You have to realize, not all of us are rich enough to pay money to subscribe to every photo site we enjoy once a year. Is it because of lack of funding for keeping this site up, or is there another reason behind this?
It's a very silly rule in my opinion. The site is throwing off non-subscribers and their valued input on others' photography, as I can't imagine people are interested to only post thoughtful comments on others' photography without getting anything in return. It's a give and take thing. This site is leaning towards "take" it seems..
Jim is like the crack dealer on the corner. He gave it away in the beginning and when we were hooked he started charging for his time, materials, and expenses. Does your phone company let you ride for free just because you are short on cash? Jim does, but he puts a limit on it to add value for his paying subscribers. Bitness is bitness.
Realistically, someone has to pay for this site. You'd be surprised at what goes on behind the scenes that you don't see. Server space, programming, web hosting, registration, the accountants, probably the occasional lawyer consulting fees and a whole host of other things which are not obvious on the surface are not cheap. And keep in mind this is not a personal site that gets maybe a few hundred or thousand hits a month. We are talking tens of thousands per month. This is in a different league than a personal site and is far more expensive.
Even with much, if not all, of the staff being volunteer, Jim is not getting rich off of this site. I'd be surprised if there aren't nights he lies awake worrying about paying the bills for this place.
It is money worth spending, even if we don't take advantage of all of its resources.
It would be nice if everything we wanted to have or do in life was free, but as has already been pointed out somebody has to pay the freight for this wonderful resource.
...subscribe to every photo site we enjoy...
Do you subscribe to other photo sites? If so, then it is a matter of deciding which are most important to you and allocating your payments on a priority basis. I personally don't have the time. money, or inclination to be an active participant in all the photography sites on the web. Instead, I've decided that I get the most value out of NPN and therefore don't bother with the other sites.
I can't imagine people are interested to only post thoughtful comments on others' photography without getting anything in return.
I think there's lots of value in making comments on other's people's posted images - it is a great way to learn about what makes an image good or bad and a way to improve one's own photography. Thoughtful commenting requires taking the time to actually look at an image and decide what in it works and what doesn't work. Deciding how you would have gone about taking the image is also a strong learning experience. When you look at the ratio between the number of comments made to the number of posts made by many active people I think it shows that many of us get a lot out of making those comments or else we wouldn't be making so many of them.
With all due respect this site leans towards give. Perhaps you haven't really looked at everything that the site has to offer other than just the forums. Jim does an incredible job with all the site has to offer and there is a cost to be paid to be able to be able to partake and be part of it. There are articles to be read, portfolio hosting and more. Charging a fee keeps this all available for those who want to be able to profit from the knowledge and share their ideas is just good, and necessary, business. The forums might be what many people see when they come here but it's not all there is, and while the critiques are a huge part of what NPN is it's not the only give and take that goes on. (spoken as someone who rarely posts but finds value in what NPN is all about)
I'm one of them on a very tight budget being disabled,but when I can afford it I will be joining as I am on here two or more times a day and the learning part I get from here is worth a lot more than the fee to join. so I guess if a person dont have the money to join then they can just look.as for only posting once a week I think that is more than fare. The members have to have something for their money and if the non paying guests get to post all the time the membership will suffer and end up costing every one when the site can no longer work and shuts down. great job guys love this site.
There are a lot of nature photography sites on the net, but I decided I would only be a paying member to one, and NPN was my choice. The staff and the members were why I decided on NPN, they are a great group of people and what I have learned at NPN has been extremely valuable to me.
Ramunas, thanks for taking the time to post your comments.
The responses above cover it pretty well, IMO. We try to offer as much value to everyone as possible, but ultimately those who become paid members make this site possible.
In a way, NPN is like public television - supported by "member dollars" to keep the site free from commercial advertisement. With an average of 100,000 unique visitors and 2 million page views a month (along with superb search engine ranking), we get regular inquiries about our "advertising rates." Of course, we don't have any rates because we don't offer ad space. I suspect that if this site was going to become strictly a cash cow, it could make a killing by offering ad space. But alas, that is not what NPN is about. Other than a B&H affiliate program and a few scattered banners for organizations that offer our members something directly, NPN remains free of commercialism.
So it is our paid members who pay the monthly bills and make regular site improvements possible. Don't you think it's only fair that they have some extra perks for doing so?
