Members' Vision for the future of PN?

[mikemorrellNL]

Photo.net has -in comparison with many other 'photo sites' - such as Flickr, 500px, etc become somewhat of a photographic 'backwater'. With PN forums that are often focused on the past (for example classic film cameras) than on the future. Sure, for many current  members this is a 'cosy' place to interact with each other.

I humbly suggest that many members (inclusive myself) need to decide the future of PN. Should PN continue to profile itself as a largely old-style. film-based membership? Or should it adapt to attract more forward-looking members?

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by mikemorrellNL

[PapaTango]

And a fine Sunday morning to you, Mike!

I am not sure what happened, but we are quickly concluding 3 weeks without changes, fixes, or communication from our new owners.  At the very least, we should have heard how the new Turbo Encabulator was delayed in arriving from the plant in Nepal.  Nope, even the crickets were quiet...

Something I learned early on in the forum publishing/membership game.  Without active, engaged members a forum not worth its while.  It ain't about the domain name, the platform used, or necessarily the bells and whistles.  Just that what is there works, and works well.

Administration that is responsive to communications runs a close second.  There must always be people that pay attention, solve problems quickly, and keep the direction of forum life functional and interesting.

My vision is that we see this engagement return, and that things move along.  Routine modifications to galleries and albums could give us a real rating, critique, and image content system not seen since our previous overlords scrapped Phil's old platform.  Re-establishment of various "Editor's Picks" would be very nice.  Perhaps we could enlist volunteers (moderator class) to do this.  Lots of things can be had and done.  But first the bumps in the road that are now must be travelled...

As I said in another thread, for me optimism has turned to acceptance, and like @samstevens said, is shifting to resignation.

Right now as long as what works continues to work, I am satisfied in a simple way.  We can still interact with each other and our images.  That's the bottom line on all of this, isn't it?

But some forward movement and communication sure would be nice!

Edited November 13, 2022 by PapaTango

[samstevens]

4 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

Should PN continue to profile itself as a largely old-style. film-based membership? Or should it adapt to attract more forward-looking members?

I don't think it has to be either/or and I've always seen PN as a multi-faceted site with various appeals. Individual members are free to take whatever initiatives they care to which might fulfill a corner of the universe they'd like to see advanced. Film emphasis can exist beside digital emphasis and there don't even have to be debates on the merits or failings of each. How about that for an idea? Or there can be such debates if people want them. What the heck, right? I enjoyed doing the Photo of the Week for a year and, several years ago I curated a weekly series of Casual Conversations centering around a well-known or not-so-well-known photographer at large. Several members are responsible for weekly No Words threads and other types of photo-oriented threads. There are plenty of new ideas that could be instigated by anyone who has one. The one thing that probably shouldn't happen is for these ideas to be limited by what a supposed majority might want. There's a place for even minority interests here and there are plenty of directions that the site can accommodate at the same time. Of course, communication, support, and technical refinement from administration would be a very big help.

[Rick Helmke]

One of the things I’ve enjoyed has been the variety of interests and personalities found here. I like and use both film and digital formats and have no interest in a place that only tolerates a few interests while ignoring or ruling out others. There’s enough of that nonsense surrounding us now. I’ll keep reading and posting here as I have and if management or ownership has a problem so be it. There’s at least one shooting forum and one RC model forum where those who think they know more than anyone else would have a heart attack if people were allowed to openly disagree. The result is that I go there now and then but don’t comment because it isn’t worth the bother. I hope we don’t see that here. 

 

Rick H.

[Jochen_S]

9 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

I humbly suggest that many members (inclusive myself) need to decide the future of PN. Should PN continue to profile itself as a largely old-style. film-based membership? Or should it adapt to attract more forward-looking members?

 

 

 

Excuse me, I am only who I am. How am I supposed to forget film entirely, although it has been quite a while since I shot some? When I can, I 'll continue replying. 

How to attract new members at all? Shall we both burn 18K€ on latest and greatest gear, every year, to review and discuss it? 

I 'm not sure what photo.net was or is, I haven't explored it entirely.

[za33photo]

Photography is Photography , film or digital , there is no "old" or "new" style , merely the media used , digital or film.

Film photography is still alive and well , but perhaps not as prolific as it once was.

Photo.net is a platform where both types of media can be discussed freely and without rancour.

As far as I have noticed there are new members joining all the time.

Photography is a relatively expensive hobby for most , so expecting the millions of members as on social media is unrealistic , but Photo.net has more than 1 million members the last time I looked.

For me Photo.net works just fine as it is , despite its perceived shortcomings.

 

 

[Nick D.]

On 11/13/2022 at 10:43 AM, mikemorrellNL said:

Should PN continue to profile itself as a largely old-style. film-based

PN never was film based to begin with. It was created when digital became mainstream . Film interest is addition, as some members interested in it, I still have around 6 film cameras starting with Brownie.

Problem here isn't film or digital, its about what this website can offer to working photographers. If galleries and profiles could offer level of customization.

If I would be working pro, I would want my profile look like personal webpage, with portfolio arranged the way I want, links to my sites, Insta and FB. My potential clients aren't  interested in what forum topics I visited recently.

That way paid membership will be justified.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Nick D.

[PapaTango]

7 hours ago, za33photo said:

Photography is Photography , film or digital , there is no "old" or "new" style , merely the media used , digital or film.

