, when getting a lecture from someone about

exposure compensation, to notice that their portfolio seems to be across-the-board under exposed or littered with

blown-out wedding dress highlights.

<br><br>

As mentioned above, it's mostly about curiosity, since this is a social venue. Nobody's under any obligation to show

their work, that's for sure, and it's not always telling in any way that impacts a discussion.

[KenPapai]

"but back then I was shooting film and did not have a scanner..." -- so were most other people. Try Kinkos or similar, or the office, or a friend for a scanner.

 

I agree totally with the OP. It's called Photo.net -- in any case, Josh's is the official word. even though I agree, it's lame to have a big zero in your portfolio, empty biography, AND no Website (the Triumvirate!).

[Brad_]

I always look for posted work from people weighing in on a subject. There are countless examples of "bs-ers" who make wild claims

with respect to a subject, but without anything to back that up. Some of the ideas/notions posted on the Street and other forums

exemplify.

 

Having photos easily discoverable is a method I use to judge the veracity of information posted. Though posting images is certainly not

a requirement for pnet participation, I (as well as others) **choose** to use that in weighing the validity of information.

 

Over the years, I've found well-crafted posted images and information that's accurate and first-hand, have a strong positive correlation

with each other.

[constance_cook]

Yes, it does say something about me. I intend to have total contraol over any photographs I make. And I feel no obligation to impress people I don't know and will never see.

 

If you can't see that any information I present is accurate and/or workable, then nothing a photograph could show would matter.

 

I always think that information I read, either makes sense or is worth a try or it isn't. If it isn't, I move on. But I also have a strong base of knowledge to use to make these decisions. If it makes sense, I try it. Easy.

 

My photographs have been published and my college in my university uses one of my photographs as their logo. But I know who is using these photographs and what for. So I'm a control freak. That's fine with me.

 

Conni

[jay_de_fehr]

I've been posting on and off for a few years here, and many times I include an example photo or graph with my posts, but

sometimes I don't. I'm not a pro, just a guy who likes to photograph my family and friends, but I stand by the info I post, and

I try very hard to be accurate and helpful. I've learned a lot from this site and when I can return the favor, I feel privileged to

do so. There are many experienced, knowledgable and skilled photographers here who give selflessly and tirelessly of

themselves, usually without thanks and often in the face of open hostility, and to them I owe my eternal gratitude, but I

admit that I have little patience for the posers, "experts", self important pros and arrogant newbies who contribute nothing of

value and generally clog the flow of useful information and mutually repsectful conversation with fatuous posturing and

contentious diatribe. If you can't tell one group from the other based on the content of their posts, I'm afraid no illustration will

suffice to make the distinction for you. That being said, I love to look at photos, so I'm always glad when they're included in

a post.

[ifti]

PN attracts diverse group of people with a spectrum of talent. Some like to chat, some like to post some like to rate, some like to share their know how and advise, some want to get some answers and some like to complain. Then there are variety of people who like a combo of those activities like a pizza with different toppings as they like it.

 

Why cant they be like me? If they were all alike we will not be together. It is the diversity that keep any group going.

 

Share what you like to, learn what you need to but on they way to achieve what you want have fun. Regards ifti

[lex_jenkins]

I'm one of those people who have seen Conni's photos because she's been kind enough to send some to me. She's very good. Especially the photos of her travels in Japan. And she doesn't need a web portfolio to justify her opinion.

 

That alone is reason enough to poke a hole in any misguided notion that one needs a photo.net portfolio to have some sort of validity.

 

You might as well argue that a photographer who can't formulate a coherent thought can't be much of a photographer. I've seen plenty of folks on photo.net and elsewhere with excellent portfolios and boneheaded ideas expressed on the discussion forums. These are two entirely different issues. In some cases different sets of skills coincide - photographic ability, knowledge of technique, equipment, ability to mentor or critique the work of others. But there's no reason to expect anyone to possess all these equally, or dismiss the value of all their contributions merely because their abilities or knowledge are lacking in one area.

[Brian]

<P>I just checked my photo.net gallery before replying. It won't inspire much confidence in my ability to advise anybody about anything, but at least you can see I'm a photographer who takes pictures here, there and everywhere.</P><P>I must admit I don't check people's photos when I read forum replies. As Lex points out, there are two different skill sets. And if somebody contributes interesting and lively comments to the forums, I wouldn't be bothered if he/she never picked up a camera. But it's not likely, is it?</P>

[dave_s]

<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man">*Click*</a>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Please feel free to e-mail me with any comments you might have.

[Brad_]

>>> That alone is reason enough to poke a hole in any misguided notion that one needs a photo.net portfolio to have

some sort of validity.

 

Still no hole punched... I don't think it was stated that one *needs* a portfolio. However, I **choose** to give more

weight and credibility to those

that have posted one. Has worked very well for me in the past.

 

Here's just one example; there are many more. If I'm interested in getting into boxing or MMA photography, and

someone posts a lot of tips, lens

choices, needed fps, shutter speeds, lighting, how to get access, etc, I'm going to need to see a body of work from the poster before

taking any of

that information to heart.

 

Not so oddly, when information is posted that smells being at odds with common sense, there's almost always no

relevant photos to be found.

Also not so oddly, when you get what feels like great information that's relevant and useful, there's always some

interesting photos that are easily

discoverable.

 

There are many more examples; all which have occurred on the forums.