Flora gallery became one of the largest and very successful galleries within NPN network. Today it is a mixture or real, natural (images taken outdoors) and indoor staged flora photographs. I wish to propose creation of two separate flora galleries, one for photos taken outdoors (in the free nature) and one for indoor staged photographs. All opinions on this proposal shall be welcomed.
Posted by Ramamohan Pai on June 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM
- I knew this was coming sooner or later - . A case can be made against both options. I'll be following the discussions closely.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on June 17, 2011 at 12:17 PM
I'd guess most of us felt there was at least two schools of thought on the "nature" of the flora gallery. It would seem that some way of bringing the wild flower and other wild vegetation aspect of "flora" into more of a balanced part of this gallery would be beneficial. A very interesting subject to explore and follow, indeed.
Posted by Mark Seaver on June 17, 2011 at 12:21 PM
Why does this seem necessary? In many instances the techniques and challenges are very different, but there is also much overlap. Consider taking a picture of an orchid grown indoors using only natural lighting, where does that fit? If the flora gallery splits into two, it seems likely that many participants will stick in "their own" gallery and miss the cross fertilization of ideas and techniques. If the splitting is because of the competition to win an EP, I think there may be better solutions than separation, such as having the editors pick one from each arena.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on June 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM
I, for one, hope that a split in the gallery is not even considered.
Mark, Can you tell me why people in NPN are so hung up about hand of man in the Landscape Section ? If that cannot count as "nature" why would a Vase and artificial lighting count as totally natural ?
Please note, I am not making a case for a separate gallery, WP whatever. I just enjoy sharing my work and seeing the work of others - rest is inconsequential for me.
This is an interesting discussion, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the gallery moderators have to say. I can most certainly understand the reasoning, but I too like Charlie and Mark wouldn't want to see the gallery split in a fashion that would degrade the great community that's been built.
I love shooting both indoors and outdoors, and try to comment on the full gammut of flora posts. But for me, my time outdoors is impacted by having a young child at home, so I tend to shoot more studio stuff right now out of convenience. I really value everyone's input and feedback about my images, and would think it a detriment to the flora group if separation meant like Mark said "participants will stick in their own gallery". I'm certainly not opposed to some form of change, just not sure what that would be... So I'll be checking back to see what others have to say.
Something I forgot to add... I think one of the things I've always enjoyed about the flora group is that the emphasis has always been on the subject. I know I've seen Bill say "If it grows, it goes" many times, and I think that's great.
Flowers and such are beautiful outdoors in natural settings, and indoors in staged settings. Why get hung up on a vase, only to not get hung up on whether there's a fence post, or wagon wheel in an outdoor shot? Maybe that's a bad example, but my point is it's a tough question, and one that certainly isn't cut-and-dry IMO....
but my point is it's a tough question, and one that certainly isn't cut-and-dry IMO....
..
Yes . Its OK for the Moderators to say, it ain't going to happen but there are sound arguments for and against. What about the background massaging that we generally don't comment about (or hesitate to comment about, to be more appropriate) ? Should it be in the digital art section ?
Flora is flora regardless of whether it is taken indoors or out.....
Not when you have the advantage of taking 50 shots for stacking from the comfort of your chair with three lights (where do I have the liberty of 3 Suns).
Another outside example is freezing insects for Macro Photography - its not the same.
In the less than a year that I've been here the background massaging and other massaging has been brought up several times, and to me, rather than meaning "been there, done that" it may mean that more conversation actually should be encouraged and conducted about it, as well as about the indoor/outdoor, vase/wagon wheel situations. My recommendation as a contributor to the Flora gallery is that full discussions about all of these situations, with a real possibility of arriving at some creative answers, be held. Even though something is great that doesn't mean it can't get better, many brains are better than a few, and all that.
One thought I had is can there be subgalleries like most forum software allows subfolders for posts? That way Bill and Pat could still remain in charge of all of it.
