Is forum traffic dropping?

[Mike D]

<p>I'm actually beginning to check out the "rumor" sites more often as they are simply more exciting. It's not a conscious decision.</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>What is this obsession with attracting the young? Is anybody fretting over on Instagram(which I have never been to) why there aren't enough mature voices? Old and young are not permanent states. The young <em>will</em> get old. All we have to do here is to wait for them.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>It's about the outright hostility often shown to things like phone cameras</strong>, which are what young people use. Whether that is a starting point for them or what they use forever is unclear, at least on this site, since there is such strong attitude against phone camera users. The expectation that everyone should have a pile of lenses and no kit lenses is similar - most younger people aren't going to spend a lot of money accumulating equipment when they are trying to figure out how to move out of their parents' homes. If there was more of a welcome for anyone enjoying photographing, it's possible that there would be new blood. But the way it is right now, I wouldn't even suggest the site to a young person starting out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't read the entire thread. I skimmed a lot of it but I may have missed something. <strong>Maybe what people aren't acknowledging is there isn't a lot to say.</strong> I mean if you use the handy search function up in the right hand corner most of your questions will be answered. I've shown up, retrieved what I needed, and departed without logging in most of the time. Posting a lot of the time is just a social thing. But really if I need an answer I can generally find it with a few searches. After years of informative posts the forum has achieved its goal. It is a wonderful archive of knowledge. Honestly doesn't it irritate people when people post a question that has been addressed 10 times before?</p>

<p>As far as camera phones and the like are concerned besides things like portability and fast upload of results there are much better tools to do the job. If all someone has is a camera phone I don't think anyone on this forum would discourage them from taking pictures. But if they asked about image quality, ergonomics, control, etc. a forum member would be derelict in their duty if they did not speak about other better options. I don't see 35mm shooters complaining when MF guys say MF has better image quality. And I don't see MF guys getting sore when the large format guys show up at the party. I personally appreciate everyone on this forum and others that were honest with me about film, digital, medium format film, view cameras, etc. I needed to know the facts. I didn't need someone to coddle me and tell me whatever camera I was holding was the best for everything. Just tell me the truth and let me pick whatever trade offs work for me. Currently the largest thing I shoot is medium format. But that doesn't mean I'm going to say large format doesn't have an image quality advantage. It's time for people to stop taking things so personally and just be objective.</p>

<p>You look at the threads that people pour into and you see things like "If You Place a Red Crayon Under a Bowl, What Color Is It?" That was a top thread for weeks. Sorry if people don't log in day after day to contribute to that. I really would much rather be out taking pictures or getting information about a possible $300 photographic purchase than endlessly debating that. It's fine if other people want to do it but that is not where most shooters I know live.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If all someone has is a camera phone I don't think anyone on this forum would discourage them from taking pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Doesn't sound like you read the forums much.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The statistics should be looked at by the owners. There are tens of thousands of members yet comparatively very few posters. Adding another few thousand will do what? Maybe it will make the revenues more attractive to the owners, but it won't change anything. If the quality doesn't improve at the same time, people will have little reason to stay. What you need to do is to encourage people to post and GET INVOLVED or Photo.Net is going to outlive its usefulness to many.</p>

<p>Going on and on by some about how they don't like the long term members use of the forums (they are at least using them, which others are not) is just shooting themselves in the foot.</p>

<p>Those forum using people, at least, seem to be trying to make this place work. They also want to see new members, not for revenues alone, but to stimulate discussions. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Going on and on by some about how they don't like the long term members use of the forums</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Who said they don't like long term members? Is reading a lost art?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>True pseudonymity or anonymity can be liberating as well. But be careful what you ask for. You may get it. If you're using a pseudonym here on photo.net yet still find yourself attaching some unwarranted value to your opinion based on purported experience for which you cannot or will not provide any evidence due to concerns about privacy, well... you only *think* you want genuine anonymity online.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm often disheartened when I read advice where the poster shows none of their work. How can you trust what they are saying is based on any real experience? Maybe they're a blowhard. Especially if they're not using their real name. Even if there is experience, the purported process recommendation on whatever may not be your cup of tea. But how do you know unless you can see the results of their recommendation and make up your mind whether to try their suggestion. I would like to see results so I can decide whether to try their suggestion before wasting my time with a different process. Without posting pictures, I usually just discard any recommendations a poster gives.<em> </em>A poster should have some willingnesss to expose themselves before telling others what they should do.</p>

