10+ years on photo.net. . . is it time to move on?

[warrenb]

<p>I remember when I joined photo.net and loved velvia and my RB67. I learned so much on this site and ended up following so many talented photographers. I remember thinking digital was never really going to match film. Anyway, I have great memories of this site. But now I ask you. . .has this site gotten too big? In 2004, I posted a crop of some poinsettias that I shot with my RB67. Nice photo, nothing great. It got almost 21,000 views, (yes that's thousands). When I asked for critique, I usually learned a lot from the many who responded. Now, I post a photo, and if I don't ask for a critique, I'm lucky to get 2 views. . .with a critique request, maybe 10-50 with one comment. I know I'm not as good as those getting the high ratings, etc, but does anyone else who has been here for a while feel like this site has lost something?<br /> Anyway, not looking for hatemail and "make better pictures" comments, but just curious if anyone else is feeling nostalgic for 2001.</p>

[jautey]

<p>I don't feel like the site has lost anything. The elves are still great, and many of the regular contributors equally so, and I still wander in every once in a while to check out the place. No I don't think its lost anything, the questions are the same I read when I first discovered P.net and others have always been much better at answering questions than I ever have so my contributions have been limited. I feel like I've moved past a place where photo.net and photo critiques are useful to me.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>Nostalgic for 2001? I miss 1968 - just out of college, starting grad school, mini-skirts, protests, tear gas, marches, term long parties -- now thats something to miss. I would have mentioned free love, too, but somehow I always missed out on that -- but I would miss it, if I would have had it!</p>

[rossb]

<p> Well I guess I would rather go back to 68 then 01 myself. At least in 68 if you took a picture everybody would agree it's a picture. But then the Tet Offensive is not a good thing to go back to so maybe I will just stay here where a picture is not a picture any more. Besides I have money on the Super Bowl and I would not want to miss out on that. But seriously after 10 yrs you might as well stick around. </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p><strong>" . . . I know I'm not as good as those getting the high ratings . . ."</strong><br>

No, Warren, you're good enough to stun people who are giving each other high ratings. </p>

[tommyinca]

<p> Uh-Oh Logan, your clock turned red. I still got four years on mine.</p>

[photomark]

Warren, I've always found that photo.net provides a pretty decent return on what you put into it. Unless the stats are off, in

the 10+ years you've been here you've participated in five forum threads (including this one) and made 20 comments on

other's photos while receiving 64. That's a pretty decent return. It's a community, the more you engage the community the

more it will engage you. At least that's my experience.

[laurent-paul]

<p><strong>"but just curious if anyone else is feeling nostalgic for 2001"</strong></p>

<p>Personnaly, I wouldn't know as I usually feel only nostalgic about the future<strong> ...</strong><br>

<strong><br /> </strong></p>

[RobertChura]

<p>I find it curious to note that most of the few that comment weren't here during those "heydays" of photo.net. I was here and I understand what you are talking about but I am not nostalgic for those days. The site has improved a lot since then and if you take into account that there are a lot more images posted than one could ever view, the system still works if you get involved.</p>

 

[warrenb]

<p>Thanks for taking time to respond. Yes, 1968 was a good year! I looked great in diapers (still do). It's a good point and well noted that perhaps I have not put that much effort IN to photo.net lately, but isn't everything supposed to be about ME ME ME. . .? (HA). Don't get annoyed, I'm not a chronic whiner. I just was wondering if anyone else felt that the ol' site was getting a little big. I guess my main point was I used to feel that I was sharing my photos with lots of other photogs, but now it seems I post and I'm the only one looking. (Boo Hoo, poor me). <br>

Anyway, thanks for engaging. I guess I'll stick around because. . ."You like me. . .you really really like me". . . </p>

[brucecahn]

<p>In 1968 I had to work 80 hours a week. Now I am retired. That is an improvement. Love the site and have not gotten bored with it.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<blockquote>

<p>But now I ask you. . .has this site gotten too big?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think so -- feeling that photo.net has grown gracefully over the years. I remember the years you speak of, when most people had to scan their images in order to upload them. Photography is evolving, and I think that photo.net is evolving with it. What a great way to keep up, generate new ideas, see the world, and appreciate the work and ideas of other photographers. Warren, you've got to stick around and enjoy the ride.</p>

[stp]