There is controvery. Whether we talk about it and come to a more or less mutual way forward or have more than a few members continue, but not so satisfied, is the real question.
Absolutely. Then there are some who argue wildflowers are the only real flowers . More controversy.
We do need to hear from management.
Only way to go, in my opinion. Arguments will lead us nowhere. After giving some room for venting, the management needs to perhaps say, this is how (whatever that decision might be) it WILL be on NPN.
Yeah, I dont think this is anywhere near an argument. I for one wasnt trying to argue one way, or another. Just trying to explain that IMO both opinons have merit, and it'll be a tough call either way. Let me apologize if my comments were taken any other way.
And I agree, once the moderators explain the course for the gallery, I think their opinion and decisions deserve everyone's respect. In things like this there will inevitably be some people that disagree, and I just hope everyone can agree to amicably disagree and continue to have a welcoming and productive forum. After all, that's why we're all here.
Moderating an active gallery like "Flora" I'm sure has great challenges. Having to deal, fairly, with varying opinions of members I'd guess is one of the tougher parts of the responsibility. I think we all benefit from the expertise and experience of Bill and Pat as we learn techniques and views of our common interest "flora". Wouldn't additional expertise in the area of wildflowers and botany in general not be a big plus in achieving balance between indoor studio flora and outdoor nature photography? This is a decision for management only, however I'll add my opinion that I think it would add to the overall learning experience we enjoy in Flora Gallery.
The idea of splitting the flora gallery did occur to me sometime ago. I must say that my view is changing with time. When I first started to take photography seriously about 2 years ago, I was in the camp that only 'real' photographs are taken with the camera and PP is 'cheating'. I was very much interested in macro and bug photography initially and drifted to taking flowers when there were not bugs and then started posting in Floral. I started seeing so many beautiful images in floral (both indoor and still life) that it really opened my eyes. My view slowly changed from the purist camera only images to just 'beautiful images'. Photography is a form of visual art and as a piece of art, it really does not matter to the viewer how it was made - indoor, outdoor, in-camera, photoshop etc. So long as the artist is able to convey his vision and engage the viewer, the objective of making the image is achieved. Would you care what type of canvass, paint or brushes were use to by van Gogh to create his sunflower or whether it was done indoor or outdoor?
Would I have been able to arrive at this view without participating and seeing all this incredible images in Floral gallery as it is? If Floral were already split into different galleries, I would probably not have ventured into the still life gallery. Having the opportunity to be exposed to different images is a good thing IMO. Cross fertilization can stimulate and challenge the mind.
There is no compulsion for anyone to view every images in the gallery. You can pick and choose and view whatever interest you. As for the WP award, I see both types of images getting picked and I do not see any biases towards one type or the other.
Gary, Nice thoughts . Philosophically I agree with you. However I offer the following push back (only to foster a good discussion).
1. Some landscapes look awesome to me with hand of man - even with a man/woman standing in the scene. We move them elsewhere on NPN.
2. We have terrific conversions to digital art. Why do we post them in Photo Art ? If all Art were to be the same ? Will we permit for example This Photo in Flora Section ? (Remember I told you about Florabella Actions in one of your posts). If not why not ?
3. On the Fauna Form, its expected that people disclose photos made in an un-natural setting like a Zoo or Farm or otherwise captive conditions. I can tell you those photos don't generate as much interest (with some honourable exceptions).
There is a line beyond which things begin to deviate faster.
Having said that, your last paragraph has a lot of interesting thoughts, I think.
I was extremely surprised seeing so many comments & suggestions to this subject. Before continuing, I wish to stress that I enjoy membership in NPN very much. Since I've joined the "Club" in 2006, I learn a lot and I feel that I improved my photography skill a bit, for this I must give my many thanks to all of you.
