People Photography Forum: A "Mission" Statement (of sorts)...Please ad to it.

[todd frederick]

I remember when the People Photography forum was first started by

Shawn Gibson, and I posted the first question!!!...something about

street photography. It immediately became an image positing forum...

with comments (not critiques)...using HTML codes...which I learned to

use...thanks to Shawn. The People photography forum was focused on

street photography and artful portraiture (not commercialism or

equipment questions). I hope it stays that way. I'd hate to see

hundreds of question about lighting equipment, the best lens to...

(blah, blah, blah), diffusion filtration, formal posing, etc.

Then...I'm gone!

 

This was kind of a funky, off-beat, '60s forum and I hope it stays

that way!

 

Since joining Photo.net, this forum opens up a whole new

audience...good or bad?

 

I hope we can keep it the way it has evolved before joining

photo.net...an image oriented forum with positive support. That's

just my opinion, but it's an honest one.

 

Any thoughts?

[emre]

Is Shawn still the moderator?

[mottershead]

Shawn is still the moderator of this forum. Jeff Spirer a veteran moderator on photo.net, and a long-time participant on this forum, has kindly volunteered to serve as co-moderator when Shawn isn't around.

[_____133]

What's wrong with equipment-related questions as long as they come under the ambit of People Photography? What's wrong with 'commercial' people photography? Isn't it about images too? What's wrong with questions which lead to instructional replies.

 

Trying to prune this forum will lead to its death.

 

This forum doesn't have to be what I like but it can be People Photography and all that is related.

 

My opinion and a damned honest one too.

[Brad_]

There are several other photo.net forums that are better for

equipment related questions. And you will definitely get more

answers there. This forum should absolutely be image-centric

supported by comments/feedback about the image displayed,

which might occasionally touch on equipment if _really_

relevant.

 

Perhaps the forum should be re-titled the Street Photography

forum. It is more than just taking well-exposed pictures of

people. Which is what I find challenging, and so far, a very

elusive pursuit.

 

I think Jeff's involvement is a terrific idea - hope it turns out to be

interesting for him.

[todd frederick]

I agree with Brad. This forum has been predominantly street (PJ style) photography oriented. Although I am a poor street photographer (a bit too timid!), I have learned much by viewing the posted images and reading the comments. This forum evolved, from its inception, into an image posting forum.

 

This raises another problem: since Photo.net has a separate critique forum, and photo critiques are no longer allowed on the two main forums, I hope that by joining Photo.net, there will not be a push to eliminate photos and comments (critiques) from this forum and require that they be posted in the critique section.

 

This same problem is happening on the Leica Photography forum. For years it was ok to offer other Leica forum members Leica items for sale. It was a tradition and was under control. Now, after joining Photo.net, there has been an increase in sales offerings. There is currently, as we speak, a major push to eliminate all such offerings from the forum totally and require that sales offerings be made through Photo.net classifieds only.

 

I hope that doesn't happen with photo postings here on the People Photography Forum.

 

For me, the image postings and comments (critiques) are what gives this forum its flavor and character. It would not be the same forum without that.

[mike dixon]

<i>This forum has been predominantly street (PJ style) photography oriented.</i><p>

Not true. While the forum has gone through phases where street photos are predominant, it has had many, many posts that lie well outside that realm. Simply taking a look through the archives will show the variety of non-street-photography topics and images that have been discussed over the years.<p>

Considering how slow the traffic has been here lately, I think limiting posts to street photography could easily kill of the forum.

[_____133]

There can be no better or more appropriate forum to talk about equipment and technique related to People Photography than this forum.

 

Who's being disgenuous here? Shawn Gibson, who started this forum, never meant this to be a Street Photography Forum. That many postings have tended that way recently is just an indication of recent activity.

 

As Mike Dixon said, look at the archives for crying out loud and see what categories there are.

 

"The People photography forum was focused on street photography and artful portraiture (not commercialism or equipment questions)."- Todd

 

Wrong. That was not Shawn Gibson's aim.

 

"This forum should absolutely be image-centric supported by comments/feedback about the image displayed, which might occasionally touch on equipment if _really_ relevant. Perhaps the forum should be re-titled the Street Photography forum."

 

Wrong again. And pretty fascistic of you to try to change the spirit of this forum.

