The Elves Unhinged!

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Martin, thanks for the smile. I needed that!</p>

[joewhite]

<p>I have no earthly idea what has possessed me to respond here, except to say that:<br>

Fred, one thing that is unquestionable is your passion for photography; and if I or any others prefer not to read what you have to say, it's so easy to scroll past. Personally, I'm glad that you frequently express your opinion in the fashion that you do, whether I agree, disagree, or don't care.<br>

What I need to know now, though, is since the elves have apparently gone into hibernation, at least the main one, can we now resume our heated threads about guns or other touchy subjects?</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>Thanks Fred for your response....</p>

<p>My point was that the discussions in the POTW usually veer off into the personal philosophy of a few, and the photo in question is abandoned. There is a philosophy forum for that, and you see how many participate in that one. When individuals ask for critiques of their work, how many philosophical discussions arise. People state their pros and cons and move on. I'm not talking about the suppression of intellect in the POTW forum, but using the same sensitivity I've seen when you and others critique the work of those who request it. I believe this will open the door for more people to participate..</p>

<p>The self serving comment was because the POTW forum is the most visible, and the comments are more brutal because of it. It's called playing to an audience. I agree that there should be diversity in the selections, but I don't think this issue is why more don't join in........</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>I agree that there should be diversity in the selections, but I don't think this issue is why more don't join in........</em>>>></p>

<p>I agree. I wasn't suggesting diversity of selection as a way to get more participants. I was suggesting it as a way to broaden the range of photographic discussion in the POTW forum.</p>

<p>It's a little easy and just as unfair to blame others for one's own lack of participation in a given forum. Sometimes, one just has to jump in and make something of it instead of simply blaming others for making it something else. Or, as Joseph suggested, and as I have certainly done in a variety of forums, one can skip over the posts of those one doesn't benefit from reading.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>If we for once could forget about Fred, and come back to his very justified "unhinged" Elves complaint, it might be beneficial to the discussion.</p>

<p>Also I agree on the appreciation of the POTW as being much too often of little photographical interest. Too common, too nice and sleek for my liking. I see mostly this weekly choices of photos in line with the Top-Rated-Photos, which also regularly become subject to ire. My reaction to this state of affairs is, that I rarely look at the Top-Rated-photos and rarely participate in the POTW discussions. I'm not inspired to make the effort and often opt for contributing to the No-Words forum instead.</p>

<p>Maybe we should just accept that POTW is meant to be a photo, that is in line, in terms of aesthetics, photographical technics and subject matter, with what is common and appreciated by most photographers on Photonet. The discussions are there to confirm or contradict that commonality. Maybe a good occasion for those, that have the time and courage, of explaining our ire.</p>

<p>But why try to make all forums alike and ready for discussions that sometimes and maybe too often already have been made in other forums, like the Philosophy forum? </p>

<p>Also I would find an interest in participating in discussions on more novel off-the-trodden-road photography here in Photonet, but I would rather expect that in the thematic forums like the Street and Documentary forum, the Nature or the Portrait forums - they are there for just that, if we wish to use them.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>The only criterion for POTW should be that the chooser, whoever he, she or they may be, has to go "WOW..."</p>

<p>Over the years two of the POTW images (an amazing equine B&W and a stunning wolf pic) have found their way into my favorite images collection here on photo.net and I likely wouldn't have seen them at all without them being picked. They weren't overprocessed "digital art" and I think that's one of the reasons they appealed <em>to me, </em>but they are first and foremost awesome images. I went WOW. If the elf this week went WOW then that's good enough for me.</p>

<p>My WOW is not necessarily your WOW, but I like seeing your WOW. :)</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Thank you, Fred, for bringing this issue up. I am in agreement with you and the other posters who long to see a more diverse photographic aesthetic represented in the POW.</p>

<p>We must recognize, however, that Photo.net may not want to make things too challenging or diverse in the POW. If their goal is to grow their membership, opinions and tastes like ours are in the minority. They need to appeal to a broader audience. And broader audiences are going to be more comfortable talking about objective things like color accuracy, tilted horizons, rule of thirds, and depth of field. They’re going to want to see emulations of Ansel Adams, Steve McCurry, or Peter Lik, not Igor Posner, Minor White, or Lee Friedlander. </p>