Thanks again for taking the time to express your views!
The simple answer to the question is value and incentive. If everyone received the same value, why would anyone pay? There must be some differentiating value between the "free" and the paid service. Just like you "can't imagine people are interested to only post thoughtful comments on others' photography without getting anything in return," it's the same exact thing for a paying member who couldn't imagine a non-paying member getting the same value and service for free.
Yes, it is a "give and take" thing. To say the same thing, you get out what you put in, or pay it forward, or what goes around comes around. And it's not about money. And it wouldn't be NPN's fault if it's all "take." You get out of it what you put in to it.
Points have already been well stated, but another analogy is Trial Software. You can download "free" software, but main features may be disabled or the trial is only good for 30days. If you want the full "value" of the product, you pay for it.
I understand completely about not being able to afford things. I can't afford a dslr, not even an entry level one. Maybe somene here can give me a 5DM2 for free?
I posted 1,000 comments before I joined with only two images posted or so, yet I didn't feel short-changed at all. In fact I felt quite the opposite. Perhaps you are misguided in thinking about the "taking".
I would pay more if I had to to belong to this site. I cannot put into words how much I have learned from being a member of NPN. We are talking $50 per year. I bet if you looked at your budget you could find 50 bucks you could save on something else to pay for membership here without too much difficulty. It is all about priorities. Spend some time here and get to know the people here and you will quickly realize there is no better nature photography site out there. Membership has always had it priviledges. I am glad to pay for them in the case of NPN!
Well, I for one think the question is entirely unfair and frankly unrealistic. Someone needs to pay the expenses for the site. Thousands of hours of work go on behind the scene to present and maintain the site. Fees must be paid for the servers and server and software maintenance and upgrades. NPN is a business (as are all other photo sharing/critique sites). If the dollars don't come in they are not available to produce the product.
Frankly, I am continually surprised at the level of access non paying members are allowed. The restriction to post only once a week is a bargain for the services you receive. The $40 annual fee for membership is, with out a doubt, among the best value/dollar opportunities available in photography.
Other similar sites have the same kind of rules. It is up to you to decide if you can afford the fees and which ones you will subscribe.
NPN allows you to partake for free with minor limitations. you should be saying "THANK YOU"
Jim, I was just about to reply with my comments about how this site reflects the philosophies of Public TV and Public Radio when I saw your response.
We know what we have here on NPN. Thousands and thousands of others know as well. And Public TV and Public Radio take money from sponsors. You don't see advertising on NPN. Where do you (whoever "you" are) suppose the revenue comes from to support this fine and caring environment? While we understand that it takes money to function in a free-market environment (a number of staff and members are professional photographers), we nurture art here.
Thanks, Jim and Donna. And thanks, staff. And it is the members of NPN who make this all possible. Without your ongoing and dedicated support, it would just be staff shouting into the wilderness hoping to hear each other. That happens on several nature photography sites, but not on NPN.
Ramunus, if you are primarily interested in landscape photography which your portfolio suggests, NPN is the ONE forum you should be subscribing to. Where else do you get the chance to get feedback from top photographers such as Guy, Marc, Lon, Darwin, just to name a few.
As for my own thoughts, I have been a member of NPN for only a few months and I feel that I have already received more then my moneys worth. I looked at a lot of other sites before settling on the NPN. For nature photography this is definitely the best!
I don’t feel that one has to be rich to afford the services you receive here. Being the only provider of a family of 4 on a bricklayer’s wages, leaves me a long ways from prosperity.
There is a lot of knowledge, insight and helpful advice that flows through here at a steady pace. To purchase that at your favorite book store would undoubtedly cost more then $50.00 a year!
I hope this thread hasn't begun to sound like a personal attack on you. I can assure you that it has not been that. Most of us, even the full-time pros who have been shooting for years, have gotten a lot more out this site than we have put into it, including our membership fee. The tradeoff has been worth it for us.
In my case, I even went from having not owned a camera to now shooting as a semiprofessional. There is no way I would have advanced as fast as I did without the knowledge and feedback I got from here, especially when I was first learning and posting a lot more photos than I currently do..
Good grief, the info and help you get from this site is priceless, ditto to what everyone has said above. To get it all for a couple tanks worth of gas (probably soon to be one ) doesnt seem like such a hardship to me.