Why I raised this subject? It was not my intention to split this well doing FLORA GALLERY. But with the time I've realized that the FLORA GALLERY is growing large. Too many new photos within very short period. I don't mind many photos, but it is sometimes difficult to consume it. What is FLORA? Any live plant belongs to flora; flowers, grasses, bushes, trees, mushroom, etc... And for this entire very large floral group we have only one gallery, where we can post images of trees, flowers, grasses, mushrooms, leaves, etc... Now I must ask a question, why NPN doesn’t have only one FAUNA GALLERY?
FAUNA GALLERY is split to AVIAN, WILDLIFE, and partly MAN & NATURE (for domestic animals). If there shall be an argument that we have already too many galleries, what about to close ANONYMOUS gallery (with almost zero contributions)?
I'm not pushing hard for immediate changes, but I'd be glad if the NPN Management would consider this subject during the next revision.
Many thanks to all of you for your excellent contributions.
Miro
For the purists in our midst flora means wild flowers taken in their natural environment and only wild flowers. Taking the purist route would eliminate most images presently posted because they are of hybrid flowers and trees. Almost everything bought in your local florist or garden center and planted in our gardens would be off bounds. I have found over the years that the beauty of florals comes in many different forms, all of which I enjoy. Staging an outside shot or cutting a bloom goes against my grain because I enjoy the hunt as much as taking the photograph. Therefore I tend to take images of flowers and trees as they are presented in nature whether "wild" or "hybrid." Others excel in post processing, scanning or making floral arrangements, etc. and I appreciate their efforts as well.
We all have our views, techniques, equipment and artistic talent. That difference grants us a great range of ideas which, in turn, ultimately lets us all grow in our art. Variety is what makes the floral gallery such a great place to meet like minded individuals and enjoy the talents of others.
My vote is to keep it as is. "Don't fix it if it ain't broke."
Folks, Image classification doesn't really interest me much. I want to be able to create images that I enjoy doing and I'd like to post them in an environment where I get feedback from folks whose opinions and expertise I value. I posted in flora originally because I was photographing trees and flowers and well, the gallery was called Flora. What I discovered were a bunch of photographers who were extremely helpful and knowledgeable about photography in general and flora photography in particular. The main reason I continued to do photography was because of those people. Certainly the only reason I initially did flora photography was because of those people.
So, I guess it shouldn't come as any surprise that what we have works well for me. That said, I'm not opposed to sub-galleries or new galleries but I'm not going to be a champion for them either. Gallery organization just doesn't interest me. I post where I think I can get the best feedback on my images. For the last couple of years, that's been Flora. I would expect you all to do the same. I guess I don't understand how a different gallery structure affects that, so long as you can post where you want of course but I don't need to understand it either. (smile)
If you want to pursue it, I'd suggest that you email Jim about it. I'm assuming there would be some minimal programming costs associated with whatever is decided and Jim is on the hook for the costs of course.
I'm for keeping thing as they are. If you want to classify, why not three galleries - for wildflowers, gardens and indoors ? After all, flowers have different aesthetic value and meaning in each. But, for me, that is precisely the reason for keeping them all together in one gallery. Flora as it is constantly surprises and inspires through its great variety of images and photographic techniques. I, for one ( and it seems from a number of comments above that I'm not alone ), love moving from a desert or alpine wildflower in its environment to a garden flower to a macro abstract - there is so much opportunity for reflection on the amazing variety of plant life and the range of aesthetic experiences that flowers can offer.
