ruslan Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>What is happening to this the greatest site in the past? I remember the days when hunderds or thousands of images of semi-professional and professional level were uploaded every day here! When in portrait or fashion sections there was prectically no blank space! I remember the days whan Nudes section was filling with top-class works every day, the wedding section was the place where one can learn "how to".<br>Now I must admit, there are some great works in nature swction. But the overall level has become more ... amateurish. I think now the exchange of rating has become more popular. This is my opinion.<br />Is there any statistics of uploading these days and 2005-2006 years? Has any of admins ever compared it? <br />Is photo.net going to decline? Maybe, <strong>photo.net</strong> should be popularized? <br /><br />How many <em>inactive profiles</em> are there out there?<br /><br /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbergbarry Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>I've only been part of PN for the past three years however I've seen huge declines as well. And it seems like the same issues are constantly discussed and I'm not learning anything.</p> <p>Probably will not renew when my membership ends. Unfortunately there are not any good replacements.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Maybe, photo.net should be popularized?</p> </blockquote> <p>Could you explain what you mean by this?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member69643 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>I think photo.net is great, although it's not what it once was. Content, profitability, available time, and the evolution of the internet have all changed. In the early days there were only a few sites with worthwhile content and photo.net was tops. Then came the widening divide between digital and film, and the rise of sites like dpreview and apug. Photo.net remains the best dual-source (film or digital or hybrid) resource on the internet. Sadly, I think the problem may be just that. Maybe fifty percent of photo.net is film, fifty is digital. The world's interest is 90% digital. And there's only so much internet traffic you can draw based on free content.</p> <p>I am only guessing.</p> <p>As far as image quality, it's a double-edged sword yes? Digital made photography simpler and easier to share on the web. Now everybody shares everything, worthwhile or not. Some folks work to create photos, some folks take snapshots, and they all end up here. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>Nothing is EVER what it "once was".<br> To the extent that there is some cycling, particularly from new people coming on, it may well be that one doesn't learn as much after a year or two as at first. The same complaint used to be made about the photo magazines.</p> <p>In short, I'm not sure the site has changed as much as the people who are observing the site.</p> <p>A few PitAs have left; some, not all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>I've seen this decline before... about a year ago. With a similar discussion as this one as result.<br> I doubt whether it has anything to do with film or digital preferences. I shoot extremely little film, yet you won't find me on the dpreview forum discussing with the digital crowd. They aren't talking photography there usually - instead they attack one another over which camera has the nicest pixels.<br> Photo.net is a way better resource than that.</p> <p>But, to play with what Barry said (and I do not hope Barry feels too personally addressed by it):</p> <blockquote> <p>it seems like the same issues are constantly discussed and I'm not learning anything.</p> </blockquote> <p>Honestly, isn't that also up to ourselves? Asking about the stuff we want to learn? It's a community site, its main content must come from the community it has.<br> If it needs to be more popular, then it's up to all of us ourselves to make such happen. Keep it an attractive, civil place. Try to deliver solid good critiques. Open the non-gear-headed discussions to share experience. Talk photos. No, I am not saying I am such a great photo.net citizen - but I just do not think Josh or the p.net programmers are the "problem" here, nor the ones that can create the solution single-handedly.<br> ___<br> Recently quite frequently a number of very active people seemed to be butting heads a lot in off-topic and casual conversations forums. Happened also last year, followed by a period of relative silence. It picked back up.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
color Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>I certainly have noticed that a lot fewer people are on Photo.net than used to be and there are probably multiple factors involved. One thing that affects my affection is that the site changes pages very slowly. It's like being back on dial-up. It can easily take 15 seconds to go from one page to another, both in my stuff and in others. It takes a lot of the entertainment value out of moving around on the site.<br> One other thing to consider too: Everything has a lifespan. Maybe Photo.net is near it's end.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncrosley Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>I will address mainly one part of the OP's remark. </p> <p>'The exchange of rating has become more popular . . . '</p> <p>Nothing could be further from the truth.</p> <p>When I came here eight or nine years ago, this site was dominated by mate-rating and their tricks and shenanigans caused no end of problems in administering the site.