PHOTO OF THE LAST HALF HOUR

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

Regarding the photo od the boy in the water: it would have been really cool to exclude the grass in the foreground which

anchors the image to reality. Without that context the image would have been pleasingly surrealistic, IMO.

[alan_zinn]

<p>I think I woke up too fast from a nightmare. It had some good images too. PN respondents were on acid and DECAP, whatever that is. <br>

I'm late -- or not? Where's a camera?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Michael, I was hoping to get at least one comment!</p>

<p>Gordon, how many comments had it gotten?</p>

<p>We're just having a little fun here. At least, I am. I am certainly open to experimentation. I have nothing against a Photo of the Day. I like it. For sustained commentary, we could also have Photo of the Week, I think. One would be eye candy, and the other would be food for thought.</p>

<p>All of which reminds me that I never got around to eating breakfast. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[stp]

<blockquote>

<p>....a bit more reasoning backed up with data to show how the old situation was better than the new...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What data are you referring to and how are you collecting it? Are you surveying members and assigning numeric scores to their responses? Frankly, the only "data" I've seen are responses in the site feedback forum and Lannie's somewhat sarcastic post, which I found humorous but which also made a good point. On the other hand, trying new things is a good way to keep a website fresh, but why does it seem these decisions are often made by a very few individuals in a vacuum when there are many thousands of experienced members, some of whom could be tapped for ideas and feedback on tentative proposals?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Alan, you must remember to take at least a point-and-shoot with you on nightmares.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding the photo of the boy in the water: it would have been really cool to exclude the grass in the foreground which anchors the image to reality. Without that context the image would have been pleasingly surrealistic, IMO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frank, that sounds pretty good to me. The only problem here is that the kid would need to be a bit further out in the water, which would probably have been over his head.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>This is a thread that, having been read, cannot be "unread," unfortunately.<br /> If decaf is called for, maybe some others need to get their blood sugar up before posting....</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Since <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)">time is just an illusion</a>, it should really just be "The Photograph"</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>I followed that link Bob, and I've now decided I need a camera (film or digital - it doesn't matter) that has a "forever" shutter setting and an infinitely small aperture and I could capture everything, forever! I'm not sure what photo contest I'd enter the result in however; if it doesn't end until time stops there might be a dearth of places to post it.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I think Matt is onto something too. If only my brain could figure it out. Ah well, we don't have to know everything. It sure sounds interesting though. Almost like something from Philip Dick.</p>

<p>I'm all for speeding things up. At 62, time is running ever faster anyway.</p>

<p>Time may be an illusion as Bob stated, but 5 minutes of watching golf can seem like an hour to me. Two minutes of Art Speak at a gallery opening can seem like The Day the Earth Stood Still. For sure, time is relative. If we want more time, shouldn't we all be doing things that seem tedious? That will make time slow down, ergo, we'll live longer. Or, it will SEEM longer?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>This is a thread that, having been read, cannot be "unread," unfortunately.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, if the thesis defended in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29"><strong>Bob's link</strong></a> is correct, then space-time is one big block, and none of us could possibly have done or written other than what we have. We are hereby absolved of all responsibility for our actions and inaction.</p>

<p>You are hereby absolved also for <strong><em>feeling compelled to read the whole thing.</em></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>This does not mean that it was taken or posted during the last half hour, but simply that <strong>we can go on to another photo</strong> in another thirty minutes...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not getting the point of this thread and would like some clarity here, Lannie? (if you prefer to be called that).</p>

<p>Is this to test PN member's for ADHD or to point out the billions of images there are on the web to choose from?</p>

<p>Or see how fast we can go to the next photo? I'm at a loss.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I believe it's a comment on the recent change from having a "Picture of the Week" to comment on to having a "Picture of the Day" to comment on. See <a href="/site-help-forum/00bbcA">http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00bbcA</a> for more details.</p>

<p>As for time, yes indeed. Most of the space-time models suggest that the future and past are all present at once and cast severe doubt on the concept of free will. By that measure you've already taken all the photographs both in your past and future and there is no way to change what you've done or what you're going to do (note that the past and future tenses here are actually redundant). If you're trying to decide which lens or camera to buy, don't worry because that decision (good or bad) has already been made. You're just not aware of it yet.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/barbour-time.html">http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/barbour-time.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will</a></p>

<p>Possibly with an ideal quantum computer, there could just be "The Photograph" which would in fact be all possible photographs simultaneously with each bit in the image in an indeterminate state. Only when you vote would the wavefunctions collapse and the winner be revealed. Obviously there are some details yet to be worked out with this scheme...</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>A bodacious explanation, Bob.</p>

<p>I'm utterly lost in its clarity.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I feel sure that "The Photograph" (of Bob Atkins' post, above) looks very much like broccoli. I say this because at some point, not too long ago, it sprouted. Then it mushroomed -- or broccoli-ed.</p>

<p>It must be a sort of Swiss cheese broccoli, though (as opposed to cheddar) because it would have to have at least some holes (we hope). If we could map the current Swiss cheesiness of the broccoli, we could sell hole-location maps to those still imagining they might be the *first* to photograph part of the Great Broccoli. Actually, even if we can't map the holes, we could ... who would know? $2.95 seems a reasonable price for an original piece of broccoli.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>On a more serious note, maybe we can discuss why we don't think Photo of the Day is working, if indeed it isn't, and how would you propose to fix it? </p>