Ramunus, Not only do you receive all of the above but the classified section in its self can save you the cost of the subscription. Where can you advertise and buy gear within a large specific audience such as this.
I am fairly new to this site myself, but after using their free trail for last two weeks I am ready to sign up. Having you images critiqued by some of the finest outdoor nature photographers in the world I think is priceless. Not to mention all the great articles and forums on this site. The fact that Jim lets non-members post images at all I think is very generous on his part and deserves a "Thank You" not complaints. Lets be real, to join cost you about the price of one espresso a month. If you don't see the value in that, then there are others sites that are probably better suited for you.
I would think if a person was a casual visitor to the NPN site the "free" structure and limited access might work, even long term. But, for folks who access the site for numerous reasons during a day no doubt would find that "paying" the annual fee is a real bargain. When I first started I never ventured outside of the ES&S Gallery. After working in that arena for quite sometime I was truly shocked to find so much more to the site then just Gallery posting and comments, including the collection of very strong regional forums such as CANP for the California photogs. Additionally, the collection of work posted throughout all the Galleries is truly second to none and we all seem to constantly learn from others here as a result. This is just kind of my take on the NPN site in general.
Another thing to maybe think about, Ramunas, is to write an article for the site. It's not well-publicized, but I think Jim provides a one-year membership for published articles. Not sure if articles are accepted from non-members or not, but it's worth considering.
NPN is a great resource, but I don't believe that paying the membership fee has been worthwhile for me.
The polarizer I bought through the classifieds, the dozen photos I've posted, the 1200 critiques I've given, and the articles that I've read all could have been done without paying a cent to NPN, yet they're the most valuable things that I've gained from NPN.
The photoportfolios.net page, the WC and article submission eligibility, and the other perks listed on the membership page have not shown themselves to be worth $50. It's the free things that keep me returning to NPN, and I pay just as a token of appreciation and to help keep NPN afloat.
Non-paying members are getting one hell of a bargain. I'd totally be in favour of implementing ads visible only to non-paying visitors, and perhaps making other small tweaks that create more incentive to pay the membership fee. Plus, with so many non-paying visitors, the revenue generated by a few small, unobtrusive ads would make it possible to reduce the membership fee.
As far as I know you can post as much as you want and give as much input you want without being a member. The limitation is you can only post one photo per week as a non-member. I think this is fair so that the paying members get more out of the service they pay for. The site costs money to run so I think it is fair to have a paid service with benefits to cover those costs. Notice how the site is not cluttered with ads like some photo sites, they require membership fees to cover the costs. You will just have to decide if you are going to post enough images for critique or if the other benefits make paying for the service worthwhile to you. I will certainly pay for membership to this valuable resource as soon as I have a little more money as I feel I have gotten a lot out of this site.
After thinking about it I tend to agree with Kenn. I was a non-paying member for awhile before becoming a card carrying member. I pay my dues not because I receive a lot more in the way of benefits over a non-paying person but I feel its a quality site and needs support to keep it going. I for one would vote to reduce the benefits that a non-paying person receives.
Thank you all for replies! I do have more insight now at what this site is about, and thanks for clearing that up as well.
My criticism was rather directed at the psychological aspect of something being limited. I can imagine there are quite many who can't afford a subscription, and who in turn are thrown off because they can't post a photo in the forums more often, and I wonder if the site is losing out on that. It could be that the forums would get increased traffic and comments, but it could also mean the opposite - it's never possible to know. But it could be worth to consider.
And I want to suggest one thing. A site that is highly based on the community contribution through comments and similar, needs a more friendly notification about the paid membership. I would for example suggest to add a more visible note about why the site needs money, when you try to post a photo without being a member, and receive an error based on non-membership. I have been a member of this site for 2 years, 1 year as full member, and yet I wasn't really aware of what is the real purpose of it until I asked in this thread.
"NPN allows you to partake for free with minor limitations. you should be saying "THANK YOU""
Sorry, this is exactly why I reacted at the fees. Putting in comments for others and receiving comments in return equals a fair "trade". This is the essence of any community based site, the only ones saying "THANK YOU" should be those who don't return the comments they have been given, that is photographers with 50 posted pictures and 5 given comments. In example.
