Beyond ImagePro: the Future of PhotoNet

[Spearhead]

<p>It doesn't matter if a small number of people here like forums. As I said, forums are dying. This isn't specific to photography, it's been changing for almost a decade on the web. Unless there is some benevolent benefactor somewhere, the site has to grow with new blood and it isn't going to be through forums. </p>

<p>People find video tutorials far more useful for techniques than a set of written instructions. Ten years ago, newcomers would arrive and ask how to do something because broadband and video tutorials weren't widespread. Would any new photographer now want written instructions on how to photograph jewelry or would they rather watch something like <a href="

The answer is simple and revealed by the number of people that have watched the video. How about portrait retouching? There used to be lots of inquiries here about that, but it's far easier to watch and follow along with a real expert.</p>

<p>I see it in my own usage. I had to replace a tail light bulb. I went to the instruction manual, read how to take things apart, and couldn't get to the bulb. I went to youtube, found a video, and fixed it inside of five minutes. Young people, who are necessary for sites that aren't run by the AARP, look for sites with photo uploading and video tutorials. They talk and argue in comment sections underneath static content.</p>

<p>I find it typical of forums that people completely mis-read my comments. I did not say anything about what I like, find interesting, or want to do, but all the people sniping at me here completely ignore that. There is an invention that lets people justify what they like rather than dealing with the issues I raised.</p>

<p> </p>

[James G. Dainis]

I'm sure that far more photos are taken every day with iPhones than with "real" cameras - DSLR, point and shoot or film. Then they are instantly sent to Facebook or individuals to be viewed on their iPhones. People no longer buy cameras and try to learn how to use them and then try to learn how to make better and higher quality photos. A cute photo of little Bobby, Betty or Fluffy is a cute photo of little Bobby, Betty or Fluffy even if it is slightly off color and not tack sharp. The vast majority of people do not need to learn about photography or exchange ideas about photography. If Photo.net decides to embrace that large and youthful segment of the population who are interested in photos but not photography, one can expect radical changes in the look and function of Photo.net.

[jordan2240]

<blockquote>I would move the forums way down in prominence and focus on high quality static content with user commenting and image uploads. Especially image uploads.</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, I didn't interpret anyone's comments to your post as sniping, and mine certainly was not. We were simply pointing out that, for us, the forums are a more important reason for visiting the site than viewing images. A video tutorial section would be great though.</p>

<p>I think young people who are seriously interested in photography would find photo.net very beneficial. Those interested in just posting to social media and getting 'Likes' probably would not. I wasn't aware the site was dying though. Perhaps I just haven't been paying attention. Regardless, if I pay $25 for an annual membership and it folds the next day, well, it won't be the first $25 I've ever wasted nor the last.</p>

<p>And as far as the AARP crowd (that's an association for retired people for the non-US crowd who may not be familiar with it), well, there's a huge market to serve there, many of whom have attention spans that go beyond reading a headline (though admittedly mine doesn't), so even if that was photonet's market, it should be around for a while.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>James. These people are already well embraced. What do you want, photo.net as a "late to the party" way of addressing needs that are already satisfied? Equally the video "how to" market is seemingly well served. Unlikely Photo.net will grow unless it's best or at least better at something that's capable of sustaining an audience. </p>

[unangelino]

<p>The question of whether forums are in decline is not a terribly intriguing question to me. Right now, I'm able to enjoy web conversations on the subjects that interest me. Perhaps I'm foolishly optimistic but I doubt that will change in the foreseeable future.</p>

<p>I'm also not terribly interested whether PNET is on the upswing or the downswing. No one who visits here off and on, or is a paying member, is likely to give up on photography if PNET were to vanish beneath the waves.</p>

<p>That said, I am interested in the fact that improvements to the site have been said to be in the offing for well over a year. I'm also interested in the fact that I've gotten two messages from someone at PNET telling me that changes were coming, yet there have been none to date. I think all paying PNET members have the right to question this process. By process I mean the ongoing tacit suggestion and direct statements that changes are coming, yet they never do.</p>