<p><em>"Show me the money."</em></p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Well, as the saying goes:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_dog.jpg">On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog</a></p>

<p>Can it just be a coincidence that a current very active thread is <a href="/off-topic-forum/00bPwv">What is your favorite breed of cat</a>?</p>

<p>Woof woof?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>And the inverted version is true on discussion forums for furries: <a href="

the internet nobody knows you're <em>not</em> a dog</a>.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Can it just be a coincidence that a current very active thread is <a href="/off-topic-forum/00bPwv" rel="nofollow">What is your favorite breed of cat</a>?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cats and dogs may not be particularly relevant to photography, but the value and contribution of the Off Topic forum to this site is probably underestimated.</p>

<p>It's a place where participants can get to know one another at another level. It's the only Facebook-like corner where we can engage socially and reveal/discuss our diverse interests and share viewpoints on everything except photography. Manny, if not most of the participants in the OT forum are also long time members unlikely to abandon the site. </p>

<p>Think about it; what is Facebook, really, except a massive off topic forum with the freedom to talk about everything through photography?</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Lex, I read a great article recently that said google is fated to become more and more inaccurate over time, and it's starting now. google is based on pulling up sites that are determined by the amount of hits they get, not the validity of the information. After a while, errors become cumulative. Photo.net's data base is a godsend for me when it comes to info I need on old cameras, and I always come to the site here to do my searches. As for snipers, it's the internet, and I know from experience that it's going to happen here and elsewhere. I must say that I find it a lot better than it used to be. The site is over moderated and has too many categories and little rules, but that's just my take on it, and I don't think that site traffic is related to that. Having worked many years in market research, it's surely best to have an independent company do a relevant survey and determine what's up w/ that. It's probably related to the down economy, and the fact that things sometimes cycle up or down for no particular reason. Forum sites are probably like communes. As much as everyone espouses to love collaboration and decision by consensus, the truth is that communes set up like that rarely survive, while those w/ strong, somewhat dictatorial leaders thrive. Is a commune a good model for an internet photography forum? Probably as good as any. It's people dealing w/ people.</p>

<p>It would help to upgrade the server too. I can't seem to get this posted, and it happens a lot.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Clive started this thread about 18 hours ago. Google or Bing the entire first paragraph of the OP and see what comes up from everything in the Internet archive.<br>

[<a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=Above+are+the+monthly+statistics+from+a+few+moments+ago.+Being+in+my+eighth+year+of+membership+I+feel+that+the+number+of+questions+and+comments+posted+in+the+four+fora+that+I+frequent+has+dropped+off+quite+a+lot+....+or+is+my+appetite+for+new+posts+getting+out+of+hand%3F+My+most+visited+areas+are+Casual...+%2C+Nikon%2C+Rangefinder+...+%26+Medium+Format%2C+btw.&aq=f&oq=Above+are+the+monthly+statistics+from+a+few+moments+ago.+Being+in+my+eighth+year+of+membership+I+feel+that+the+number+of+questions+and+comments+posted+in+the+four+fora+that+I+frequent+has+dropped+off+quite+a+lot+....+or+is+my+appetite+for+new+posts+getting+out+of+hand%3F+My+most+visited+areas+are+Casual...+%2C+Nikon%2C+Rangefinder+...+%26+Medium+Format%2C+btw.&aqs=chrome.0.57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">Google</a>]<br>

