A follow up from February...

[MichaelChang]

<p>Tim, go to the photo.net main page and scroll to the bottom and you'll see a section titled <strong>"Phone and Mobile Photography Images From Our Gallery"</strong>. The same set of images have been revolving for some time presumably because they are thought to be among the best posted on the site.</p>

 

[Brad_]

Thanks Wouter and Michael - appreciate it.

 

>>> Brad's work is the rare exception, ...

 

Fortunately, that's not true. There's a ton of outstanding work out there - just in San Francisco alone. And I routinely see great work on FB and IG from all over the world.

 

>>> Wouter, I don't think there is any inherent prejudice against cellphone photography, ...

 

Unfortunately, that's not true from what I've seen. Though it's not as bad as it was in 2011 and 2012 on pnet where I and a few others would

regularly need to challenge and try to enlighten some (always to no avail) that yes, people use phones to produce work that can stand on

its own (independent of capture medium), produce portfolios, create exhibition-quality work hanging in galleries, and are used in

documentary projects such as covering wars and natural disasters. Though not as bad, it's still happening today and judged

from a superior position - even a tiny bit in some of the questions posed in this thread!

 

From the link I posted above, cellphone cams dominate all photos posted to flickr. I only see that share increasing.

[MichaelChang]

<p>Brad, I concur with much of your statements, but I can't see how cellphone photography fits p.net's heritage or beneficial from a business standpoint, at least in its current incarnation, and would like to hear your point of view.</p>

<p>From my perspective, this site has always been about excellence in photographic work; hard to define but something most people recognize when seen. The only trend this site follows is the evolving styles presented by members, some met with resistance, but in the end we all pretty much agree on what's good and what isn't. </p>

<p>From a business perspective, the fact that cellphone shooters congregate elsewhere already speaks for itself - p.net isn't a good fit for what most shooters are looking for. So the question becomes "Do we want to allocate resources to woo these shooters, and what is the cost/benefit ratio and expected results".</p>

<p>If you care to share, you are probably in a much better position than most of us in knowing what it might take for p.net to become cellphone-photography-friendly, enough that shooters will see p.net as a viable alternative and choose to come here, and stay. </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Got it, Michael. Thanks for the clarity.</p>

<p>Yeah, I see what you're saying. You're right, there's really not much to say about them because they all look perfect and compelling, not a boring one among them.</p>

<p>What I can't understand is how and why they all have a sameness in "stylishness" though of various styles. There's too much of a consistency of perfection that it doesn't seem like separate individuals took those photos. Even though most are of different subject matter they all just happen to be given the appropriate "stylization" for each particular scene.</p>

<p>Guess I've probably developed a "tin eye" to all this from looking at so many images over the years as a graphic artist/art director starting as far back as the '70's. I remember thumbing through many Communication Arts mags and being blown away by the high quality of work to see now on the web even more that are just as good if not better.</p>

<p>Where do you go from here?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Michael, thanks for expanding on the point; while I do agree with much you say, both Brad's and Glen's response contain very valid counter arguments. We love saying "it's the photographer, not the gear", but at the same time, the gear forums are the most crowded, and we're b***hing about cellphones. And Brad indeed is not the exception in good cellphone photography; looking here at p.net only, Eric M and Steve Gubin have put up really good cellphone photos too, for starters.</p>

<p>But Glen's response is what I was thinking about when I started this thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>..be open to the idea that it might actually get people excited about photography and want to learn more about the art!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Couldn't have said it much better indeed.<br>

Taking an example very close to home for me....My journey into photography started late (some 12 years ago), with a geeky interest for those new digital cameras (I liked playing with photoshop, it was an easier way to get material to the PC). Bought a cheap and simple Fuji compact, and found that I acutally liked photography... hooked ever since. Now, looking at other forums, looking at the photoclub I'm in: this is not an unique story. People use a camera of any kind, to find that they love making better photos. And this site has a LOT to offer on photography, and on learning about that - the art, the techniques, what makes a great image great. But you're not going to get a lot of traction if you continuously look down on the device used to make photos, or the medium used for sharing (Facebook etc.).<br>

Sure, from a business perspective it isn't an easy choice - not only as a matter of resources, but also at which point do you start to alienate the existing users? Will the influx of new-style-shooters be worth it? But what's the alternative? Can you choose not to go with the times? The internet isn't too friendly for those who don't.</p>

<p>And it doesn't has to change everything. Start with the learning section - make it a prime piece of this site, easy to discover, easy to navigate, fill some gaps in content there. Make it fresh and make it <em>very</em> prominent. Won't alienate a soul, will get people in, and if they want to know more on a topic, lure them into the forums. Add blogs from experienced members with deeper reflections... and so on.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>This post is going to sound flip, but in spite of its irreverence, I feel the point may be valid. In a recent post on <em>The Dish</em>, Andrew Sullivan said this about online pornography:</p>

<p>"... the impact of online porn on young male brains – essentially numbing them to actual sex with real human beings and creating an epidemic of young men with floppy d**** (I refuse to use the term “erectile dysfunction” when simpler English can do) ... " [<< asterisks are mine, not Sullivan's]</p>

<p>And further from Sullivan: "... if you spent your most formative sexual adolescence under the spell of constant, dizzying varieties of sexual imagery and video. How can one woman or one man even begin to replace that cornucopia of dopamine?"</p>

<p>If you are a beginning photographer and you see, everyday, everywhere, all the time, via the internet, photos that intimidate you into photographic impotence, this can have a discouraging effect.</p>

 

[MichaelChang]

<p>Thanks for the follow-up, Wouter.</p>

<p>It would be great if p.net can accommodate everything and everyone without alienating members, diluting content or skew the site culture, but I think the reality is that every site has a unique identity built on a sensible mission statement be it a niche market or broader scope, and maybe that's what we're missing - a clear and concise mission statement that describes who we are and where we're going. </p>

 

[Member69643]

<p>Julie, your point is quite valid, and strikes a chord. :) A few years ago I made a critique comment along the lines of "Wow, that's a great shot. If it'd been done ten years ago people would have noticed it.". We're awash in a sea of good images, from three of the most primary aspects - sharp, properly exposed, and colorful. Some are even good pictures as well. I'm just not sure there's a way to translate that point into more photo.net traffic!</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Seriously, I think people are pooped out with the anonymous singles-bar lost-in-the-crowd morning-after feeling of all the photo-internet offerings. I think maybe what people are ready for, would like to find is durable community. Connections that last.</p>

<p>I have a suggestion. It seems to me that we get micro-communities trying to form every day over in No Words, but they have no room to grow and develop. What if any "trunk" No Words thread could "grow" branches? In other words, if any given image within a No Words thread inspired a new idea, someone could start a "branch" thread (with a new "branch" title) from that image. Within each thread, ideas would "fill out." From each branching thread, ideas would progress or grow. The DNA of the developing "tree" would all be there for anybody interested in tracking how the idea(s) developed -- and they could go on forever or die-off, just depending on what the posted images suggest or inspire or provoke.</p>

<p>Just an idea. It seems to me that people are looking to develop micro-communities and this would be a self-evolving way to let it happen that could be, quite naturally, visually educational and maybe even inspiring.</p>