 

Todd and Brad are trying to dictate and redefine this forum into what it was not set up to be, other participants and Shawn Gibson be damned. As I said, it does not have to be what I like and by the same token, it does not have to be what Todd and Brad like but it can be about People Photography.

 

This is a non-issue except that there are those who try to bend it to their will.

[Brad_]

Erik, respectfully, chill a little. Not exercising a little politeness

and civility (especially when it is not warranted to do otherwise)

is destructive, and IMO, takes some of the wind out of your sails.

If you need to go in that direction, take it off-line.

 

Todd posed a reasonable question about forum direction -

fascism (and my need to dictate) aside, I responded with an

opinion. Nothing more.

 

I think the issue boils down to what is "people photography."

Being relatively new to this I'm probably the least qualified to

spout an opinion as to what that is. But with that caveat out of the

way, I see no reason why I should not be able to do so. Fair

enough?

 

I did not mean to be exclusive in definition, but looking back, I

can understand that by using the words "street photography"

that's what happened. I've lurked in this forum for probably

around a year, and have just started posting some photos in the

last couple of months. It *is* kind of intimidating, especially when

such a high standard of excellence has been established by

those like Grant L, Jeff S, Mike D, Tom M, and others (and I'm just

starting out.)

 

But it is that high standard that made this forum unique and so

non-photonet in character. And the fact that posts were void of

the typical photonet arguments about camera minutia and lens

trivia. Really, the regular forums are a good vehicle for debating

that sort of thing and you will get a ton of opinions.

 

So, if I can revise my somewhat exclusionary post from

yesterday: I hope this forum stays image-centric, and, that

contributors post "people pictures" that *try* to hit the level of

photos by some of those mentioned above. If anyone takes

offense at that, just post a friggen photo or rip into one of mine - I

could use the feedback.

[todd frederick]

The term "Street Photography" IS probably too limiting. The content of this forum now that it is on Photo.net should have a broader scope.

 

Shawn's photos are mostly off-beat portraiture (in the good sense of that term), and Jeff is nearly 100% street. I've also seen some beautiful formal portraits posted here as well...I can recall one magnificent image of a bearded elderly gentleman posted some time ago...I forgot who did it or where it is.

 

All of that is fine. I simply have two concerns that came to mind: First, I do not want to see this forum (now opened to a larger audience) degenerate (my term) into an endless debate regarding equipment issues, such as: "What's the best lens to use to photograph my grandaughter in her wading pool?" and, second, I am concerned that there might be a strong push by Photo.net management to eliminate people photography image postings and critiques since Photo.net already has a critique forum. Brian, is that a realistic danger?

 

High quality image postings and a focus on technique (not equipment per se) is what has made this a strong forum, in my opinion

[jkantor]

With increased visibility and popularity, it's natural that this forum make start to wander a bit. That's why moderators exist. They should step in and politely move posts to more appropriate forums when necessary. But we should also be flexible and let the forum find it's own identity (even if it is a bit different from the previous one).

 

But everyone should stop taking posts too personally.

[_____133]

Opinions do have consequences. If one is willing to venture an opinion, one had best be ready to be accept a forthright counter-opinion.

 

I do not mince my words and it is fine to talk about civility and politeness and all when one does not practise what one preaches. I find it impudent that one would durst change the title of this forum without so much as understanding and respecting the wishes of the other participants. Like begets like.

 

Shawn Gibson, who started this forum, is an aspiring fashion and people photographer. If anyone should decide a name change, it should be him, our opinions be damned.

[Spearhead]

Shawn has been in and out of this forum, often not monitoring it. This should be obvious from the length of time that spam messages stayed on the board when it was at greenspun.com. That he started it is not relevant now. It became what it became because of a core group of posters who set a direction. That will probably continue. If Shawn had wanted it to go another way, he has had plenty of opportunity. But he made it clear early on that he was happy with where it went.<p>

 

I think equipment issues belong somewhere else. More than any other type of photography, people photography, regardless of what type of people photography we are discussing except surreptitious street photography, is about the relationship between the photographer and the subject(s). Light obviously plays a key role in the success, but many people photographs that do not succeed suffer from non-technical problems. This forum has been remarkable in its ability to address those kinds of issues.<p>

 

Regardless, I am now a moderator here and while I don't expect to be heavy-handed, I do expect to keep it on track.<p>