By now I have understood the essence of the site, and that the fee goes for providing the medium through which comments are being given and received, to put it that way. Not for receiving comments. Any strict limitations towards non paying members who still contribute to the site through commenting and similar, will only lead to more negative feedback, and probably less subscriptions than there could have been.
One thing I don't recall seeing mentioned is that without restrictions on posting in the galleries, even the ones for paying members, would drive any photo posted from the first page much faster. Since a lot of people never go any further than that it would restrict the number of comments on the photos in effect limiting the knowledge we can get from all of the talent here.
I understand the potential of financial restrictions. My membership expired in January and I had not renewed it. That will change this evening when paying my bills as a minor celebration now being employed! Yeehaw!
The quickest way to get the most out of this site is to contribute to it in some form. Posting questions if you are just starting. We all started somewhere and this is the one site I reguarly visit that people will answer the same question for the 47'th time like it was the first time it was asked. For whatever reason, it seems that the more experienced members here clearly remember what was like when we first started and are willing to help others.
Make use of the image critique forums. Trying to understand why you do or do not like a photo will translate over to your own shooting. Many of the suggestions I've seen also present different ways of looking at the same scene and those viewpoints will never hurt your photography. And at least for me, it reenforces the need to be an active participant in your photography, before, during and after image capture.
And if you decide that you are getting more of the site than you are putting into it AND can afford it, send Jim a check
Thanks for starting this thread. It has been a nice reminder why we are here.
(And you'll notice that despite almost 30 replies, the entire thread has been civil. That says a lot for the atmosphere Jim has built here).
I'd expect everyone that responded above are members. So maybe I can briefly add something from another perspective. I've been using the site for a few years now but not as a paying member. Though I might well become a member at any time. I dabble here and also on other web sites and forums and as a long time hi tech person have been using web forums from the early days. Your input is obviously just about the image critique forums.
Someone please correct me if I'm not informed but a non-subscriber can only post in some of the forums while members can post in all as much as they care to within guidelines. Of those critique forums non-subscribers can post in, they may post once a week in each of the forums. Personally being limited to one post per forum hasn't bothered me at all. In fact if members were to post less and there were overall less image subjects in each forum, the quality of submissions, value of responses, and the number of responses per image would likely improve. There are many other photography forums on the Internet that have no limitations nor fees and for the most part they suffer from excessive submissions that dilute quality or over time stagnant and are abandoned. On most such forums, members use aliases thus not their real names as is the case here reflecting the more professional nature of the site. Most ordinary people that use the net are unaware of the vast numbers of business, professional, and educational organizations that inhabit the Internet because they prevent free usage beyond a home page and almost universally have member fees. Other sites allow somewhat greater access so members of the public can get a taste for the value of being a member. Here by having a stake as in a fee, the site members have a reason for more commitment that stabilizes the site's use and encourages improvements. Conversely it keeps out excessive submissions that would certainly result from certain personalities that tend to do so wherever they set up shop freely.
I read through all the responses and had the same conclusion David had. Most of the responses appear to be from members. I was a paid member for a couple years and with a limited budget for things photographic, had to divert my annual fees to things like my own website. I, too intend to become a member again when the budget allows--again, not for any perceived "benefit" of membership, but because I do understand that there is a cost to maintaining a site like this and want to support it.
I have not felt any "slight" at the reduction in privileges by not being a paid member. Indeed, this site is one of the most valuable resources to a nature photographer on the web! So Jim, THANK YOU for making this site possible and for the many benefits I receive regularly without any charge!
Discussion
29 repliesIt's a very silly rule in my opinion. The site is throwing off non-subscribers and their valued input on others' photography, as I can't imagine people are interested to only post thoughtful comments on others' photography without getting anything in return. It's a give and take thing. This site is leaning towards "take" it seems..
Just some constructive criticism
Even with much, if not all, of the staff being volunteer, Jim is not getting rich off of this site. I'd be surprised if there aren't nights he lies awake worrying about paying the bills for this place.
It is money worth spending, even if we don't take advantage of all of its resources.
Do you subscribe to other photo sites? If so, then it is a matter of deciding which are most important to you and allocating your payments on a priority basis. I personally don't have the time. money, or inclination to be an active participant in all the photography sites on the web. Instead, I've decided that I get the most value out of NPN and therefore don't bother with the other sites.