<p>I also get the impression that Photo.net is a bit adrift lately, unsure of what it wants to be. But that is just a vague impression. I recall seeing Fred’s interview with Billy Kenrick in August of 2010 and being impressed by Fred’s questions (to say nothing of his selection of Billy), as well as Billy’s work. “At last,” I thought, “this place is branching out and becoming a bit more sophisticated.” Alas, the member interviews seem to have fallen by the wayside. The direction of Photo.net now seems to be themed contests and informational articles in the style of Popular Photography. There’s nothing wrong with that, and it probably appeals to a broader audience than the type of photography or discussions that some of us here would prefer. If we’re looking for meat and challenges we can always go to websites like Burn or American Suburb X.</p>

<p>I don’t know who is ultimately in charge of Photo.net, or what their “Mission Statement” is, but they have to do whatever they think is best for their website. We can grumble, make respectful suggestions, and only hope that they will at least occasionally throw out a desirable bone in terms of the POW.</p>

<p>And to address Jeremy’s request for POW examples (a reasonable request), here are some quick selections, more intended to give the flavor of what I would like to see as a POW rather than a suggestion to literally put up these specific selections.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/6336067">http://www.photo.net/photo/6336067</a><br>

<a href="/photo/16599034">http://www.photo.net/photo/16599034</a><br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/8548152 <br>

<a href="/photo/15750540">http://www.photo.net/photo/15750540</a><br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/11817296<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16411092<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/7303111<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16738915</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, very good points. I fear you are right. The POTW choices are likely a reflection of the popularity contest mentality that has overtaken Photo.net.</p>

<p>Patrick, beware the WOW! :-) It can be a fast and fleeting friend who will dump you just as fast. Consider a photo that takes more time to reveal itself and grow on you. It may not stand the test of Internet immediate gratification needs, but it often makes for more considered, long-lasting, and rich experiences.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>"I don’t know who is ultimately in charge of Photo.net, or what their “Mission Statement” is, but they have to do whatever they think is best for their website."</p>

<p>As was explained to me the other day in another forum, Namemedia owns Photo Net. If you go to namemedia.com, you can see, at the top of the page, some of the other sites that it operates (some are functioning sites; some are domain names for sale). For instance, operating sites are comicbooks.com, garden.com, and tarot.com, etc. Names for sale are diamondwatch.com, tennisclinic.com (half-price domain name sale right now!), etc.</p>

<p>I think the substance of the company-provided content across these sites is pretty low (or, in the case of tarot.com, downright embarrassing). So don't necessarily expect too much different for Photo Net.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Fred, I wonder if the new leadership will take some responsibility to improve the POTW selection process. I guess we have to wait and see. So far, the only affirmative steps I've witnessed from Cara St. Hilaire, both of which are on the blog, are a greeting and an announcement for a webinar dealing with creating photobooks in Lightroom. Personally, I'd like to see her tackle more substantive matters. The jury is out, and I'm willing to be patient.</p>

[pnital]

<p><em>If their goal is to grow their membership, opinions and tastes like ours are in the minority. They need to appeal to a broader audience</em>.<br /> Steve,this is exactly the problem so many very good photographers left the site, looking for a better level of photography.<br /> <br /> I dont know what are PN direction with the new replacement of Josh,if your thoughts are right, we just will see more good ones leaving PN.<br /> <br /> I can give you a much longer list of very good ones that left the site some years ago.... and lately as well....!</p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>the vast majority of people that post images on this site are not interested in the POW forum...from what I can tell, there's a selection of people who post commentary each week with a variety of others who comment somewhat irregularly...maybe the moderators were attempting to interest photographers who do use various forms of digital manipulation to join these discussions...so far, it's not working...</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>Well here is my 2 bobs worth. I have not visited P.N Much anymore and most of my images have been deleted. My Reasons are that it really has become a popularity contest and not really much to do with Good photography. The images presented on POW are mostly over processed graphic design, I seldom see discussions about design elements or about tonal values, or about great moments captured, We seldom see discussions about implied movement, All we see is WOW, and that WOW factor is a result of someones ability to use the tool of PS and other software very well, strong on presentation low on content and quite often shallow in subject matter. etc. Serious debate on photography for the purpose of enlightening others needs to be honest and needs to relevant and needs to use the language of art and photography. This is how we learn, why is an image appealing what makes it more interesting than another, what are its strengths and weaknesses. and most importantly as stated by others, DIVERSITY. and in the diversity, technique can be part of that.</p>