 

Regarding the photographs I have posted, while some are traditional "street" photography, many are what I would call "street portraits," done with permission and often moving people to places where I wanted to shoot. Some are even set-ups on the street with models. And I do occasionally work in a studio, but I don't show those because they are done for other reasons and don't fit with the work I show. And, I'm not that good at it because I do it so rarely. Just for yucks, here's one I did a while ago that has a few problems, but happenes to have been scanned. (I might have posted this here before, if so, my apologies.)<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/girlstudio1.jpg"><BR>

<i>Studio Shot, Copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

[mike dixon]

<i>I think equipment issues belong somewhere else. </I><P>

I agree that questions of the sort "Which camera/lens should I use to . . ." should be discouraged. As in the past, though, I think it's quite appropriate to discuss the equipment and techniques used in creating a particular image under discussion. Again, a look through the archives will show what kinds of technical discussions have been of benefit in helping people to understand how images were made (without falling into the mindset that it was the equipment that made the image).

[Spearhead]

Yeah, Mike is right, I didn't mean to exclude <i>relevant</i> equipment issues. It's easy to find posts on the regular photo.net board about "Which camera for portraits", "which lens for portraits", alien bees or multiblitz", "which flashmeter", etc etc., this board certainly doesn't need them.

[Tony Rowlett]

In my view, this forum has the potential to be the single most interesting forum in all of photo.net. I like the way it's always been, with an emphasis on technique with photographing people and with very little talk about equipment. I intend to involve myself here more in the future when I can figure out a way to resume scanning. I'm sure glad to see that this place still exists, and I'm glad to see that we'll have some fair moderation.

[jeff_stuart]

Awright then, let it be street. You can't fault Glenn's photo, where else but on the street would you find that? Here's another street photo.<div></div>

[struan_gray]

<p>Todd has a way of asking questions that stimulate thought.

It's a shame this one seems to have merely struck a patella or

two. I don't do much people photography, at least, not much

beyond family portraits and snapshots of the kids, but I've always

kept coming back to this forum.</p>

 

<p>The main reason is that people here have always been

interested in talking about photography and not just cameras.

Where equipment was mentioned it was usually in the sense of

how to use it, not just what to buy.</p>

 

<p>Second, comments here tended to be genuine attempts to

help each other improve. Most other critique sites, including the

main one here on photo.net, are really just ways of showcasing

what people think is their best work. The posts I have made

here are mostly images I am unsure of, or which I find it hard to

asess subjectively. I would be sad to lose a source of genuine

critique.</p>

 

<p>Last, and most importantly, there has been almost no

childish chest beating or name calling. Plenty of disagreement

and debate, but few flames. This has been a forum for grown

ups, who are able to agree to disagree.</p>

 

<center>

<img

src="http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/milliecarpet.jpg"

width=400 height=400 vspace=5 alt="Milly on the Carpet">

</center>

 

<p>Todd: in answer to your question: this isn't a street

photography forum, it's a place for me to brag about how cute my

kids are. So there.</p>

[chris_marolf1]

I think it is a good idea to pause write about what makes People Photography special to all of us. I've been following this forum since its inception and posting for about a year.

 

What I like about this forum (and what makes it different from photo.net et. al.)is, as others have stated, the absence of equipment "angst" and frivolous postings. Posting photographs rather than equipment questions serves as a nice quality filter ...

 

I appreciate the fact that people who post here do so only when they have something to say. There is a certain continuity of contributors here that allows me to get to know other photographers over time by the quality of their photographs and their writings. There are few "hit and run" posts (with the exception of the guy selling embroidery equipment ...). That may mean the forum looks dead at times, but I'm sure there are plenty of people monitoring it every day.

 

The other characteristic of this forum is the maturity and the civility of the contributors as people have not found it necessary to foist their brashness or other idiosyncracies on others.

 

To me this forum stands out because it has survived for so long with so little direction. That's why I don't think People Photography needs a mission statement now. As long as the contributors are willing to nuture this forum and contribute responsibly, things will be just fine. I think that's the central issue here, not if People Photography is about portraits, street photography, etc.