There are forums that would disagree with you!  I take Photrio.com as an example of photo silos.  Its original incarnation was APUG.  Then after much acrimony, DPUG was added.  More acrimony on how to keep things separated.  Sean finally combined both.  I signed up in 2004 (the same time I changed my PN name the first time from Pragmatist).  Several years later after the crap I left.

PN has evolved over the years in content.  Once upon a time I hardly posted any photos--the fish were biting with many conversations in the film & darkroom boards.  I was deep into darkroom then.  The evolution was not a wave, but digital began to outweigh things.  Luckily, we still have a very active silver and wet chemistry community.  

There are quite a few places I once frequented and no longer do.  The aforementioned Photrio, LFF, and Nikonians.  Rick & Jochen cited top reasons for that.  We have a PN Facebook presence that is currently unused.  Social Media sites tend to deplete participation in traditional fora.  PN never was and never should be just another FarceBook clone in terms of content and personalities. 

 

[Robin Smith]

I don't agree with the Mike's assessment of the site members at all. It seems little different from other general photo sites in the mix of new and old timers. If you look at the photos being posted to the site I think it does not support the idea this is a film based forum. More experienced photographers tend to be older, and when retired have more time to waste posting on forums, obviously. I agree with Nick D in what is needed for the site from my perspective.

[PapaTango]

26 minutes ago, Robin Smith said:

More experienced photographers tend to be older, and when retired have more time to waste posting on forums...

Hey, I resemble that statement...

[JDMvW]

I have tried other sites on photography and too many of them are little one-liner comments and questions. I like P,net just fine and will likely retire from the on-line photo exchange if this one goes belly up.

To quote old Bill,

"if yer knows of a better hole, go to it"

Edited November 14, 2022 by JDMvW

[jordan2240]

I joined PN in 2001 and while no longer a member because my interest in photography waned significantly, I do still lurk out here because of the variety of forums available.  I think there is pretty much something for everyone, so I don't think I'd do anything to change the direction of content.

[c_watson1]

To survive, PN needs to regain its long gone dive bar ambiance--friendly, forgiving, entertaining, informative, generous--with lots of tables and long hours. Been around here since 1997 in various guises and regret what it's become. The haunting issue seems to be relevance in late 2022.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I actually enjoy that there are classic camera and film forums that people can geek out on. Why should this be like every other photo site.  Having these forums doesn't stop any of the other digital forums to thrive.  Some of the people that post on p.net technical forums have a lot of knowledge that I think is priceless and not readily available. I definitely think that's worth preserving.  

'What is relevant?  Relevance is decided by what people bring to the site.  I already notice an up-tick of new photo posters. if people want a more contemporary photo experience, the bring in some great current photographers and even some photo historians to have them organize some features and programs to stimulate photography, but I don't see that happening here due to lack of resources.  Would be great if it did though.

Edited November 15, 2022 by httpwww.photo.netbarry

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Is also seems true that there is more discussion on p.net forums than other sites.  Maybe less posting of photographs. And it's alsomtrue that the age group is older here.

[Robin Smith]

Barry, how can you know? The ones I frequent in addition to this seem much the same. The young ones with money buy everything that is going and change systems frequently, and then move on to something else. The wealthy retired ones practice "art" with a capital A (and buy everything to support their Art) and the rest muddle along. If Photonet is a bit different it is because there are few detailed pixel-peeping discussions and recondite discussions of camera specs ad nauseam. This might mean the members are older (and realize that those discussions are not really all that important), or they are poorer so simply don't want to spend money on stuff and therefore don't need to discuss it. There are a lot of good photographers who upload pictures, but very few of these people seem to be present on the forums. I think that the absence of exhausting tech talk is what largely sets this site apart. The presence of film and classic camera forums also maintains the balance. As we all probably know by now, "youth" are embracing retro, so what was once "ludditery" is now trendy.

[kmac]

10 hours ago, Robin Smith said:

The presence of film and classic camera forums also maintains the balance. As we all probably know by now, "youth" are embracing retro, so what was once "ludditery" is now trendy.

Quite right. I think young beginners in film see it as a challenge and once they see those magical images emerge from the chemicals, they're hooked.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Robin and KMAC; I do think you are right about younger beginners having an interest in retro, Heck looking at my stream here, the film photos jump out at me, and I'm thinking of dusting off my rangefinders and using some film.  I do think we probably have an order demographic here on P.Net, but I haven't seen any figures. However, sales of film and film camera's are definitely up. A Google search will confirm that.

[Tony Rowlett]

On 11/14/2022 at 8:53 AM, Nick D. said:

PN never was film based to begin with. It was created when digital became mainstream .

Not to be too nit picky, but this is not correct. Photo.net had many thousands of discussion forum posts from the early to late 90s that were mostly about film-based Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and a few others. Digital was definitely a minor topic then.
I started lurking on the site in the early 90s soon after its creation by Philip Greenspun. This was a time when it’s format was simply two discussion forums: the photo.net one, and a nature photography one. 

[Supriyo]

I like that PN over the years has had a balance of discussions on what to shoot (i.e. philosophy of shooting or the art of seeing) vs. how to shoot (the techniques), although the philosophy part is highly dependent on available members. Also, I like that even though PN has many veteran members, they don't always mingle among themselves and newcomers are not ignored. Any question asked in a forum will usually be answered, even though some times the OP is never to be seen again. And, not to say the least that this site is nearly like a phoenix. How many times in the past we all thought that this is it, the end of PN, and then it came back again :-). I seems to me, that minus a nuclear armageddon, we are safe!

Edited November 16, 2022 by Supriyo