<p>Generally i see PN now as Boring and I see it as a "feel good" place where friends stroke one another egos. Same people have the high ratings and most comments, and yet what i consider very good work rated low with little attention falls by the wayside. (It may be that i have poor taste) however i don't think that is the case. <br>

I think the whole strategy needs to be reconsider to foster greater contribution, greater discussion and less importance on the egos of some.</p>

 

[jeremy jackson]

Thanks Steve. The images you selected have the same two qualities I saw in older POW's from 2008. They are good and they are not

hyper-manipulated digital illustrations. I would not say that they are very diverse though. I would think Arthur and Fred have something

else in mind. I'd appreciate their thoughts on the issue.JJ

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p><We must recognize, however, that Photo.net may not want to make things too challenging or diverse in the POW. If their goal is to grow their membership, opinions and tastes like ours are in the minority. They need to appeal to a broader audience. And broader audiences are going to be more comfortable talking about objective things like color accuracy, tilted horizons, rule of thirds, and depth of field. They’re going to want to see emulations of Ansel Adams, Steve McCurry, or Peter Lik, not Igor Posner, Minor White, or Lee Friedlander.><br /> <br /> Steve, maybe some of you should discuss these fine points. I recently began to show a renewed interest in the POW and all I see is a lot of discontent and very little discussion about the image. It seems to have become a forum to complain. All the intellectual discussions here is not getting the job done and I wonder if that's just because there's more pleasure derived from a thoughtful discourse that rallies around a mutually defined complaint than actually making a real attempt to solve these presumed problems. In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to also hear about color accuracy, rule of thirds, use of texture, line, shape, form, dof, etc., that merits discussion. At this point, if that doesn't change, I have no interest in being part of the POW discussions.</p>

<p>At least Fred pulled this type of discussion off the POW board but something has to change. It's hard to have an interesting discussion when there's so much interference from people trying to make a political statement. So go ahead, chew this up if you like, cut and paste to your hearts content but several of you are part of the problem your choosing not to solve.</p>

[stp]

<blockquote>

<p>The only criterion for POTW should be that the chooser, whoever he, she or they may be, has to go "WOW..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Imagine a POW in which nearly everyone is saying "Wow!" or "Great shot!" That would be boring as hell. Entirely unenlightening as well. The name of the forum needs to be changed to "Critique of the week" so that we can get away from the implication and often assumed conclusion that the photo is (or should be) the "best" for that week. That damn gold cup needs to be replaced with some other symbol or eliminated entirely. One gets a gold cup for winning something; the chosen photo didn't win anything, including recognition; it simply overcame great odds of being picked from among so many that could potentially have been selected.<br /> <br /> The forum needs to have variety, because that's the only way to broaden the learning and thinking aspects of the forum. That includes variety in subjects (i.e., categories) as well as processing; they all have something to be discussed.<br /> <br /> An "above-average" photograph with some aspects that some viewers don't like or don't understand while other viewers do like and do understand makes for a great photo/critique of the week. Participation by the photographer is often (although not always) helpful, but the photographer needs to be advised ahead of time that his/her photo is going to be selected. The purpose of the forum needs to be better understood, and changing the name and symbol will do much in this regard by getting rid of current inconsistency and sources of misunderstanding.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>+1 Stephen. All good suggestions, in my view.<br>

I do find Steve's eight examples of wow shots interesting (apart from one or two), but if the weekly photo to be discussed were all like that, we would end up with discussions between a fairly limited number of persons who already, I believe, have other places for exchanges.<br>

We need a greater variety of photos to discuss, as Stephen underlines. Without it, and following Steve's examples, the COTW according to Stephens proposal, the forum will become occupied by an exclusive club of avant-gardistes. </p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>One of the bigger issues to consider and bring up with the staff at PN is the positioning of the POW...on my 15 inch laptop, the POW on pn's homepage is a sliver, barely seen in the bottom right side of the frame. What we do see is: Daily Sampling of our Members Work, Latest Critique Request, Current Photo Contest, and an ad for Sigma Lenses...if pn wants more members to engage in discussion regarding the POW, they should give it more exposure...i will gladly bring this up with the pn staff...if someone knows the proper party to address this concern, please let me know...</p>

