Using P N as a site for viewing photos

[brian_bahn]

How many folks here use this site as a site for friends or family to view photos? I have a few questions about it. I

took quite a few photos of my wife's nephew's Little League All-Star tournement and would like to load them into a

gallery and give the link out for the parents of the kids to view the photos. A couple questions I have:

 

1. How does the maximum file size allowed per photo work with dial-up internet connection in case some still have

that? Will it really bog down for them? Is there anything I can do to make it a little better for the slower connections?

 

2. What all will they have access to see if I give them a link to just that gallery? (Not that there is anything I don't

want anyone to see. Just curious).

 

3. I was considering using Flickr for this but I have learned so much on this site that the subscription fee is a no

brainer and the site seems so much "cleaner" than Flickr as in not as many ads and other pop ups and stuff. I know

a lot of people use Flickr and I will eventually sign up for it but for just being able to give a link and have 30 or so

people view it it seems easier to use this site. Am I right?

 

Thanks for any thoughts.

[randall ellis]

Post your images in your gallery, then go to My Workspace. At the top of the page is a link directly to your gallery - 'Personal URL'. You can share that and then people can view the images you have posted.

 

- Randy

[apetty]

This site is great, but you can also setup gallery's in Winkflash, snapfish, shutterfly, etc. (there are many out there), and share them there too. Some let you post full size files, and if you allow them to, people can order prints of the photos in any size they want. You don't have to get involved if you don't want to.

 

There is no reason not to use PN. I'm just letting you know there are other, sometimes easier, options

[manuel barrera houston,]

I prefer pbase, only in the uploads (image) does pn do better, best forums are here, fredmiranda has excellent forums also.

[lex_jenkins]

Personally, I don't want to see photo.net hosting a bunch of snapshots. That isn't this site's purpose. I opened a Flickr account for my own snapshots and event photos for family and friends to view and download.

 

Besides, Flickr doesn't mind hosting grotesquely oversized JPEGs, while photo.net imposes a limit. The folks who want to download and print from Flickr or order photos through that site are welcome to do so.

 

Different sites, different missions.

[Charles_Webster]

It's fine, just don't post them in the Critique Forum.

 

<Chas>

[joe_jackson4]

"Personally, I don't want to see photo.net hosting a bunch of snapshots."

 

Too late for that... :) Of course, what constitutes a "snapshot" is largely in the eyes of the viewer. I wouldn't

hesitate to describe many of your own pics - and mine - as snaphots, for example.

 

"That isn't this site's purpose."

 

What is its purpose?

[User_276104]

From photo.net's "About Us" page:

 

http://www.photo.net/info/about-us

 

"Photo.net is an online community with hundreds of thousands of active members and many more casual viewers visiting daily. We started in 1993 and strive to be the best peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers."

[bobatkins]

Lex is correct. Photo.net isn't intended to be a general purpose photo sharing site for casual snapshots. There are other sites which were built exactly for that purpose.

 

It's obviously not actually prohibited, but it's not really encouraged and there are other sites that perform that function better.

[lex_jenkins]

True, Paul, very true. Many of my own photos are deliberate attempts to explore the "snapshot aesthetic" without actually being mundane snapshots. It's entirely a matter of individual interpretation whether I've succeeded.

 

My entire folder of theatre photos could be considered mere snapshots. Since most were shot at 1/15th second or slower, few are even in sharp focus. But I put 'em there for illustration and discussion purposes.

 

Meanwhile, I put most of my event photographs on Flickr for folks to view and download at their pleasure. Most of 'em are technically better than my theatre photos. But to me, they're just snapshots so I won't put 'em on photo.net.

 

Photos of cats is another example. Where's the line between mere snappers of kitty, potential grist for the lolcat phenom, and an artistic moment of feline ennui? Damifino.

 

As Eric notes from our mission statement, photos here should serve the purpose of furthering our craft. Gratuitous snapshots posted merely for the amusement of our friends and family doesn't serve that end. I'm not about to start dictating what is or isn't a snapper. Just pointing out the issue to others so they can make an informed decision.

[joe_jackson4]

Thank you, Eric. In which case, since the site is intended as an educational site, surely many snapshots are to

be expected...? And since Brian says he has "learned so much on this site", surely he is exactly the type of

photographer this site is aimed at...?

 

Is there's to be some distinction drawn between simply sharing photos and uploading photos for other purposes,

where is that line to be drawn....? And who does the drawing...? I think making that kind of distinction opens up

a big can of worms...

 

As far as I can see, currently people seem free to put up whatever photos they like, snapshots or not, as long as

it's not deemed offensive.

[joe_jackson4]

Lex, OK, it seems I misunderstood your initial reply there...

 

I suspect most of us aren't particularly keen to see countless thousands of family holiday holiday snaps on here, but such snapshots are not in themselves a bad thing. I happen to like them, depending on my mood... I thought you were saying that snaphot-type photos are not welcome here, on some kind of aesthetic grounds. Seems not, so apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Norma Desmond]

Paul--

 

I sense that most of us can tell the difference between putting up the kinds of photos that would go along with PN's

mission statement and putting up photos of Timmy's birthday party and inviting relatives to log in and see them. My

guess is that most people blatantly posting family snaps to share with other family members simply aren't aware of PN's

mission or are choosing not to follow it. I don't think it's a matter of great misunderstanding or impossibility of drawing

simple distinctions.