<p>I visit Fred Miranda and dpreview regularly. While FM collects a fee for joining their superb Buy & Sell community, the rest of the site, like dpreview, is free. I'm also a paid subscriber to Flickr. I pay so I don't have to dodge their ads and also I'm simply <em>appreciative</em> of the terabyte of storage and the superb integration of the site's UI with the way I like to use it on all of my devices. Earlier this year, Flickr made some significant changes to the site and not all of them were pleasing to me. But, those changes were expressions of Flickr actively trying to make the site better. As such, I respect those efforts.</p>

<p>Then there's PNET. I must admit that for the past 8 years or so I've contributed to PNET under an internal theory that the site had unrealized promise. Idealistic, I know; I can't help it. Still, at this point I am left with the overwhelming sense that to its owners PNET is something very different than it is to its members. For me, this explains the intensity of the interest expressed by many of the posters to this thread and it also explains PNET's owners apparent lack of interest in the very same subject.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

David,

 

What I want is Photo.net to stay the way it is. I enjoy the forums, seeing what people are doing and asking questions about and even imparting some of my knowledge acquired over decades of experience. I believe that most of the younger people (who advertisers desire) view the internet through iPhones or iPads. I don't know what Photo.net plans to do in the future but if they seek to garner that audience, there will have to be some radical changes made to the Photo.net site itself. I have seen a few times where people complain on the Photo.net Help site that they have a hard time using Photo.net on their iPhones.

 

My wife bought a laptop that came with Windows 8, all that was available ready loaded at Best Buy. She hates it, I hate it but we are learning to live with it. The same may be true of a new revised and enhanced Photo.net website. Is Windows 8 a big hit with younger people who just want to tap on touch screen icons and finger flick up and down on the touch screen? Maybe but it is not a big hit with me.

[AJHingel]

<p>Jeff is surely right, that if you look at only numbers, probably "forums are dying". Photo sharing and uploads is what is growing. So if you are looking for growth only, because advertising mainly look for that on the web, then the future is what Jeff paints in sharp colors.The problem is however, that Photonet is far from being the only photography service site, that has discovered that. It is crowded out there and maybe already now there are too many trying to survive in that specific market. Profit rates are low or disappearing.<br /> The argument of Jeff misses completely the fact, that most high profit (rate) companies are to be found in niche areas where companies develop a product or service, which noone else, or few, are capable of providing. Photonet is probably such a niche company and the forum activity is one of its important assesses that adds quality to growing numbers.</p>

<p>Don't worry, Jeff, most of us don't misread you comments. Some of us, sometimes, just don't agree. If we all agree on everything, forums would surely be dying.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>At this point, I think any effort toward changing PN's identity is going to be a crapshoot and no one will be able to say with any degree of certainty whether ones preferred change is going to be demonstrably better than another, all factors considered. </p>

<p>It took Cadillac 10 years to change their brand image and they are still struggling with sales. </p>

<p>Back in the day PN was a bustling place when it was only game in town. Then people started leaving when alternatives presented themselves, not because they were better pastures, but these new startups understood what users wanted and one-by-one began catering to them. It's still happening, and if a 21 year-old can start a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumblr">Tumblr</a> and make it a $1.1 Billion dollar business hosting photos, there is no excuse or reason why another 21 year-old, or a business that's been around for 21 years, to do the same. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't worry, Jeff, most of us don't misread you comments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Well...<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm the total opposite to Jeff. I'm here because of the forums</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Where did I say I wasn't here for the forums?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm going to disagree with Jeff. For me, it's the forums and educational content</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Where did I say what it was for me? Where did I say why anyone is or isn't here?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I think young people who are seriously interested in photography would find photo.net very beneficial.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Well then here's the challenge. When you see young people out photographing "seriously," ask them to join photo.net, pay or click and ads, and stick around. When you get ten, let us know. This is a good challenge for anyone here who thinks forums are going to attract young people. And women. Some of the photo sites I go to have lots of women active on the site. This one has a handful.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Jeff,<br /> You said you would move the forums "way down in prominence." I, and others, were merely identifying ourselves as people who are here primarily for the forums, so would disagree with that particular change.</p>