<p>I'll start. </p>

<p>I think Photo of the Day is a good concept but its purpose isn't very clear; is it to promote a randomly selected high quality image, a select group of photographers, or recent postings to encourage more uploads? And what are the expectations in regards to comments? </p>

<p>In order to achieve the desired objectives which I think we all have a relative grasp of, I think we need to rethink p.net as a community and whether we are indeed moving toward promoting interaction, or are we simply a collection of individuals superficially interacting under sometimes unwelcome circumstances. </p>

<p>Compared to Facebook where one chooses whom one wishes to interact with, p.net does not permit any user control over selective interaction as Lex Jenkins eloquently described in another post (which I can not locate). The consequence is, at least in critique forums, either a long thread of high praise remarks on a popular image, or nothing at all on less popular images. The burden is on the image owner to engage in order to promote activity, but we're not see that except from a very small group. Why, I don't know, but we can all make guesses and likely be at least somewhat accurate. </p>

<p>It's not very fruitful to listen to ourselves talk when there's no interaction, and this is where Photo of the Week succeeded in creating a platform for spirited discussions. Its decline in more recent years can be attributed to members dropping out for their own reasons, but I would guess it has more to do with our evolving site culture than for personal reasons and would probably take another involved discussion to analyze. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not getting the point of this thread and would like some clarity here, Lannie?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the record, Tim, I think that Photo of the Day was and is a very good idea. I enjoyed Photo of the Week, too. I was offering a playful commentary on how hard it is to get a meaningful discussion going with short-term postings. I get on the site almost every day and have for well over a decade (actually, back to 1999), but sometimes I haven't made comments on Photo of the Week for several days, if ever--although I always looked to see which photo got it.</p>

<p>I have yet to post on Photo of the Day, but only because I know that it will be gone before there are many comments--and the end of the semester is always a busy time for me. I certainly have not tried to boycott it, which I would see as rather infantile. With Photo of the Day, I will check it most days--if I have time, and if I don't get side-tracked on other forums first. There is a lot on the site to hold my interest, and I have always appreciated the richness of the site. In fact, I am still finding new things on the site. Best of all, I am still stumbling onto brilliant portfolios that I have somehow missed. Photo of the Day can help remedy that, I think, by exposing me to more and more persons' work.</p>

<p>It is the very richness of the site that keeps it from going stale, in my opinion. Even if a particular Photo of the Week does not stimulate me to comment, I will generally find something interesting over on the Nikon or Canon forums, or somewhere else. There is a lot to do here, and a lot to look at. The first thing I tend to check is my main page, followed by the list of most popular forums on the front page. Then I typically go to Nikon, then Canon. Everyone has his or her regular circuit, I guess. Mine is not set in stone, but I am fairly predictable.</p>

<p>So, as I said above (somewhere far above), Photo of the Day is eye candy for me, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. The pics have been very good. Even the one that I posted here on this forum this morning was in fact one made by today's winner of Photo of the Day. Photo of the Day can thus serve as a very good point of entry into more persons' portfolios, and I would welcome it for that reason alone. I hope that it survives and becomes more and more a habit for persons to check on when they first log on. Old habits die hard-and change slowly. It will build momentum over time, I think, even if most persons continue to simply look rather than comment.</p>

<p>Photo of the Week is surely better for long-term discussions, in my opinion. The actual selections will never satisfy everyone. What I consider to be a good photo may be a cliché to someone else, or vice versa. I am always astonished at the strength of persons' feelings about the selections. It has always been that way, though, and I so I have not worried at all if someone else hates a photo that I love, or vice versa.</p>

<p>At least the Photo of the Day has already given us one rather nice and demure nude, and I don't remember the last time a nude made it to Photo of the Week. It has happened a very few times over the fourteen years I have been visiting Photo.net. I wouldn't want to see nudes clogging the front page, of course, but some of them really are art and are widely appreciated. It make me wonder about the makeup of the list of elves. Are there some curmudgeons on there who are routinely blocking this or that type of photo? Overall, I gather that the elves are a very diverse bunch, but they keep their identities well-concealed, in my experience. Over all my years on the site, I know of exactly two persons who have been elves--and I e-mail a lot of people on the site and have for years. I am surprised at how well they conceal their identities.</p>

<p>Given that I pay about $.07 a day for everything I get from Photo.net, and given that it is my favorite site on the entire web, I am not really complaining about anything--just missing Photo of the Week. That is one reason that I lit up at Wouter's comment--not because I don't like Wouter, who is one of my favorite people here or anywhere. I am just not used to being thought of as a disgruntled, non-constructive critic. I love the site.</p>

<p>Once again, here is my own "Photo of the Last Half Hour"--by today's Photo of the Day winner Suzi McGregor:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/14017832">http://www.photo.net/photo/14017832</a></p>

<p>Exactly one person commented on it! That disappoints me<strong>.</strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>If you want to discuss POTD vs. POTW it would be more appropriate in the Site Feedback/Help forum, where there's already a thread on the topic </p>

<p><a href="/site-help-forum/00bbcA">http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00bbcA</a></p>

<p>If you don't like that one you could start a new one I guess. Whichever way, that's the appropriate forum, not this one and it's more likely to be see by site admins there.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I just noticed this one over there as well:</p>

<p><a href="/site-help-forum/00bden">[LINK]</a></p>

<p>I presume that it will take off momentarily.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>