I think there's lots of value in making comments on other's people's posted images - it is a great way to learn about what makes an image good or bad and a way to improve one's own photography. Thoughtful commenting requires taking the time to actually look at an image and decide what in it works and what doesn't work. Deciding how you would have gone about taking the image is also a strong learning experience. When you look at the ratio between the number of comments made to the number of posts made by many active people I think it shows that many of us get a lot out of making those comments or else we wouldn't be making so many of them.
With all due respect this site leans towards give. Perhaps you haven't really looked at everything that the site has to offer other than just the forums. Jim does an incredible job with all the site has to offer and there is a cost to be paid to be able to be able to partake and be part of it. There are articles to be read, portfolio hosting and more. Charging a fee keeps this all available for those who want to be able to profit from the knowledge and share their ideas is just good, and necessary, business. The forums might be what many people see when they come here but it's not all there is, and while the critiques are a huge part of what NPN is it's not the only give and take that goes on. (spoken as someone who rarely posts but finds value in what NPN is all about)
This site doesn't take, it gives, ten fold.
The responses above cover it pretty well, IMO. We try to offer as much value to everyone as possible, but ultimately those who become paid members make this site possible.
In a way, NPN is like public television - supported by "member dollars" to keep the site free from commercial advertisement. With an average of 100,000 unique visitors and 2 million page views a month (along with superb search engine ranking), we get regular inquiries about our "advertising rates." Of course, we don't have any rates because we don't offer ad space. I suspect that if this site was going to become strictly a cash cow, it could make a killing by offering ad space. But alas, that is not what NPN is about. Other than a B&H affiliate program and a few scattered banners for organizations that offer our members something directly, NPN remains free of commercialism.
So it is our paid members who pay the monthly bills and make regular site improvements possible. Don't you think it's only fair that they have some extra perks for doing so?
Thanks again for taking the time to express your views!
Yes, it is a "give and take" thing. To say the same thing, you get out what you put in, or pay it forward, or what goes around comes around. And it's not about money. And it wouldn't be NPN's fault if it's all "take." You get out of it what you put in to it.
Points have already been well stated, but another analogy is Trial Software. You can download "free" software, but main features may be disabled or the trial is only good for 30days. If you want the full "value" of the product, you pay for it.
I understand completely about not being able to afford things. I can't afford a dslr, not even an entry level one. Maybe somene here can give me a 5DM2 for free?
Lon
Frankly, I am continually surprised at the level of access non paying members are allowed. The restriction to post only once a week is a bargain for the services you receive. The $40 annual fee for membership is, with out a doubt, among the best value/dollar opportunities available in photography.
Other similar sites have the same kind of rules. It is up to you to decide if you can afford the fees and which ones you will subscribe.
NPN allows you to partake for free with minor limitations. you should be saying "THANK YOU"
We know what we have here on NPN. Thousands and thousands of others know as well. And Public TV and Public Radio take money from sponsors. You don't see advertising on NPN. Where do you (whoever "you" are) suppose the revenue comes from to support this fine and caring environment? While we understand that it takes money to function in a free-market environment (a number of staff and members are professional photographers), we nurture art here.
Thanks, Jim and Donna. And thanks, staff. And it is the members of NPN who make this all possible. Without your ongoing and dedicated support, it would just be staff shouting into the wilderness hoping to hear each other. That happens on several nature photography sites, but not on NPN.
You members are indeed the "strongest link."
As for my own thoughts, I have been a member of NPN for only a few months and I feel that I have already received more then my moneys worth. I looked at a lot of other sites before settling on the NPN. For nature photography this is definitely the best!
I don’t feel that one has to be rich to afford the services you receive here. Being the only provider of a family of 4 on a bricklayer’s wages, leaves me a long ways from prosperity.
There is a lot of knowledge, insight and helpful advice that flows through here at a steady pace. To purchase that at your favorite book store would undoubtedly cost more then $50.00 a year!
I hope this thread hasn't begun to sound like a personal attack on you. I can assure you that it has not been that. Most of us, even the full-time pros who have been shooting for years, have gotten a lot more out this site than we have put into it, including our membership fee. The tradeoff has been worth it for us.
In my case, I even went from having not owned a camera to now shooting as a semiprofessional. There is no way I would have advanced as fast as I did without the knowledge and feedback I got from here, especially when I was first learning and posting a lot more photos than I currently do..