I started this discussion so I owe you a bit more detailed explanation to this subject. I hope the last one. As I mentioned, this was only my suggestion, I'm not pushing hard. Some members have not, or will not understand it, some of you do not like novelties, i.e. keep it as it is. But is it not good to try change? Does it cost anything? If subdivision of Flora Gallery is not appreciated why we do have all the other galleries. Why not only one? Tale an example of last page of Flora gallery. See that beautiful "Flora-art" images of Mike Moats, Herb Sennet, Ramamohan Pai or Ian Wolfenden, the excellent outdoor images of Barbara Graham, Vincent Nobel, Keith Tate, Philip Hodgkins, Hee Chye Heng or Gary Yeoh, the wonderful arrangement of Bob Duff, the Leaf on Leaf arrangement of David Kelly and at last but not least the Dry Cactus of Carol Hyman. All excellent images, my compliment. Unfortunately many Members understand under Flora only flowers. The other flora is forgotten in this gallery. Why, because it is very difficult to compare an image of nice tree with perfect staged flora arrangement. IMO this is a reason why we prefer to post flower images instead of "other" floral photographs. Before we could post nice tree images in Gallery Sky..., but this doesn't exist anymore, it was replaced by Landscape. That why I'm asking once more if the NPN Management is willing to do something about it. May be at the beginning I was not precise enough. I've suggested separating the outdoor flora photography from indoor staged flora photography. Actually we need at least three sub-galleries for flora - flowers-trees & bushes-other flora (mushrooms, grasses, etc...). In the future if one of such new galleries will be not active enough (example: anonymous) it should be canceled and replaced by new one. Why not to be a bit more innovative and flexible. We should enjoy membership in NPN. Thank for all attention.
Wish you a very nice weekend.
I'd like to make this comment and then I'll stay out of the discussion. I photograph trees usually several times a week. If you look in my gallery, three of the images that were weekly picks before I became a moderator were images of trees. I posted them in Photo Art as opposed to Flora because I used HDR treatments on them and thought they more appropriately belonged in Photo Art. There is a forth image I posted in Landscape in my gallery because it was a mountain scene but the main subject is an aspen grove. It's in my gallery because it's my favorite of any aspen image I've done.
I'm currently reading the "Wisdom of Trees" by Jane Gifford (lots of beautiful images) as well as "Zen Flowers" by Berkely and Kitamura. I also routinely study Lon Overacker's tree images which are probably consistently the best I've seen anywhere. If I could choose a subject and an image that I'd like be remembered for, it would be an image of a tree. The reason I don't post my tree images very frequently recently is because I rarely have a capture that I think is interesting enough to post. But probably 30 percent of my posted flora images over the past four years though have been of trees. I also still shoot birds a couple of time a week but I don't post them for the same reason - they interest me but given the quality of the avian images over on Avian, they're not worth posting in my opinion... (sorry for the digression - back to trees.)
If I'm able to look at one of my own images and immediately see a problem with it or something I would prefer were different about it, I don't bother to post it. There's no need for me to post it. I already know it's not what I want. Recently, the last year or so, my tree images have struck me that way. Now, I'd love to have a gallery/sub-gallery devoted to trees. And as far as I'm concerned Lon or Bill could moderate it. The thing is, I probably still wouldn't post in it because I can already identify problems with my tree images. I'd certainly follow the postings in it though. I suspect we all have a favorite Flora subject - mine happens to be trees and it sounds like yours might be as well.
If you post an image of a tree in this gallery, I can guarantee you that it will certainly get my attention. To be honest, much more so than a flower or even a flower and a vase combined. (smile) And if you post it in black and white - even better. After about thirty years now of collecting photography, the only images I have on my walls are black and whites and they're all trees.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't pursue subdividing the galleries, if you'd like, but I am stating categorically, that if you post an image of a tree in this gallery, it will get my attention and interest.
pat
Posted by Charlie Baugh on June 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Pat, we have heard a lot in these two posts of yours about what you like and what you want. Have you any view of whether you feel there is an imbalance in flora between "nature" flora and "studio" flora. That, I admit is not a very clear way of describing what I think is the gist of this topic, but I believe you can understand the question. Beautiful flora is extremely well covered in flora gallery. Is there a need for more emphasis on natural outdoor flora here? Please give us your opinion on that specific question. It seems to me that an example of the kind of feeling some of us have on this question is that in some galleries there is a desire to remove the aspect of mans control of nature and what we think of as purity in nature.
