Photo.net Redo

[Leslie Reid]

<p>I'd also been pondering the critique problem. There may be an easy way to implement ad hoc co-op critique groups: someone wants a critique, so opens a thread in the Education forum. The first 10 people who submit a photo then become the ad hoc co-op group for that thread and have a week to comment on the other 9 photos. If person number 11 misses the boat, they start another thread, and so on. A different set of people would be involved each time, we'd be getting feedback from a lot of different skill levels and points of view, everyone who participates would know that everyone else is serious about getting feedback, and people who are new to critiquing could see how others approach giving critiques. Does this sound workable? Useful? Worth experimenting with? If it sounds worthwhile, what modifications would we need to make something like this work?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Speaking as someone who conventionally avoids critiques, that sounds interesting to me, Leslie - and I hope to Fred, as a refinement of his idea? I might even brace myself and try it! Do we need changes for that to work? I'd have thought that we could just politely ask the 11th poster (if they haven't noticed) to be separate. I'd rather try something ad-hoc like this first than try to get anything automated built into the system. I'm not sure that the education forum is the place, though.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>"Maybe a structured format (what do you like about this photograph? what would you have done differently?) would be a way to avoid the nice but unconstructive comments." Well put, Andrew. There should be some guidelines established for the critique/sharing group which, in all likelihood, should be developed by those who are interested in participating. </p>

[Leslie Reid]

<p>I like that idea a lot--that'd be particularly helpful for people who haven't yet had much experience with giving critiques. Too often people think that they don't have enough experience to critique someone else's photo, when in reality it can be extremely useful for the artist or photographer simply to hear how people are reacting to an image. Quite often the people who are best at providing that kind of info are the less experienced critiquers.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>You get more useful input about a photo by asking people to make a story starting from the picture, than you do by asking them to "critique" it. In the latter, they tell you what they think a good photo is supposed to look like, not what <em>they</em> think of it. — <em>my 2¢</em></p>

[Jack McRitchie]

"The proposed critique group sounds like a rather elitist affair (a clique in a matter of speaking) while at the same time

the current critique forum is full of images that have not received a single bit of feedback."

 

Dieter is absolutely right. Let's face it many of the posters here seem to put most of their energy into discussing about

photography with other literate members rather than actually commenting on pictures from the critique forum or from

photographers they follow. You don't have to be a photo critic to tell someone how you feel about a picture, to acknowledge their effort as you would like your own acknowledged. For me the ability to interrelate with other creative people, to view the work they do and actually talk to them about it,

is the core feature of PN and something we can do better than any other site. Besides that, it's a way of

actually forming relationships with other people who share your passion for photography, your view of the world, your

sense of humor or whatever. It's the heart and soul of this site. You could get rid of the equipment reviews, the rating

system, all the bells and whistles, even the forums and I wouldn't blink an eye. I can easily find all that elsewhere. But

deprive me of the chance to actually talk to fellow photographers about their pictures and share a few moments of

relaxed conversation and companionship and I'm out of here. Don't moan about the paucity of comments or theorize about how they might be received, go ahead and do

some commenting yourself and then we can have something to talk about..

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Let's face it, I can't find a single solitary user who liked the redesign. I truly hated it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Two points.</p>

<p>First, I hated it, too.</p>

<p>Second, the reason that I hated it was that it was not designed with the optimal display of photos in mind--no attempt was made to digitally simulate an exhibit, with a "mat" of a neutral color, etc. It also was not designed to promote or perpetuate a photographic community. There was lip service to being about "a site for photographers by photographers," but that claim made me want to retch: it was anything but that. Phil Greenspun did that. I didn't always like Phil's interventions, but I knew that he "got it."</p>

<p>The new site lost me with the choice of a blue background behind each photo. Are you kidding me?! That indicates to me that somebody had <em><strong>no clue</strong></em> as to what is required on a photo site. If one cannot even display a photo to maximum advantage, what on earth is the point of posting here?! If one cannot share comments and critiques FREELY AND EASILY, then why not just post on one's own private screen--and look at one's own work, or browse that of others, as on Flickr?</p>

<p>So combine very, very bad photo presentation with the impossibility having an actual conversation, along with the possibility that the new designers were prepared to discard too much of value of the "old site," and you have the basis for an overwhelming negative reaction on my part.</p>