[james___]

I feel that the forum should allow equipment questions and answers only where it specifically deals with a technique. Umbrella or softbox. Beauty ring or ....... how did you create that glow or what film did you use for that remarkable glow. But not what camera/lens is better for portraits? Nikonolta or Canympus. I like most of the equipment/technique answers/questions that have been posted here before the move. I also remember when Shawn started this forum. If I recall he was trying to learn fashion photography. I used to debate the merits of street vs fine art with some of the more versed talent here. And they were some lively debates too. So I say let the current moderators "help" define the direction of this forum. For the new comers.......just chill and wait a couple of years before jumping on the bandwagon.

[edward_kang]

Posts have been made concerning equipment, technique, and other non-photo-critique related topics in the past, way before our grand opening on Photo.net.

 

The only difference is that the volume of posts will increase. The community is getting larger. Before Photo.net, there were a few names that we could regularly recognize. Now the volume increases from a trickle to a blur. The number of posts/weke has jumped, since the people photography forum is only one of five or six linked from the Photo.net community web page.

 

Reducing this forum to an image post-critique format is ridiculous. If you want image critique/comments, then use the image critique function available on Photo.net. Hello?

 

This forum has from the start been the establishment of a community, and the topics presented should be mindful of the people involved. As for street photography, that is ONE genre out of an infinite number of ways to photography people. Let's not forget that Shawn's original organization of the old people photography forum had 20+ categories for subjects, and equipment/technique were definitely two of them.

[todd frederick]

MR Kang:

 

Misunderstanding: I do NOT want this to be an image posting forum ONLY...it should be a mix of images, comments and technical questions, on a high level!

 

What I am very concerned about is EXACTLY what you are actually suggesting we do, Mr. Kang...duh!...to post all of our people images on the Photo.net critique forum. On the Photo.net critique forum there are no useful comments!

 

On the People Photography forum there is an abundance of such helpfulness. Posting an image here is much different than on the critique forum: here we want HELP and suggestions, and good vibes, of course; on the Critique forum all they want NUMERICAL POINTS! Understand the difference? Really.

 

Putting all images on the critique forum will KILL the spirit and usefulness to the People Photography forum...I am concerned that Photo.net management will try to have us do that.

 

That is exactly what I DO NOT want to see happen here, ever!

[edward_kang]

Gotcha Todd, my post wasn't aimed at yours.

[shawngibson]

o my god. i never realized this was here. i thought i sucked, so i left because i didn't seem to have much to offer. could you respond to gibson0180@rogers.com because i haven't been able to log in the ppf email for so long. i always seemed to generate to worst responses, so i backed off, because i just wanted you guys to have a good space, 'sans' me:)

 

is jeff moderating now? good. i have been trying for well over a year to take the photographs i like, but since i left university, i lost something...now i can't even pay someone to work with them. so that's how it goes.

 

thank you for making my day. :) hope to be back soon.

 

shawn:)

[graham braun]

I'm one of the people that has started frequenting the ppf as a result of easy access through photo.net. I used to browse it from time to time, but now find myself lurking more frequently (and even posting a little).

 

I'm here because I'm most stimulated by images where people are the subject or help define (or enhance, or modify in some way) the subject. I know that's a pretty wide classification, but that's people photography for me. I don't practice street photography, but appreciate what I can learn graphically from it for application in what I do practice.

 

I don't pose a lot of formal portraits, but I want to be better at it when I do.

 

I take pictures of my kids and family and friends, and would like for these pictures to sometimes have merit beyond their personal value.

 

I think hardware discussion that is brand-independent would be suitable. I want to hear about how the shallow the depth of field that I like was created, and would need to know apertures and focal length for a given format. I am interested (sometimes) to know whether a black and white image was shot tmax, XP2 or channel mixed from Provia. I seek to make my images better by being inspired by things I like (and don't) independent of subject matter sometimes.

 

It would perhaps be more 60s to discuss street shots or single incandescent light and reflector techniques than the use of a large diffusion rig, but if the image discussion is around the quality of light and the critique suggests a difference in shadow pattern or contrast, then all equipment "types" become germane.

 

I love the "no words" threads but haven't had a ready response yet. I like that some posts remain image heavy while others do not. I really like to see a thread that develops to the point where a couple of images specifically illustrate an opinion.

 

So I plan to stick around for a while, and will restate that I hope discussion will be about making images where people are the subject or help define the subject; just that. Cheers - Graham.