</p> <p>Current administration, in addition to beefing up the staff considerably with very able people, has instituted rules that have cut mate rating practically to a non-existent level, so far as I can see.</p> <p>I refused to consider mate-rating, in part by refusing to rate others' photos so never was contacted by others to participate in their rating schemes, but I was greatly aware it was happening - the forums were dominated by discussions of the many tricks that were used and how to combat them.</p> <p>That seems to be ended helped by anonymous rating. </p> <p>Exception programs and able stewardship seems also mostly to have eliminated much of a second category of scourge, the rating bot. We don't read about it, but errant ratings have a way of disappearing, but we don't see them because they're anonymous.</p> <p>In many ways this presently is a much more user friendly site, but there is MUCH more competition.</p> <p>One area in which this site excels is protection of copyrighted material; for me that's a major PLUS.</p> <p>The advent of a camera that sells for $300 or $700 with all the image quality and much of the functionality of a DSLR that once sold for nearly $4,000 may have helped bring image quality within the range of more potential shooters so there may be a general change in the quality of those who are photo enthusiasts and potential members not only of this service but of any service.</p> <p>Also, there's a certain professionalism about the approach of this service. I went to FLICKR, and saw was a photo that had an explanation by the photographer of how his photo seemed somehow to illustrate how the pictured pet seemed to be making farting sounds, all that in a FLICKR sponsored ad or tutorial. I couldn't imagine that on Photo.net let alone sponsored by Administration.</p> <p>There was a time when this site was the only game in town, and that time has changed.</p> <p>That doesn't lessen in any way this site.</p> <p>john</p> <p>John (Crosley)</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizweisiger Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Personally, I still love this site and will continue to subscribe. The recession hit us pretty hard, and I've had to go back to work, leaving little time for me to pursue my obsession. The "issues" here don't really bother me that much, I'm more interested in looking at pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS1664879711 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>"Nothing is EVER what it "once was"."</p> <p>or as they say, even the good-old days weren't really good.</p> ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvy Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>Having been a user of this site since the middle of last decade I think I can only compare how things have been during that time. I found 2007-2009 to be prolific years in terms of quality of photographs as well as forum participation. In the last few years there has been a decline in the quality of images that I admire. There are certainly more 'processed' images but that is because there us more digital posted here. I also find that the forums are very tightly moderated, which could also have led to some change in how many users are still finding the site their regular haunt.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>The entire web has changed, along with an entire paradigm shift in how folks interact through their magical communication devices. Even referring to "the web" or "online" doesn't quite do it justice.</p> <p>It's not just photo.net. Many traditional websites are learning to adapt to user/visitor expectations. And those expectations are often "Do it right, and do it right now." Take a look at this recent hyperbolic Gizmodo opinion piece, <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5910223/how-yahoo-killed-flickr-and-lost-the-internet">"How Yahoo Killed Flickr..."</a> and the <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00aOkJ">related photo.net discussion</a>.</p> <p>Most niche interest websites and virtual communities - and by definition photography and creative sites are niche interests - are carried on the shoulders of a handful of active members who "seed" the ground to attract others. Apparent activity is as mutable as the lives of those members. As active members take breaks, leave or die, it's always interesting to observe how others fill in and add their own flavor to the community.</p> <p>In my own casual observation, it's fascinating to see how active certain sub-communities within photo.net have become - in particular, the Classic Manual Cameras forum - while also maintaining a positive, encouraging and supportive vibe.</p> <p>Similarly, the "No Words/Words" photo threads on various forums have flourished as a separate entity - totally apart from the traditional photo.net portfolios and gallery - for sharing photos. This works better for some folks because their photos are being viewed within the desired context - by like minded photographers who understand the genre, or share a common interest.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewhite Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>With a little more than a year of membership, my input is that PN was extremely helpful at first, but less so as time progressed. My very first question here was how steep the learning curve would be transitioning from film to digital. It was well responded to with both helpful and some slightly disdainful comments. What I didn't expect was that simply viewing photos and the comments about them would do more for me than asking questions.