[pnital]

<p>Richard, generalization of the situation is sometimes misleading to the truth. PN was in the recent years not as good as it was before , but there are still good photographers that are trying to give a right critique, and not a false one, and there are some people that try to enhance the site, ( Fred is one of them ,Jack as well,and I think that I do my best.). so not all is only black and white... there are middle tones as well...</p>

<p>David , if you get the monthly letter, there is a link that enables to contact PN administration<br /> Josh was aware of the site help, and most of the time answered positively.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Anders -- Heavens no! I would not want all the POTW photos to be along the lines of what I posted links to. Those was more of a response to Jeremy who had asked for examples. I selected them quickly as representative of a more ambiguous, subtle type of aesthetic: a type I have rarely seen represented in the POTW. I would not want a steady diet of only that type of photography, and hope that was not the impression I gave. </p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>thanks Pnina...good to hear from you...</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>No, Steve, you did not give that impression to me neither.</p>

[don_myers1]

<p>I have still to read through all the posts (at this point 5 pages!) but Jeremy Jackson asked an interesting question which I had not seen answered and which has been addressed several times: what type of picture, and what about active members?<br>

There is a critique forum which various ACTIVE members have posted a basic question: "Wacha think of my picture?" Most go unanswered, and granted, some are as stagnate as they come, but I bet within all those pictures there are some that are very worthy of discussion, plus being an active participant, a little more of the artists objectives could be understood (Was it Arthur or Fred who suggested interaction with the photographer?)<br>

I cannot believe the Elves are not aware of the critisism you all have brought against them, but perhaps the idea of a critique forum picture is the better way to go -- the photographer asked for a critique: give it to them. I for one would find it a great honor to be chosen and have at least one answer to my question "watcha think" given, even if bashed.<br>

Anyway, it's just a suggestion.<br>

Don</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Don, I think you make a very good point, and an interesting distinction between the Critique forum and the Photo of the Week forum. People ask for critique and any of us are welcome to find photos in the critique forum to critique. At least we then know the person is interested in getting one. As I see it, the Photo of the Week forum is a bit different and seems to me meant as a viewer-oriented critique situation. The photographer may participate but doesn't necessarily do so. Of course, even in the critique section, you have people asking for critiques who still don't respond to the critiques given.</p>

<p>I completely understand people's desires for interaction with the photographer though I don't necessarily share it myself, especially in this forum which does seem more unique. I generally think that the Critique Forum is more about the photographer, since they've requested something. I think of this Photo of the Week forum as being more about criticism itself. That may be why, to some, it seems like some of us criticize to hear ourselves talk. Because for some of us, it is precisely about the criticism itself, sharing that amongst a variety of viewers, and often discussing those criticisms as much as the photo. I have learned a lot throughout the years by critiquing others photos and other art works. It's not just for the photographer in question I do it. I do it to solidify my thoughts and force myself to articulate certain things that are more vague if left unsaid. When I force myself to say it and make it coherent, I sometimes realize that actually helps clarify my own thinking about the photo. I sense by the way some others critique, that they are doing the same thing. I'm certainly not suggesting everyone view this forum in that way, just telling you how I see it, especially sparked by your post just above.</p>

<p>So, if the Photo of the Week photographer is no longer active, that really doesn't matter much to me, since it's the photo I've been asked to critique and since I have ample opportunity to have dialogues with active members all over the rest of the site. I don't mind that there's at least one main place on Photo.net to address a particular photo commonly, even without knowing the intentions of the photographer. I think we can learn from that as well as learning from more interactive dialogue that often takes place in the Critique forum.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Fred, I agree with you that we are asked to critique the photo, but I remember when your work was POW and the dialogue with you all along the week was much better educacting , and much more intreresting than when the photographer is not present.<br>

I think as well that it is only fair for the active members to choose from thier work and not photographers that are years out of the site.I think that I have raised the subject in one of the POW and was answered very negatively by Josh. I see that I'm not the only one...;-))</p>