<p>Ironically, when I first joined the site some 12-15 years ago, these same sorts of conversations were occurring. I was inactive for years while raising kids, and came back recently to see it was much the same as when I left, much to my pleasure. It's either gaining new members, is being sustained by old ones, or is a great tax write-off to someone. No idea which.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Well then here's the challenge. When you see young people out photographing "seriously," ask them to join photo.net, pay or click and ads, and stick around. When you get ten, let us know. This is a good challenge for anyone here who thinks forums are going to attract young people. And women. Some of the photo sites I go to have lots of women active on the site. This one has a handful.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, you know that I love your work and always respect your point of view, so please forgive my ribbing. I think that you are onto something here. Maybe a portion of the site could be promoted as a "Post a Picture, Ask for help" site in order to direct persons to the forum which can address their problems.</p>

<p>I don't know what possible format would achieve that, but there are forums and there are forums. People will use the forums that best serve their needs, if they can find them--if indeed they even know that they are here.</p>

<p>I do want to throw in with those who like the site: KEEP IT PRETTY MUCH THE SAME, PLEASE. Proceed incrementally with proposed changes.</p>

<p>There is no reason that the site cannot cater to the young shooters who just want to see their shots on the web at the same time that it gives more substantial help to those who want it--and also at the same time that it recognizes the precious resource found here among truly experienced, excellent photographers (photographers who are better than I am).</p>

<p>Photo.net has a richness that no other site has. It allows beginners to post, but it offers depth to those who do work through sometimes tortuous issues on the forums. I would not want the site to lose any of that.</p>

<p>What is my one main gripe? <em><strong>We are not appreciated--or at least we are often made to feel unappreciated.</strong></em> The message comes through many ways, but it comes through. Web redesign might be less useful than a more sensitive style of moderation and administration--a style sensitive to persons' feelings.</p>

<p>That is not a dig at you, Jeff, just a general observation. Most moderators are great, but there are a couple who seem intent on telling us all where to get off. When I see those persons' names pop up on the screen, I cringe--especially if they are addressing me.</p>

<p>That takes away from the pleasure I get from being here.</p>

<p>Overall, though, the moderation is excellent, and this is a fun, relaxed place to be.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[raymond_pettit]

<p>i really enjoy this discussion. Thanks for sharing !</p><div></div>

[jordan2240]

<blockquote>

<p>the site could be promoted as a "Post a Picture, Ask for help" site</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lannie,</p>

<p>Not sure if you were aware of it or not, but the WPPC threads in the digital darkroom forum might provide the support you suggest, though we only deal with one shot a week. Perhaps something similar in a dedicated forum would allow for additional entries (something like a 'Processing Help' forum). Excellent suggestion. </p>

<p>Bill</p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I've never met a photographer who's heard of photo.net. It missed it's chance to grab the entire space around the turn of the century. There is some good photography going on here, but it's mainly middle-aged men talking about equipment.<br>

That's OK for a few minutes, but it really has nothing to do with photography. Do chefs talk about cutting boards?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>but it's mainly middle-aged men talking about equipment.<br /> That's OK for a few minutes, but it really has nothing to do with photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hyperbole alert!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Cooking is a low tech field developed long before technology, whereas photography is very dependent on technology. A cook could make all the gear they need by hand, whereas it takes rather formidable amount of money and engineering expertise to develop and build digital cameras and lenses. As photographers we are thus much more dependent on technology, and it is understandable that it gets discussed in equipment forums.</p>

<p>But if you go to wedding, nature, or many other subforum on photo.net there is not so much gear discussion. So it depends on where you look. The nature forum these days almost entirely consists of weekly image posts. In the wedding forum there are a lot of business and client interaction discussions, some that are image related (there used to be regular image and post-processing threads but it has been less active recently) and a small percentage (20%?) that discusses or touches upon gear. Even in the gear forums, many of the most active threads are weekly image post threads.</p>