[<a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=Above+are+the+monthly+statistics+from+a+few+moments+ago.+Being+in+my+eighth+year+of+membership+I+feel+that+the+number+of+questions+and+comments+posted+in+the+four+fora+that+I+frequent+has+dropped+off+quite+a+lot+....+or+is+my+appetite+for+new+posts+getting+out+of+hand%3F+My+most+visited+areas+are+Casual...+%2C+Nikon%2C+Rangefinder+...+%26+Medium+Format%2C+btw.&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&filt=all&pq=above+are+the+monthly+statistics+from+a+few+moments+ago.+being+in+my+eighth+year+of+membership+i+feel+that+the+number+of+questions+and+comments+posted+in+the+four+fora+that+i+frequent+has+dropped+off+quite+a+lot+....+or+is+my+appetite+for+new+posts+getting+out+of+hand%3F+my+most+visited+areas+are+casual...+%2C+nikon%2C+rangefinder+...+%26+medium+format%2C+btw.&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=">Bing</a>] </p>

[woolly1]

<p>FB is a temple of one-upmanship where hundreds of millions of people say "look at me, look where I am, look what I'm doing, I'm next to a pretty girl/boy" and accompany it with a thumbnail phone photo. It must be really intimidating to the guys who don't have sparkly, eventful lives and hundreds of 'friends'! It's just a different demographic.</p>

<p>Many contribributors and moderators alike get so deep into scientific matters batting a moot point back and forth, almost getting personal, I wonder if we shouldn't have a back room where they can go to slug it out.<br /> P.net is in places just too dry and the learning curve too steep for the average transient visitor to hook into.<br /> For some, shallow is good.</p>

<p>If Pnet can learn something from FB 'we' might make it easier to add images inline, double column perhaps with click throughs to full res versions like Flickr or Pbase. Honestly, it's such a work-up adding photos inline. You can see where people have tried and after several empty postings have simply given up.<br /> Would you rather read a screen full of plain text or look at a page with a little more candy on it?</p>

<p>I don't think the search function works as well as RFFs either</p>

<p>@ Michael<br>

I googled my 1st, then 2nd and finally a paragraph from halfway down. Got this thread every time as first result.<br>

What was the point you were trying to make? Did I miss something? :-)</p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"Clive started this thread about 18 hours ago. Google or Bing the entire first paragraph of the OP and see what comes up from everything in the Internet archive."</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

I don't get the significance? I research a ton of stuff and rarely see PN on the first or second page. How about googling "how to make a Photoshop action"? PN doesn't show up on the first two critical pages of my results yet ketchuptomyfries.blogspot.ca, does. This must be a big problem for the owners of PN and selling advertising space<br>

</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"FB is a temple of one-upmanship"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clive, Facebook is as you described if used that way. The folks I follow and "Like" on Facebook are nothing like that. </p>

<p>I see the difference as follows:<br>

Facebook is a platform which you can adapt the site features to best achieve your intended objective; it can be very fruitful if used intelligently. <br>

P.net is a site which a participant must adapt to and participate within its site rules; there is little one can do to differentiate oneself given the site's constraints. </p>

<p>An example - a war photographer on Facebook will have thousands of followers not only for the pictures, but the entire backstory of the conflict that can solicit discussion that touches on everything from politics to philosophy. The photographer retains his identity. </p>

<p>The same photographer on P.net will be anonymous for the most part. </p>

[woolly1]

<p>Just tried again to Google search for various paragraphs up and down this thread and half the time no hits at all.</p>

<p>Even googled the emboldened text from Eric's post above....and no cigar. Stopped looking at the 5th page.</p>

<p>Strange stuff.</p>

<p>@ Michael<br /> I will bow to your superior experience of the site. It has moved on significantly sinced I closed my account on security/privacy grounds.<br>

Pnet doesn't have to be anonymous - believe it or not this is my real name :-)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lex said it right when he stated facebook is symbiotic. That's exactly it.<br>

This thread is useful, but it shouldn't become a rant against Facebook, because FB is not where the problem is. FB is merely the most outspoken example of how the internet changed.<br>

Roughly, exposure on the internet currently has two vital channels: Google and Facebook. Both require expertise and a good plan to get the best out of. Despite the discussion in the preceding posts, I find p.net ranking with Google to be excellent. But if you start searching for a 18 hour old thread, then you seem to be missing how Google works - it needs to index first. Google isn't real-time. When I search for opinions on lenses, filters, tripods - p.net is there.<br>