<p>Warren, I think PN has changed over the 7 (nearly 8) years that I have been participating. I agree that the number of views and the number of comments have gone down. I see many beautiful landscape photos posted that in past years would have gotten many comments and high ratings, and now they seem to find less favor here. I have seen a rise in digital alterations that contain colors that are simply not found in nature, and I'm always amazed at the glowing comments they receive. It seems a new standard for evaluating photos is the addition of color schemes not previously presented (and never seen by the human eye), regardless of their aesthetic qualities (I know this is subjective and I'm stating my own opinion here); "natural" and "beautiful" have been replaced by "different" (not entirely, of course, but it is a new trend). I sometimes comment on these unique color alterations, asking what the photographer is wanting to convey with his/her unique photograph (other than "uniqueness"), what is being said with the unique photograph, or what artistic statement is being made by pushing the sliders in the post-processing software, but I've never received a response. I've tentatively concluded it's different solely for the sake of being different, and that's all that matters. If that's the case, I've always thought that just because you can doesn't necessarily mean that you should in terms of aesthetic qualities (again I realize this is a subjective judgement).</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Warren, 'Move on.......' to where? Photo.net is still a part of my daily routine (sometimes a LARGE part, ask my wife..) After 10 years you are probably past the stage where almost any critique would be useful to you. The improvement in your images may now come in smaller increments but there is still good info to be gleaned by sticking around and looking at other photos and reading others' comments. At least, it still works for me. I've tried other sites & left them because I find the layout of this one works better for me. Thanks to a new scanner that will handle medium format negatives, of which I have a ton, I'm off to the races again. The 60's were good to me also. Stay the course! Best, LM.</p><div></div>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<blockquote>

<p>I have seen a rise in digital alterations that contain colors that are simply not found in nature, and I'm always amazed at the glowing comments they receive</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I too have been aware of this trend. There are obviously a lot of people who enjoy creating and viewing landscape photographs that, through Photoshop, are pushed beyond reality. The photographer may be making an artistic statement, or executing a desire for originality, or just experimenting. The digital age allows all of this. What if we transported a large selection of landscape photographs in print form and hung them in a gallery; would the audience feel differently about the photographs? If photographers want to experiment with digital alterations, I think that photo.net is a good place to show your work. If landscapes of unrealistic color and drama receive more attention than reality-based photography, perhaps it is to some extent attributable to human nature (and now this post is about to be moved to philosophy of photography). There is not much to be easily done about the rating system, and about peoples' photographic preferences as viewed on a computer monitor. My technology savvy nephew recently spoke of the end of printed photographs, where we would only view photographs on a flat screen monitor hanging on our wall. If we tired of the colors in a photograph, we could just load up another one, or send the current photograph back into processing. Certainly this is a different perspective than "the print being the culmination of the photographic process". As compared to a print, I personally would feel a separation between myself as a viewer, and the photographer's intent.</p>

[samn]

<p>Warren, no I don't think that P/N has lost anything, its just that times change. I had a few of those huge ratings/comments photos too way back when. By today's standards they were probably not deserved. We were operating in a really different era where there were just not as many shooters and we did not have the advanced capabilities offered by current cameras and software. What I see now is just as much enthusiasm, better capabilities and more people taking the hobby/profession seriously. But the downside to that is that there are just too many photographs to assimilate resulting in the low views/ratings/comments.</p>

<p>Speaking of enhancing/manipulation, I did have (to me) an interesting experience lately. I took what I thought were my very best images that included abstract, street and people shots, landscapes, several different types of photographic art and manipulations, architectural and some miscellaneous other shots and posted them on another web site. This site runs recently posted across their home page and it has quite a bit of traffic. It was interesting to see what images got the most views and ratings. All of the most popular and highly rated were abstract or heavily manipulated hi color images. Similar to the same ratings and views from P/N members.</p>

<p>So I guess it showed me two things. That what you get here as far a views and ratings is pretty accurate and secondly don't let others influence your work by their negative opinions on enhanced or manipulated photography. Do as you wish with <strong>your </strong> work.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Warren, I have only 40% of the time you have, but did spend the 20 years prior to that in photographic societies and national and international photo salons, and writing on a few small photography magazines, with all that provides in terms of the learning process, ratings, camaraderie, and so on. Since beginning Photo.Net membership I have found a lot of very imaginative photographers, amateur and professional and the learning and sharing experience has continued.</p>

<p>True, unless one actively seeks critiques and are willing to spend time critiquing the photos of others not many will come to one's portfolio and leave comments. I am not particularly looking for that part of the experience, although I welcome criticism and enjoy giving my impressions of the work of others as well, but find that the Forums are excellent for learning things, new approaches and providing information to help others. The many more persons on Photo.Net is probably a plus and provides more depth to that exchange. While still working in my tradtional darkroom as well as digital, I find that my learning curve in both (one steeper than the other) is accentuated. I have briefly looked at other photographic sites and find this one very good, but I may not be aware of everything out there. I particularly enjoy the exchanges in the Philosophy of photography forum, some casual conversations topics, off-topics and the film, darkroom and digital forums.</p>

<p>Sometimes I wish there was even more discussion on some forums. The discussion gets to an interesting point and there is sometimes a lull and the sense of progress and the thread are lost, at least for a while. There are obviously those who rarely post forum comments and those who rarely post photos, but we give and take what we want to. Until I find a more interesting site, I will spend most of my available time (unfortunately limited) on this one.</p>