<br> Are my (and many others') photos "amateurish"? Indubitably...this is why I haven't quit my day job.<br> Does seeing the high quality pictures of other photgraphers mean that I cast a more critical eye on my photos than I once did? Yes, but I can't say about others.<br> Do I still produce a vast majority of duds some of which still manage to appear in my PN portfolio? Undoubtedly.<br> Have I mostly given up submitting photos for critique? Yes.<br> What's the point of this post? It's my take on belonging to PN where you are either very good, very bad or just think you are either one. Does this site still perform a valuable service for those of us who probably wouldn't be taking pictures if all digital cameras cost $5000 or more for body only? Absolutely... and I'll bet there are still some good resources on either end of that spectrum as well. None of us were born semi- or professional photographers or anything else for that matter...some of us will never be, or even aspire to be. Isn't wanting to be better good enough?<br> As it's said, even a cat can look at a King.<br> Thus ends my first and probably last rant ever.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>Is Photo.net in recession?</p> <p>Seems easy enough to resolve. Whats the trend in number of forum questions, posts, and image uploads over the last few years? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncrosley Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>David Henderson,</p> <p>I think your methodology while interesting and which might yield interesting results, will not resolve the issue.</p> <p>In past the forum was eaten up by vigorous, even sometimes violent debates over mate rating, its merits, demerits, how to stop it by many proposed schemes plus the general methodology of rating in general as well as the worth of rating.</p> <p>That debate largely has stopped in the forums, so counting the forum entries is going to yield a false result.</p> <p>Likewise counting the number of uploaded photos will not tell you anything about their quality, and with the change in membership and anonymous ratings having changed ratings (somewhat lower I think) even a look at rating over time is apt to be very misleading. Even what counts now as a 'view' has changed drastically from what it was six or seven years ago so comparing present with former 'views' will mostly confuse.</p> <p>I'm not against counting and statistics, but one should be very careful to avoid using numbers as a substitute for real analysis just because they're often easier to gather and compare.</p> <p>Alas, life is not always as simple as counting numbers.</p> <p>john<br> John (Crosley)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncrosley Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <p>David Henderson,</p> <p>I think your methodology while interesting and which might yield interesting results, will not resolve the issue.</p> <p>In past the forum was eaten up by vigorous, even sometimes violent debates over mate rating, its merits, demerits, how to stop it by many proposed schemes plus the general methodology of rating in general as well as the worth of rating.</p> <p>That debate largely has stopped in the forums, so counting the forum entries is going to yield a false result.</p> <p>Likewise counting the number of uploaded photos will not tell you anything about their quality, and with the change in membership and anonymous ratings having changed ratings (somewhat lower I think) even a look at rating over time is apt to be very misleading. Even what counts now as a 'view' has changed drastically from what it was six or seven years ago so comparing present with former 'views' will mostly confuse.</p> <p>I'm not against counting and statistics, but one should be very careful to avoid using numbers as a substitute for real analysis just because they're often easier to gather and compare.</p> <p>Alas, life is not always as simple as counting numbers.</p> <p>john<br> John (Crosley)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <blockquote> <p><em>"The entire web has changed, along with an entire paradigm shift in how folks interact through their magical communication devices. Even referring to "the web" or "online" doesn't quite do it justice."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>While true, I believe the underlying psychology in the formation of "communities" have remain the same, thus photo.net can be analyzed in isolation. <br> <br> The natural formation of social groups in real life is well understood. The challenge for any on-line community in their effort to reverse engineer the process is to understand social dynamics in cohesive groups. I don't follow the Classic Manual Cameras forum, but I'm willing to bet it precisely follows <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number">Dunbar's number</a>, as well as other parts of p.net which might not function as well.