<p>I think the forums could be more inviting to newcomers if regulars did not display such a strong reaction towards opinions that differ from their own, and a greater degree of tolerance of different personalities and viewpoints. There is also the problem of people who don't make an effort to limit their comments to what they have actual experience with, but there are some other forums where this type of behaviour is 10x more prominent than on photo.net.</p>

<p>I agree that most professional photographers are unaware of photo.net. This is not a site focused on business, marketing, or photoshop techniques, which seem to be the main interests of learning for many professional photographers these days. Few people want to talk about image content online, apart from the "Wow! Great colours" type of response.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Web sites grow because they find a way to attract users. Forums do not attract new users."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it has more to do with the forum format rather than some intrinsic flaw in the concept of forum discussions. <br>

<br>

Forums can take on many forms akin to blogs. No one will read years-worth of WordPress blogs but the same content presented on YouTube can attract millions, and the ensuing discussions becomes a forum equivalent presented in a different form. <br>

<br>

PN is a site for both content creators <em>and</em> content observers with no other means of communication between the two but through written words, just like YouTube. The problem with PN not attracting new users, as I see it, is its restrictive culture in its attempt to tightly frame the discussion content to what it deems acceptable and all others are discouraged or frowned upon. <br>

<br>

If PN is restricted "to be the best peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers", and its content limited to "critiques" for the purposes of "educating" someone, how then does one determine who is in need of education? Try a real "critique" on an accomplished photographer's work and you'll likely experience a silent effoff. Conversely, someone whom by all accounts will benefit from constructive criticism might not welcome it at all, not because they are self-absorbing narcissists, but simply because that's not the way they learn. <br>

<br>

We can go on to include how newbies are treated in the Wedding forum, etc., but overall I have to say that PN is not a particularly welcoming place and new users will only sit there by themselves and click around for so long before abandoning their membership. <br>

<br>

</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I've never met a photographer who's heard of photo.net."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've met few in real life either. One fellow darkroom enthusiast I have met with locally was through apug, not photo.net. Locally, and regardless of age, they're either on Facebook and Flickr, or participate in meatspace camera clubs and arts organizations. I've met very few local photographers who are active on any photography ragchew site (although I know of some photo.netters who are in my area - but we've never actually met in meatspace). They use dpreview and similar sites to help with purchase choices, or Google around for answers to specific questions. But they don't participate.<br /> <br /> Perhaps ironically, the site where I've seen photo.net most often recommended as an alternative is on 4chan /p/, where the demographic is mostly young men from late teens to late 20s. In many ways the two places are remarkably similar. But I daren't say how for fear of offending both groups.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There is some good photography going on here, but it's mainly middle-aged men talking about equipment."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, and true, but increasingly few of one and two.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />"Do chefs talk about cutting boards?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, discuss and cuss, just like us.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ilkka sez: "Cooking is a low tech field developed long before technology, whereas photography is very dependent on technology. A cook could make all the gear they need by hand, whereas it takes rather formidable amount of money and engineering expertise to develop and build digital cameras and lenses. As photographers we are thus much more dependent on technology, and it is understandable that it gets discussed in equipment forums."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Visit some cooking sites and read some Amazon reviews. People are absolutely obsessed with cooking gear. There are entire programming blocks on networks devoted to selling cooking gear. I'd bet it far outsells photography gear, to a far more diverse audience. It's been accelerated by celebrity chef shows.</p>

<p>Cooking enthusiasts are at least as gear-obsessed, although they tend to be more civil than photographers (except when it comes to barbecue, where the gloves come off - mostly because it's a guy thing and guys don't bother with civility where grilled and smoked meat are involved). Cooking enthusiast websites are also far more representative of the diverse demographics - women, men and broad international participation. I've been a cooking enthusiast since I was around 12, almost as long as I've been interested in photography. (At the moment I have a huge pot o' neverending soup in the crock pot that's been going on two weeks with daily refreshing, for feeding neighbors; and two batches of pickles going, including an experimental batch of spicy-hot and sweet pickled cabbage/onion slaw. Later I'll have some banana muffins and homemade bread going.) There are interesting similarities and dissimilarities between the two.</p>