Posted by beth summer on June 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM
Well, I probably shouldn't participate in this discussion as I have not been a very good participant in Flora for about 6 months or so. That being said, I'll just add one thing to the discussion. I don't have time to go through every gallery everyday and if it's split, it will be less for me and I really enjoy seeing all aspects of "flora" in Flora. So...no matter what, I'll try to spend time on NPN and hopefully, get back to photo shooting one of these days And a big thanks to Pat and Bill...Flora is the best!
In an earlier post I had said that I thought things should remain as they are. However, in thinking about it further and remembering that I had a separate "Studio" gallery on my macro website, I'm coming around to the idea of splitting it into "Natural Setting" and "Studio". Any further division than that and I think we would be make things too complicated.
Mark, I really like that suggestion, and it seems very logical to me.
As far as people not venturing outside of "their own" type of gallery, I don't think that's something that NPN needs to be concerned about or deal with. I think that's something that people need to deal with themselves.
Okay, I'll wake up and jump in at the tail end of this. I appreciate all the input and interest. In fact I was amazed at the number of replies when I just opened the forum for a routine peek at what if anything is going on. Looks like a lot.
I've moderated Flora for a little over 4 years and it has grown tremendously in both quantity and quality. The diversity of subjects and techniques is pretty incredible. I asked Pat to join me last year as I felt his strengths complement mine and that having a sounding board for evaluating the weekly picks would take a little pressure off and also take the edge off any personal biases that may have crept into my judgment. I would consider myself a capture and comp guy while I think it is fair to say that Pat is an expert on controlled lighting and processing. I thought it was interesting that at the end of last year when it came to choosing the yearly Editor's Pick Awards Pat and I had a lot of overlap when we shared our choices before negotiating the final picks and submitting them to Jim.
There is a tension between natural captures and studio shots. I like them both and try to strike a balance when considering images for awards. For the most part I think we have done a good job. The common denominator is the subject matter while presentation is the variable. In this discussion I catch a note of concern that the controlled environment/lighting shots may be getting too much attention. This year we have had 24 WP awards: 15 Outdoor/Natural flowers, 5 Florascapes and 6 Controlled shots. In the past 4 years of the 12 images picked for the yearly Editor's Pick award only one was shot in a controlled environment. Peeling off the controlled environment images strikes me as a solution without a problem.
As for non-flower flora there is certainly a place for it here and I think those images are given equal consideration. I've seen a lot of fungi shots that were thoroughly cool and I agree with Pat that trees are great subjects. For some reason folks tend to post trees in Landscape but they're welcome here.
In summary I'm not one to oppose change for the maintenance of tradition. But I'm not all that excited about change for change sake. I view the diversity of the gallery as its strength and not in any way a weakness. Breaking it up seems like a way of diluting the overall impact. >=))>
From my standpoint there is no "need" for more outdoor photography any more than there is a "need' for more staged shots. The need is that it's flora and it's something you enjoy photographing and discussing. This is purely a hobby for me. I'm doing what I enjoy. I hope you are.
I really do think Bill's "If it grows it goes." sums up my feeling about what should be in the gallery.
Pat, Bill, It's all fine provided this was not Nature Photographers Network and was a stand-alone Flora Forum. That tells me we need to weight the word Nature.
I am ok either way but I do believe staged shots are unfair to typical nature photography efforts as there is not much staging we can do in the field. Wind, Lighting, backgrounds, almost anything is in favour of staged shots.
At a very minimum we need to have two Weekly Picks. One for natural shots and one for Staged.
From my standpoint there is no "need" for more outdoor photography any more than there is a "need' for more staged shots. The need is that it's flora and it's something you enjoy photographing and discussing.
I respectfully disagree - Landscapes are not Landscapes on NPN and Fauna is qualified Fauna. Flora cannot be Flora without qualification on a Nature Forum.
I am OK to leave it as it is with the understanding that Staged Shots are unfair to Natural Shots . Please come and shoot with me and show me all the DOF, Shadow Recovery, HDR, Stacking and everything else that you want in the midst of wind and rain.