<br> <br> I think the daily hustle has also made us less sensitive to the needs of individuals. The success of "No Words/Words" can probably be explained by "In Participatory Culture users feel that what they are contributing is important and that they are forming meaningful connections with other users.":<br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_communities#Specialized_Information_Communities">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_communities#Specialized_Information_Communities</a><br> <br> In contrast, the Video Forum is largely a ghost existence because it contains none of the elements necessary to form a participatory community. <br> <br> Issues such as Ratings arise when a community attempts to impose rules on what is largely an opinion-based activity and such attempts are generally met with failure. The natural formation of social cliques is also frowned upon which has the consequence of destroying (or preventing) the natural social grooming necessary to create a sense of belonging. <br /></p> <p>If the numbers support the observation of a declining participatory community, one might reexamine certain site policies or cultures within subsections of the site in order to address its fragmentation. Any successful site will have addressed the basic needs of individuals at the intangible level, and those who don't are left with a collection of individuals who will soon disperse to find a more comfortable place where they can call home. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynnthomas Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I found this site quite by accident a few years ago and have enjoyed it ever since. It is my "go-to" source. What attracted me most in the beginning was the Beginner Questions forum because as a newbie I had plenty of questions and little knowledge of my own. I felt that having that forum conveyed that this site was inclusive and all were welcome regardless of ability. I have learned a great deal and have gained an appreciation for what makes a good photo by looking at what's posted here. So I was taken back by the OP's remark that PN has become "amateurish." Perhaps PN has changed over the years..I wasn't around in the early 2000's. It is a well run site that will continue to attract followers as I believe it has much to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Could you explain what you mean by this?</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Josh</strong>, advertizing it in social networks.<br> Video interviews must be shown here with most famous world's photographers. (A lot of sites exloit video now). Maitres will be glad to help.<br> Interesting photoshoots and "how-to" lessons (new) from top-class pros (video).<br> More new and actual information. Lessons, lessons, lessons.<br> Reports from fresh photography events and exhibitions around the Globe.<br> Blogs os profies.<br> Professional critique. <br> Total abolishing ratings. (<em>Mate ratings exist even in full-incognito modes of some sites</em>).<br> Resrict the max. size of the uploaded image to 900 pixels but let it be shown in full width while opened, not in lesser size, because, being limited in width due to pixel interferention the picture does not look so sharp as it looks in real size. Now it (a horizontal picture) looks degraded and muddy on the photo.net. <br> Spell check -i t is necessary! <br> Abolish limits for uploads. That look outdated. <br> Obviously, the PN is a good place for enthusiasts and to some extents for profies. I believe the matter is not in film-digital debates. I try to explain on the examples of growing photography markets. When I showed the PN to my Ukrainian friend, ( he hed been an apprentice of the photographer Vladimir Syomin befofe, in 1970s'...) in 2004 he was pleasantly shocked with the high quality of works represented on the <strong>photo. net</strong>. <br> Back to the growing markets. In Russia and Ukraine the wedding photography in the 2001-2003 could be described as unobtrusive PJ and banal mostly film shots a-la "bride on the groom's hand". But now have a look what modern Ukrainian wedding photography looks like! I bet you've never seen it! I bet, you don't know what Ukraine itself look like. Odessa, Ukraine, wedding photographers offers. Note the quality of photography. What a plenty of them! The city is 1 millon sitizens. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.wedlife.ru/photographers/?country_id=9908&city_id=10398">http://www.wedlife.ru/photographers/?country_id=9908&city_id=10398</a><br /><br /><br> Now, having seen it, make conclusions. 99,9% of those photographers are <em>without</em> graduation degree in photography. 60-80% of them are part-time shooters. They learn, they shoot they edit.... What can they learn here? </p> <blockquote> <p>In contrast, the Video Forum is largely a ghost existence because it contains none of the elements necessary to form a participatory community. </p> </blockquote> <p>Yes and yes. Video has transfferred into videography now, SLR video is popular! I have to say, and rather strange, that it is a ghost here. This is because there is no video itself here.<br> I like the livel of intelligence here, on the PN and civility.<br> Regards. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncrosley Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 <p>Ruslan L. (in partial response)</p> <p>You state:</p> <p>'! I bet, you don't know what Ukraine itself look like.'</p> <p>Anybody who has taken the slightest look at my portfolio which contains somewhere north of 1,000 photos of Ukraine (I'm guessing) and Ukrainian life, certainly has a very, very good look at what life in Ukraine looks like. </p> <p>Add to that the very excellent work of excellent and standout Kyiv shooter, PN standout member Svetlana Korolyova who shoots both fine art and 'street', and you have an excellent grounding for her view of Kyiv's capital, Kyiv, her street style.</p> <p>My photos include Odessa, Lvov, Dnipropetrovsk, Kremenchug, Kyiv and various other cities, and suburbs (in major part), plus rural areas. </p> <p>Ruslan will even find Eisenstein's famous Odessa steps from his early landmark film 'The Battleship Potempkin' (twice) in my portfolio, though he might only recognize one such shot.