<p><em><strong>That said, if they can make the new site work and show a commitment to the optimal display of photos, combined with a commitment to a true community, sure, I will stay with Photo.net.</strong></em></p>

<p>I have to emphasize, however, that I am here because I love photography. I don't really care what the company's bottom line is, or about marketing or glitz. I will help, but only if I am helping to promote photography and a true photographic community. Any company that keeps its eye on the ball--that is, one that remembers or learns that "it" is about photography and a photographic community--will have me as a continued contributor. Sure, I will give 2.0 a chance to do all those things.</p>

<p>Even so, if I cannot see my pictures displayed with a neutral background, or if I cannot profitably interact with persons with mutual interests, I won't leave in protest. I just won't see any real point in showing up any more, at least not very often.</p>

<p>I think that the battle is yet to be won or lost. I will wait and see, just like everyone else who loves photography--and I will also wait and see if the site and its administrators promote free and open discussions with a minimum of impediments to the free exchange of ideas.</p>

<p>Okay marketers and designers, <em><strong>sell your new site to ME.</strong></em> Why should I hang around with your new version? <strong><em>Show me why.</em></strong></p>

<p>Show me, that is, that you GET IT. If you can, and if you retain the best of the Photo.net tradition, then you've got me for life as a member/contributor/customer.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Former P.N Member]

<blockquote>

<p>Two points.<br>

First, I hated it, too.<br>

Second, the reason that I hated...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Could not have said it better no matter how hard I might try.</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>I was not sure which thread is active now, since similar topics are being discussed in at least three threads. So I am posting my response in all three in hopes, relevant persons will notice it.</p>

<p>I personally have learned a lot from the forum discussions, specially by getting exposed to other photographers' works and writings which I would have a hard time finding myself. On the other hand, I agree that the forums are somewhat detached from the photos themselves (except when someone posts something as example) and sometimes tend to get more verbose without the visual counterpart.</p>

<p>The photo critique forum on the other hand has the benefit of being in the forefront of action. There can be nothing like discussing photography with a photo in front. However most critiques I see usually praise the photo rather than being really critical about it. The difference can be seen when a photo is selected as POTW. The critiques posted there are more sharp and adherent to a higher standard I would say. I wish all critiques were genuine, not just pleasing. There have been times, where I wanted to be really critical about someone's photo in a constructive way, but finally decided to move on, because the prevalent culture I feel is not fully prepared for such critical comments.</p>

<p><strong>Can we have a blend of forum discussions and photo critiques combining the best of both worlds.</strong> It is great to point out the strong points in a photo and room for improvements, but placing one's work in a greater perspective bringing in examples from other photographers works, or sometimes philosophical ideas (as we do so nicely sometimes in forums) will teach us how to think and see while shooting.</p>

<p>I like Fred's idea of starting a focused subgroup for critiquing each other's photos. I will be happy to join such a group, not as an expert for teaching other people (I don't believe I am there yet), but as a participant providing views. At present, I don't critic too many photos because when I write about a photo I try to do a good job taking my time, covering every aspect I can think of. Still, good photos slip through at times without getting my attention. In a small group, I will be offered a limited number of photos to critic and I think I can handle that. Also, such a group has the benefit of reciprocal critiques and that would encourage more involved discussions I think. Here are a few examples of critical discussions in the photo critic forum (where I participated) which I thought were quite successful: <br>

<a href="/photo/18221005">http://www.photo.net/photo/18221005</a><br>

<a href="/photo/18185634">http://www.photo.net/photo/18185634</a><br>

<a href="/photo/18222043">http://www.photo.net/photo/18222043</a><br>

<a href="/photo/18216223">http://www.photo.net/photo/18216223</a></p>

[sjluke]

<p>I am heartened by the informed and concerned responses to the recent "experimentations" by the people behind the scenes at PN. I love this place, and have been here for 10 comfortable years. Yes, we are in the 21st century, with all that implies concerning up to date technology. And I will try, in my lame and halting way, to shuffle along to keep up. I have learned so much here, and intend on staying, hoping it doesn't turn into some incomprehensible and unusable graphically enhanced monster on cutting edge steroids.</p>