<p>Perhaps you may need to seek out some aspects of the site that you haven't used much, or try some new types of photography and enter that sector of discussion and presentation of work. I know that if I don't try to re-invent myself occasionally I get bogged down in the constraints of my own little life.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I believe it still has value to me anyway. I don't ask for critiques however,never have . I notice that when I take a little time to do a critique on the daily photo submission list,( That tends to draw some critiquees to look at what I do. Like when a neighbor drops by with, some of her yard's tangerines, a reciprocal visit is the courteous thing, social behavior and it can work in any setting.). I don't <em>expect</em> that visit so if it d<em>oesn't</em> happen, it doesn't<em> bother</em> me, I consider it a pleasant nicety.Collegial sharing and all.<br>

PN does not/can not fulfill all expectations, and never will obviously. It has a shifting need to absorb its wider audience..There will be dead spells,well sure. There will even be- ohmygosh- a few jerks now and then among the good folk.<br>

PN still provides a relatively sane gathering place where most members tend to be 'nice'. Nice means not clever, prolific, knowledgable but generous and helpful and in the forums, open minded. Those qualities surpass 'cleve where I come from.</p>

<p>Short answer,Warren, No, I don't find that sense of decline myself. No sense that PN has lost its vitality or basic educative and collegial quality during the years of transition from film to digital and now to beyond digital...like 3-D and video and you name it. I compare PN in those respects, with couple other places I have joined up with and dropped out of.the balance sheet is still relatively positive I mean.</p>

 

[papasan]

<p>Warren, </p>

<p>I've only been here for 1/2 the time you have, but over the last 5 years i have also noticed that things have changed particularly in the critique forum. It is much more difficult to get comments and ratings now then it used to be, even if you put lots of effort into giving back to the forum. In 5 years i have asked for critique on 200 photos, and contributed critiques/comments on 2314 photos, a ratio of nearly 12 to 1. it does pay off and i do get a few comments on my photos when i post them but far less than 3-5 years ago. </p>

<p>Having said that, i am still getting a lot from this site and although i dont get as much critiques as i would like, i have developed a small group of people with whom i communicate regularly, and we offer constructive criticism on each other's photos (not only the "good shot" type of comment). There are much more also to this community than just the critique forum. I'm still learning and enjoying the site, it is a regular part of my daily routine, and i'm not planning on changing this. And as someone else mentioned where would I go if i did? PN is still one of the best if not the best site out there. </p>

[earl_calderwood]

<p>Sorry folks but in my humble opinon this site has become a complete gear head site. </p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Earl, And you are basing this opinion on the changes in the site which have happened since you've been a member? This site is robust enough to have something for everyone, gearheads, artists, or simply interested, nonparticipating onlookers. Allow some time to really get aquainted with it. Participate in the non-gearhead forums in the areas that do appeal to you. Best wishes, LM.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I've been visiting Photo.net for ten years or more too, though my participation is entirely forum orientated rather than in the Gallery. I don't feel remotely like I've had enough , or that it's time to move on ( where to?). Most other sites I've looked at don't seem to have the range that this one does, and that means I can combine learning about the things on which I'm not expert with commenting on the things on which I feel I have something cogent to say. </p>

<p>The site has always been about equipment; its always lost some of its highest contributors, but gained good new ones; and its always whinged about its rating system. From where I sit , it's no more or less interesting now than it was when I joined in 1998. It's certainly faster these days, and good to see some of the "names" from years ago occasionally making a reappearance from time to time. </p>

<p>I think the person who indicated early on in this thread that what you get out might relate to what you put in might have a point. When I'm home , Photo.net is a part of my routine and rarely will a day pass without me logging on and reading or writing something. Why should I want to give that up?</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry folks but in my humble opinon this site has become a complete gear head site.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been staying out of this whole conversation. But I have to step in here and say that photo.net was a gear-head site before it was anything else. 1997 or so. It can't become something it has always been.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I view the images on PN and there is just a huge number of excellent images. The problem is that there are just too many. Digital photography has allowed good photography to become mainstream. I've seen CD/DVDs selling hundreds of stock photo images for only a few dollars. It's simply a case of too much supply and too little demand. Professional photographers have probably had to face this realty more than myself.</p>

[bmm]

<p>I can't look back as far as you guys. But in the ~3 years since I got my first humble DSLR and started doing something about taking better pictures, this site for me has been amazing.</p>

<p>Does the quality and quantity of critiques vary? Yes<br>

Do you get the occasional dogmatic poster and/or pedantic gear-head? Yes<br>

But do you also get an amazing resource of people willing to help, advise, inspire and make you feel part of a community? Absolutely</p>

<p>Nothing is perfect. But this is a unique place on the web and has certainly contributed an absolute heap to my enjoyment of this hobby, and to my desire to get better and better one step at a time.</p>