While p.net has some FB presence, it's tame, and it won't go viral. This is an area to study, it needs a plan of sorts - it isn't easy to go very popular on facebook. If you succeed, though, there is a lot to win there.</p>

<p>I think what was said earlier about too many forums is true. One other thing to consider there is that it might be worth studying the demographics of members. I know there are quite some Italian photographers here on p.net - via critiques and so on, they're present enough. But they're not on the forums, because everything is English. So, how about adding a Spanish, Italian, Chinese forum? (and a Lomo forum, obviously!)<br>

Here, though, I'd also caution to not throw out the child with the bath water. The Philosophy forum, disliked as it may be by some, is fairly unique and has its own attraction. The Minox forum might be terribly small, but a quick look around shows there aren't many other places covering it. Upholding these niches is also part of the attraction that p.net can have.<br>

Photo.net is certainly one of the most civil photography forums/sites, and not half as gearheaded as some claim here (try dpreview for a refreshing view on what real gearheads are like). Yes, there could be more focus on photography and discussing photos. The forums may seem to have slowed down, the critiques are in a way worse shape. But look at the total package of what the site offers. The learning section should be cleaned up and put far more prominently in place, plus refreshed more often. Integrate areas of the site, and more prominently. Reviews, for example; start to allow user reviews of gear, old and new? That gets people in, plus on that page one can link to relevant discussions in the forums, show photos shot with that specific gear, and so on (for the older gear, try to find a deal with eBay, and show relevant auctions).<br>

And maybe find ways to use the 'community feel' more. Live chat? It could reduce ping-pong discussions in forums... Blog space for members (or maybe make that a paid member offer) where the more opinionated members can expose their ideas in more verbose ways than forums.</p>

<p>Shouting at FB will not make p.net a better place. This community is strong and diverse enough, knowledgeable enough and usually willing enough, so it's basically up to p.net management to draft good plans, and up to ourselves to keep p.net relevant and alive.<br>

I'd say: stop searching for this discussion in Google, use that time to critique photos and answer in the beginner's forum in a pleasant and open-minded way instead. Let's get started.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I think the forum is just like it is in one's personal life. When you move into a new neighborhood, there is excitement in meeting new people initially. As one begins to know certain individuals better, opinions begin to develop; I like this person better but not so much that person. That is pretty much the norm.</p>

<p>And then one day, "that" person offends, whether intentional or not, or "that" person doesn't get the recognition they expected, or "that" person trys to elicit help from "buddies" in their clique to prove their point. The next thing you know, the offended individual deletes all of their history/background and posted photos in a self-imposed punitive attempt with the intent of drawing attention to themselves. When that doesn't work, they nearly fade into obscurity. They take their ball and go home. No more contributions. End game.</p>

<p>That's too bad. Everyone has something to contribute. If you see yourself above, I would ask that you question why you are here. Are you making positive contributions?</p>

[ronald_olsen]

<p>While I find this an interesting read, I think that the wrong people are contributing. The people here are those who are still active on the site. I'd like to hear from people who do NOT post anymore, and find out why they don't. I'd especially like the MODERATORS to hear why they don't. Perhaps instead of speculating, this would be a good time for the moderators to reach out to them, to send out some e-mails to these people who used to post, asking why they don't anymore.</p>

<p>I can tell you why I stopped being active ( though I do browse the site often). In the Nikon forum especially, I find the moderation WAY too heavy-handed. It's like a sporting event in which all you remember are the referee's calls; people don't go to see the refs, they go to see the teams. It turns me off to see the moderators front and center, I'd rather see them only intervene if things get off-topic or out of hand. Another problem is that people often ask for advice then disappear. You don't hear back about how things worked out, if the fix that they tried was successful or not.</p>

<p> In this thread from 2009, I took an hour to make a carefully thought out reply, but never got a response from the original poster.<br>

<a href="/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00SbBe">http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00SbBe</a></p>

<p>In this thread from 2010, I made what I thought was some good advice to the OP about buying ZF primes over ZE, as you can use the ZF's across multiple camera systems with an adaptor. Since they are manual focus lenses anyway, there is really no downside to this, as there would be with an auto-focus lens. The Nikon Moderator effectively said that this was bad advice (page 2). Other posters thought that I had made a sound contribution to the thread.<br>