</p> <p>Seven years ago, when I wanted to learn studio lighting, I hired a small portrait studio in a central Odessa neighborhood and began shooting Amazonka models, in day long sessions, and received brief tutelage (in Russian which I did not understand) from the studio's nice in-house shooter, who it turns out was a standout wedding photographer. </p> <p>He used the studio for his wedding stills/portraits.</p> <p>This man and I met later, another year or so down the road, in an Odessa restaurant (still with language difficulties) to compare portfolios, me with my laptop tapped into Photo.net over the restaurant wi-fi and he with his disks of wedding photos from his work.<br> <br />I viewed his wedding work, and found it professional to the nth degree, certainly well up to and beyond the standard of many of America's wedding photographers and learned he was perhaps Odessa's premiere wedding photographer.</p> <p>When my turn came to show him my street photos and the studio work of those fabulous models which I had never shown him, I tapped into Photo.net.</p> <p>Immediately he indicated to me he already knew my portfolio in its entirety, but had not connected the photos (which he knew) with me as a person, since he never had known my full name, I never had shown him my work before, and only knew me as John, the American who used the studio to shoot pro models under lights.</p> <p>He already had been watching my work from Odessa and Dnipropetrovsk which is where I then was photographing. </p> <p>PN had brought us together as photographers sharing my work in a cyber way, though unwittingly we somehow knew each other somewhat from daily life without having exchanged personal looks at each others' work.</p> <p>(small world)<br> <br />His wedding work was professional and excellent, then about six or seven years ago. </p> <p>I recall from studio traffic I observed he seemed to do a thriving business and was a fantastic shooter who could then compete easily with the best shooters in America.</p> <p>(I forgot his name, regrettably).</p> <p>I do not address the rest of the points you made, but I have made a great effort to document Ukrainian life, mostly in the cities, and invite you to have a look. It has worked into two Photos of the Week, and otherwise it is not unknown here, I think, and comprises nearly half my huge portfolio.</p> <p>john<br> John (Crosley_</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 <p>John</p> <p>Until the numbers are known, and the fact of a recession or otherwise is established, I have no interest in a blindfolded discussion on why. </p> <p>I appreciate that looking at numbers alone does not help an understanding of why they say what they do. But until there is something to explain, and all participants are trying to explain or comment on the same facts, there is no point to a debate.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 <p>David, I don't think numbers usually considered confidential will be casually shared in a public forum. Further, any site will benefit from improved numbers and Josh has always expressed his receptiveness to appropriately framed input, so at a minimum, this would be an opportunity for each of us to express our perception and experiences relative to our individual participation. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 <p>John, I have just seen ykrainian girls and Dasha and street photography (which is called "genre" photography in Russia and Ukraine), I like a lot of them, taken with wide-angle lenses and I will pay attention to them the other day. I take back part of my words regarding Ukrainian life. But my remark concerned mostly growing markets and other growing with high speed, sites. Groing skills even in some "exotic" parts of the worlds as for many anericans, Ukraine is. I have just shown the level of photographers from there which appeared out of nowhere during the latest 5 years. PN is a good place to share opinions. I think the site should be more "speedy" in operation. It is too slow. <br />I think the number of the best semi-pros created their own sites and gone away. Not all of them but I guess, a lot. <br> We have no figures, this is my POV and nothing else. Maybe my look at photography has changed for years. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhbebb Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 <p>I am a semi-retired pro photographer and technical writer on photography - even after 7 1/2 years membership of photo.net, I still find participation interesting and valuable. I probably know more than most about film photography and am happy to give advice when I can, there are certainly those here who know a lot more about digital photography (I've just picked up the basic on a need-to-know basis), and there's always someone who has used or knows more about a particular camera that I haven't used, especially collectors' items. Inevitably most of what happens on a forum will not interest every member, and there will sadly always be those who are arrogant and dismissive to newbies (but I don't think photo.net is particularly bad here). <br> I think the real answer is that you get out what you put in - if you feel you're not making progress and learning, you probably aren't asking enough/the right kind of questions!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_staniforth Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 <p>An interesting discussion . I haven't really any thing I can add , I detest the Rating system and would like to see more constructive critism instead of the " mutual admiration " that goes on . Bill</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now