<p>Even though there are many women photographers few of them participate on sites like photo.net due to the deeply ingrained good ol' boy culture. Women photographers tend to participate on sites geared primarily toward women, where the overall vibe is more supportive, oriented toward solutions, problem solving, tutorials and sharing techniques, and emphasizing inspirations and motivations. The photo.net vibe is rag-chewing, bone-gnawing and kaffeeklatsch borderline-bickering. My Facebook feed includes groups geared toward women photographers. They're active and out there, but they're not here and probably never will be in significant numbers because PN's demographic is a closed shop and too often condescending. Calcified, mummified, thick of hide and heavily guyed.</p>

<p>We're not attracting much fresh blood, and keeping even fewer. I've been one of the mods on the beginner forum since the beginning, which was designed as the site's entry point for new photographers and even some new members who have some photography experience. But in actual practice very, very few people who joined and first posted to the beginner forum ever stayed to become regular participants, including on the gallery display/feedback activities. One reason is because we're out of touch. Many of the new member questions are about trendy techniques, photo editing styles, stuff that most forum participants either don't do, don't know about or don't care about. So the newbies move on to hipper sites. Or they want some tech feedback on their photos and don't want to hassle with PN's labyrinthine critique system only to receive generic compliments or be ignored. To new members, photo.net comes across as opaque, old fashioned and a closed shop. Photo.net is a lot like the amatuer radio hobby and ham radio sites.</p>

<p>The only growth for photo.net given its current direction is in attracting more middle aged and retired senior dudes. There's a neverending supply of those, due to the overall aging population and generally longer lifespan of the guy species. But we're competing with many, many other sites for the same demographic. Some newer sites are better at promoting members' photographs and mutual affirmation, even if the goal isn't to sell or publish elsewhere. It may be that the most realistic goal for photo.net is to be the best at appealing to middle aged and older guys who are serious amateur photographers and generally well heeled gearhounds, rather than trying to be all things to all photographers.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> The only growth for photo.net given its current direction is in attracting more middle aged and retired

senior dudes.

 

I agree. And thinking about what Jeff observed, maybe there's a win-win collaborative growth opportunity where

photonet could offer discounted AARP memberships (and vice versa).

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Mebbe we could rename ourselves DARPANET: Disabled/Disgruntled And Retired Photographers Association.net. Meanwhile, I'll clean out the Navel Gazers and Geezers Liaison Office of old bellybutton lint.</p>

[gungajim]

<p>Brad,<br>

Good idea Brad. The 50+ crowd have the time to do photography, the money to spend on gear and the time to post content here. Several posters have said or implied that it bad to have controversy and criticism in threads such as this one. But I see a lot of food for thought being placed on the table. Let's just hope that the right people sit down at the table and partake. <br>

Jim</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" It is time that we demand accountability from NM".</p>

<p>So, funny.</p>

<p>I demand that everyone should bow down to me, kiss my arse, as im a very important person. So there.</p>

<p>PN is very open... so, contribute and post the subjects what you are interested in no one is stopping you.</p>

<p> </p>

[mhahn]

<p>If I were NameMedia, I would do some advertising on behalf of Photo Net. And offer free trial memberships through that advertising. As it is, my sense is that Photo Net is not on the tip of anyone's tongue. Whatever Photo Net is, and whatever its strengths or weaknesses might be, it would probably do better from a business point of view if a few more people were aware of its existence.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Nappy changing rooms are second left third right. Try to keep your babies from crying too load as the old codgers are second on the right and will get the hump.</p>

<p>Flying dentures, red faces, and shaking walking sticks. Best let them snore peacefully and not to bother them.</p>