<a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00WgnD">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WgnD</a></p>

<p>I didn't make any posts for two years after that. I gave it one more try in 2012. In this thread, I took the time to go through boxes of old receipts to find the specific numbers of a rubber power cord that I used to solve the same problem that the OP had. I never got any acknowledgement.<br>

<a href="/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00Zzai">http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00Zzai</a></p>

<p>While I will continue to visit, unless things change I'm not really inclined to contribute any more.</p>

<p> </p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Then there is Flickr. That is a big draw. You are in control of your site, you can revise ad infinitum, you can post up to fifty megs and you can block and delete trolls all by yourself. Whatever you say about Flickr it is a draw. The only problem is that there is little discussion on Flickr. That is where photo.net shines. </p>

<p>I am not a nostalgic person by nature. But I have good reason to not be nostalgic about the abuse in the form of personal attacks that went on in the old days. I know of a few very good photographers who dropped out because of that. I near did a few times. That sort of thing is not tolerated anymore, thank goodness. (I mean it's now zero tolerance, at least officially.) Yet, I have to confess that to this day I am reluctant to post questions or to take a lot of risks because of past abuse. <br>

Is there still abuse, by the way? I admit to being a sketchy Photo.net reader. </p>

<p>I find that the Leica and RF Forum is way too quite these days, however I do not miss some of the extremes of the old days. I do not know why it is so quite. The Classic Manual Cameras Forum is both spicy and pleasant. </p>

<p>The Mirrorless Camera is lively but has rather light traffic. But keep an eye on it. It will grow as mirrorless cameras become more sophisticated and, at some point, eclipse the DSLRs.</p>

<p> One of the most popular Forums is Photo Critique. You might wonder why that is.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I'd like to hear from people who do NOT post anymore, and find out why they don't. I'd especially like the MODERATORS to hear why they don't. Perhaps instead of speculating, this would be a good time for the moderators to reach out to them, to send out some e-mails to these people who used to post, asking why they don't anymore."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've done that with a few folks who became less active or left photo.net. The reasons varied.</p>

<p>Some, like you, would have preferred less active moderation. Others, like Alex, felt discouraged by posters who were belligerent, sarcastic or uncivil. So some folks would prefer more moderator intervention. For mods, striking a balance requires experience, a bit of intuition and some luck. We don't always get it right from every member's perspective.</p>

<p>Other folks had no particular opinions about or disagreements with moderation, but preferred sites that focused almost exclusively on the equipment itself, the next big thing and rumors. Others may prefer sites or groups that emphasize film and traditional darkroom processes. Others may be infatuated with a specific type of camera and happen to find all the inspiration, motivation and camaraderie they need within such a niche group.</p>

<p>Still other folks preferred a different type of photo feedback. Some found photo.net's critiques/ratings too harsh, unhelpful, etc. Others found it too blandly congratulatory and indifferent to actual, specific critiques.</p>

<p>The opinions I've heard have been so diverse and almost contradictory that the only thing I'd be willing to say for certain is that there is no subtle adjustment or radical change in photo.net's culture that will please everyone.</p>

<p>The challenge for a generalist site like photo.net is to remain relevant in an online world where many folks enjoy and even prefer niche communities. And those niche websites are easy and affordable to set up and maintain. Micro-niches can be set up within Flickr, for example, including groups for one specific camera model. And as that model is discontinued and members lose interest, there was little invested in the group so it's easy to move on.</p>

<p>My intuition is that photo.net's strength may be in tutorials written by experienced members, and a more vibrant photo critique process with frank, specific and constructive critiques. But the tricky bit is the incentive. If folks want tutorials or critiques from recognized professionals or amateurs with demonstrated expertise, it won't come free - at least not for long, not after the initial buzz of enthusiasm wears off.</p>