 

Yes, it's hard to draw a an exact line between a snapshot and fine art, maybe impossible. Somewhere on the continuum,

the line always gets blurred. But the line being blurred at some points on the continuum doesn't mean humans can't be

discriminating and usually come to some pretty agreeable ways to determine what's what. I don't think we have to draw a

mathematically exact line in order to operate. I just think we have to use common sense. That means there will be some

disagreements but many more people will make reasonable decisions with agreeable results. Some will neglect to make

themselves aware of the rules and some will always choose not to follow them. Most most will know what they mean.

[lex_jenkins]

No problem. It's not an easy issue. I don't want to impose my personal aesthetics or judgment on others' photos. Personally, I've seen some family snapshots that were more interesting than yet another sunset.

 

Which reminds me... what's better?

 

1. A carefully narrated slide show of Uncle Joe's trip to the great Southwest, full of orangey canyons, complete with background music;

 

2. A lap full of passaround pix of Mollie's new grandbaby?

 

Answer: #1. It's easier to sneak out of a darkened room for a beer.

[User_276104]

Regarding #1:

 

...and you won't spill beer the beer on the pictures.

[User_276104]

"...spill beer the beer.."

 

I think you know what I mean.

[Leroy_Photography]

Again, Lex has me in stitches! I think PN should remain peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers. The portfolio shouldn't be used to market photos, but should be used to showcase creative work--whether snapshot or sunset--professional or amateur. Only for the benefit of Lex, I'm attaching a picture of my locat phenom. Hope you enjoy it, Lex!<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

turn off flash, mittinz kitteh iz nappin

[GerrySiegel]

I use smugmug for routine snaps and inside joke shots for family sharing, Lex. It is moderate cost. And has a locked section password protected. Modest fee. Smugmug, flicker. Both good bargains. I think of PN just as a 'for instance,here is what I am interested in" adjunct to written bio display. Each to his or her own. If you pay for it. There are sometimes variations on same photo where I personally think some selective choice would be nice. Just my two devaluated pesos.

[GerrySiegel]

God must have loved beetles, he made so many species someone said. PN members love cats, flowers, and buggy flowers. Sexual content I suppose we could call latter :-)

[mharris]

arghhhhhh it's a cat! You know it's just waiting to eat you right?

[manuel barrera houston,]

truth is pn images just don't look as good on the monitor as they do in other sites, and their slide show kinda sucks when compared to many others.

[lex_jenkins]

Manuel, can you be more specific? On which part of photo.net do images not look as good as on other sites? JPEGs are handled differently on different parts of photo.net. In most cases the JPEGs look exactly as good as the effort put into preparing them for web display. Perhaps you're seeing only a limited view. For example, photos presented on the anonymous ratings queue are occasionally badly rendered, with aliasing, artifacts, etc. But in general, on most forums (the No Words forum being an exception) and the large view option on portfolios, JPEGs look exactly as they would on the individual's computer. If there are differences it's due factors other than photo.net.

[manuel barrera houston,]

could be the background used by the forums, my preferred is pbase, the images seem to be more vibrant, flickr recently changed and they also look quite nice, I can not point specifically to anything in particular, I have two monitors calibrated at home and the work computer that is not calibrated and it strictly a subjective observation on my part. I work in adobe rgb and normally do not bother converting to srgb to upload, maybe that has something to do with it.

[brian_bahn]

Before this thread gets off on the tangent it now appears headed I wanted to say thanks for the replies. I decided to use Flickr based on a few different reasons.

 

1. I hesitated to use Flickr because one thing that annoyed me with it was the fact you had to have a Yahoo sign in and a Flickr sign in and as someone who works on a computer all day I really get tired of different usernames and passwords for everything I do.

 

2. I like professional looking, clean sites, which is why I thought of using my gallery here to do it. Honestly I was a little miffed at Lex's comments at first but then I realized the reason PN looks clean is because it isn't fully intended for that. Combined with the fact that I am no professional to some it may look like a snapshot hosting gallery. I don't want that, I'm all for keeping PN as it is. Thank You Lex for being honest.

 

3. I also realized many of the people viewing the photos will be the 9 and 10 year old players themselves. The fact that PN has the nudes section made me think twice.

 

4. Shameless request time. If anyone would like to see my snapshots(Haha...just kidding Lex) and give any comments I would love to hear them. Some I PP in Olympus Master 2 and I have much more to learn about PP'ing. As I have a lot to learn about photograghy in general. All shots were taken with Oly E-510 with 40-150 lens. Some shots I had ISO on 200 then realized I needed to crank it up to freeze the action more. Even though most were bright daylight I still went up to 800. Ended up having the EV setting a little high, I was trying to compensate so you coudl see their faces a little more but it ended up too bright in some. Even with the higher ISO and fast shutter speeds they don't seem to be as sharp the more I look at them. Need to tweak some other settings I'm sure but for the first go round I'm fairly happy.

 

Here is the link:

 

 

Thanks.