The polarizer I bought through the classifieds, the dozen photos I've posted, the 1200 critiques I've given, and the articles that I've read all could have been done without paying a cent to NPN, yet they're the most valuable things that I've gained from NPN.
The photoportfolios.net page, the WC and article submission eligibility, and the other perks listed on the membership page have not shown themselves to be worth $50. It's the free things that keep me returning to NPN, and I pay just as a token of appreciation and to help keep NPN afloat.
Non-paying members are getting one hell of a bargain. I'd totally be in favour of implementing ads visible only to non-paying visitors, and perhaps making other small tweaks that create more incentive to pay the membership fee. Plus, with so many non-paying visitors, the revenue generated by a few small, unobtrusive ads would make it possible to reduce the membership fee.
My criticism was rather directed at the psychological aspect of something being limited. I can imagine there are quite many who can't afford a subscription, and who in turn are thrown off because they can't post a photo in the forums more often, and I wonder if the site is losing out on that. It could be that the forums would get increased traffic and comments, but it could also mean the opposite - it's never possible to know. But it could be worth to consider.
And I want to suggest one thing. A site that is highly based on the community contribution through comments and similar, needs a more friendly notification about the paid membership. I would for example suggest to add a more visible note about why the site needs money, when you try to post a photo without being a member, and receive an error based on non-membership. I have been a member of this site for 2 years, 1 year as full member, and yet I wasn't really aware of what is the real purpose of it until I asked in this thread.
Sorry, this is exactly why I reacted at the fees. Putting in comments for others and receiving comments in return equals a fair "trade". This is the essence of any community based site, the only ones saying "THANK YOU" should be those who don't return the comments they have been given, that is photographers with 50 posted pictures and 5 given comments. In example.
By now I have understood the essence of the site, and that the fee goes for providing the medium through which comments are being given and received, to put it that way. Not for receiving comments. Any strict limitations towards non paying members who still contribute to the site through commenting and similar, will only lead to more negative feedback, and probably less subscriptions than there could have been.
Bruce
The quickest way to get the most out of this site is to contribute to it in some form. Posting questions if you are just starting. We all started somewhere and this is the one site I reguarly visit that people will answer the same question for the 47'th time like it was the first time it was asked. For whatever reason, it seems that the more experienced members here clearly remember what was like when we first started and are willing to help others.
Make use of the image critique forums. Trying to understand why you do or do not like a photo will translate over to your own shooting. Many of the suggestions I've seen also present different ways of looking at the same scene and those viewpoints will never hurt your photography. And at least for me, it reenforces the need to be an active participant in your photography, before, during and after image capture.
And if you decide that you are getting more of the site than you are putting into it AND can afford it, send Jim a check
Thanks for starting this thread. It has been a nice reminder why we are here.
(And you'll notice that despite almost 30 replies, the entire thread has been civil. That says a lot for the atmosphere Jim has built here).
Someone please correct me if I'm not informed but a non-subscriber can only post in some of the forums while members can post in all as much as they care to within guidelines. Of those critique forums non-subscribers can post in, they may post once a week in each of the forums. Personally being limited to one post per forum hasn't bothered me at all. In fact if members were to post less and there were overall less image subjects in each forum, the quality of submissions, value of responses, and the number of responses per image would likely improve. There are many other photography forums on the Internet that have no limitations nor fees and for the most part they suffer from excessive submissions that dilute quality or over time stagnant and are abandoned. On most such forums, members use aliases thus not their real names as is the case here reflecting the more professional nature of the site. Most ordinary people that use the net are unaware of the vast numbers of business, professional, and educational organizations that inhabit the Internet because they prevent free usage beyond a home page and almost universally have member fees. Other sites allow somewhat greater access so members of the public can get a taste for the value of being a member. Here by having a stake as in a fee, the site members have a reason for more commitment that stabilizes the site's use and encourages improvements. Conversely it keeps out excessive submissions that would certainly result from certain personalities that tend to do so wherever they set up shop freely.
I have not felt any "slight" at the reduction in privileges by not being a paid member. Indeed, this site is one of the most valuable resources to a nature photographer on the web! So Jim, THANK YOU for making this site possible and for the many benefits I receive regularly without any charge!