<p>As for discussion forums, they are what they are. Photo.net's aren't really much different, better or worse than any other photo website with discussion forums. I lurk on several other sites and overall they're all pretty similar.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>People I know who have stopped posting typically cite a problem Eric mentions above - it's too hard to post photos and the interface for viewing them is clunky. For the vast majority of people, photography is about photographs, not about yacking endlessly about what product is best or next. There is also a perception from some that a lot of the posters don't actually do much photography, but are more about camera collecting. Sites like Flickr, Google+ and Facebook are easier to post at, easier for photo browsing, and have more viewing, which is what a lot of people want. Most people, in fact. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I think many who post are conscious of the fact that they are either discussing someone else's image (as in POW) or are discussing some specific point that is more methodology or a query about that and are perhaps reluctant to appear to "grandstand" with their photographic uploads in those circumstances.</p>

<p>Asking for a photo critique, which I often do, is a bit different than posting a comment or question in a forum. It is often very beneficial. Given that, there is probably no reason why Photo.Net cannot develop some new photo-intensive forums that would add to others where photo critique is done. I am not referring to the wordless or word-limited (N/NW?) posts, which are fun, but of a different type. I don't see the PNet system of photo uploading as particularly clunky. As this is a largely anonymous member and widely viewed site, limiting the size of images is just a safeguard against theft of some of our more cherished photos.</p>

<p>How to encourage more photograph posting within the framework of a discussion forum?</p>

<p>One possible example: I once asked publicly here (in the philosophy forum, about 4 or so years ago) for a forum titled something like "photographic approaches" which would incite members to discuss their particular methods and ideas and provide examples, allowing others to either graft onto that approach and provide their examples, or to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the approach described. I got the reaction that the philosophy forum was good enough for that purpose. I thought not, still think not, and time has shown that to be palatable.</p>

<p>Such a forum on "photographic approaches" could be limited to two or three such posts per week, to allow enough traffic and to not ignore discussing some member's initiative in posting. There are also other ideas for interactive forums that are beyond the scope of this discussion (causes versus solutions). I would like to see a request of Photo.Net to its members on how to improve the site, from different angles (forums, photo portfolios, etc.). One forum which should be more highly trafficked, but is not, is the coming events forum. Zero input.</p>

<p>As there is a desire of people to post their photos somewhere, that will probably always be an activity of Photo.Net, for both photographic and commercial (sponsor) reasons. If we don't encourage more participation in the discussion forums, whether related to equipment or practice, people will prefer sites like Rff, apug or some equipment specific sites, or will engage with blogs like that of Mike Johnston otr Luminous Landscapes.</p>

[EricM]

<p>The easiest way to create anxiety and frustration with your customer (and the hardest to undo) is to be inconsistent. It would only take you a couple visits to McDonald's and have you get different quality hamburgers during those visits, in order for them to lose you as a customer. They don't have to be good burgers, they don't have to bad burgers, they just have to be the same consistent burger. Imo, the moderation from forum to forum should be fluid, expected, and uniform. Instead, PN has heavy-handed over-moderation of some forums like the Nikon forum, and a complete lack of moderation in others like the digital darkroom. It could easily be solved by rotating the moderators through the forums. Maybe once a month they switch the forums that they mod.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I am a member of <a href="http://www.streetphotographyforum.com">www.streetphotographyforum.com</a> and it's taking a aaage to take off. There are a few commited members and even those who don't post too frequently are producing good work in the main. But sometimes it feels like it's a tiny internet based club. Only 100+ members so far, despite the best efforts of some. I feel smaller forums can be better, as each individual member is more relevant, but TBH, many people seem happy with the equipment/results they get these days. The artistry of photography, it seems, is in post-processing, not actually taking the picture.<br>

Fewer people seem to want to really get the best out of their equipment. It's so often a case of Night Landscape Mode and click rather than thinking about things. I have a colleague who told me today he "didn't have time" to hang his clothes up and "needed" a dryer. But of course, being in Asia, he didn't want to actually find one on his own. Cue a phonecall to a local to get him a dryer. Not only was he too "busy" to hang his clothes up, he was too busy to even buy one himself. People often think like this these days. Who wants to learn how to use a camera? That's lame!<br>

Of course, show them a few nice prints and it's a different story.</p>