Ram: I'm a capture guy through and through but again if you simply look at the statistics I cited above I don't think anyone could say that staged shots are favored. >=))>
I side with Ram on this. Flora *is* flora, but on "Nature Photographers Network" where absolutely no sign on "man" can be shown in landscape gallery and 25% is stated to be the absolute max of anything manmade in other galleries, this flora gallery *in my opinion" is moving to far from "nature" for my liking.
Bill, I did not say they were - but I don't like the idea of staged shots competing with (just sharing, I am more than OK) natural shots. We can agree to disagree and close this here.
Without a proper objective assessment of the WPs between Staged and Natural (I don't think we can have 100% objectivity, I can accept that), doubts will always linger. At least in my opinion.
Bill, agree with the stated guidelines. The question was about whether we need a change.
I'd be delighted to come and shoot with you but i wouldn't plan to show you anything - merely observe your technique. And If I could crawl into the viewfinder while you made your images, I'd do that.
If I may play Devil's Advocate here, would sub-dividing the forum lead to issues and confusion with regards to classification? For instance, if I'm shooting some flowers out in my garden, I would consider that a "natural" environment. I dont have the advantages of stacking, lighting control, etc. Now what happens if I dont like the BG of my subject and put a piece of black fabric behind it? Does that now become "staged", or what if I use a diffuser to control lighting...?
I think Bill and Pat have a huge workload in managing and participating in this gallery, and I would hate to see their time diverted to moving images to different galleries, and other "housekeeping" tasks, when they could be using that time to enrich all of our experiences here.
Derek, my own answer to your question would be that putting fabric behind a plant, using a diffuser, etc., is all staging, but that's just my own way of thinking.
My images are what I consider to be the best presentation of the main subject. Therefore I will post process to get the best results. If a backdrop is considered staging, then is darkening the background in PS considered staging as well? Although I can understand the differences of opinion, there will be no way make categories that would eliminate all the variables. The only workable split, in my opinion, would be (1) setups and (2) natural settings. Still think all should be left as is. The category has grown and changed, but for the better under the present guidelines.
Without a proper objective assessment of the WPs between Staged and Natural (I don't think we can have 100% objectivity, I can accept that), doubts will always linger. At least in my opinion.
I just did a very quick and dirty analysis of the past 250 posts. 35-40 have what I would consider significant staging. That works out to between 14-16%. There are others in a gray area (shot outside with a man made BG, lighting other than flash/reflector, etc) so let's say that 18-20% are in the not natural classification. On my first response I showed that of the 24 WP's this year 6 are staged. That's 25% so perhaps there is a small bias except that one should bear in mind that of the six staged WP's four were selected when it was my week to make the final call. So the capture Mod chooses the staged versions more than the staging Mod. Go figure. Also refer back to my first response where I noted that of the last 12 finalists in the yearly Editor's Pick Awards over the past four years only one was a staged shot. All things considered I don't think staged shots are significantly overrepresented in the competition for official recognition. >=))>
Bill and Pat, I wonder if it might be good for you guys to start your weekly flora highlights posts again. That was really nice, I thought, especially because of the multitude of great images in Flora on an ongoing basis, as everyone says.
Since I became a moderator, I've made a point of commenting on every image posted in the gallery. I generally try to express my thoughts about the image in the comment I make. I'm a big fan of making comments. I've learned a lot from commenting and then comparing the other comments made to my assessment of the image. In fact I'd say that's mostly how I've been able to develop a photographic aesthetic. If you want to know what I think about the images posted during the week, then just read my comments. They are as honest a critique of the image as I can make.
I quit writing a highlights piece because it struck me as being redundant. It took me about an hour to do and it wasn't as comprehensive or as informative as the comments I'd already written. If you read my comments on each post made during the week, you should have a pretty good idea at the end of the week, whose images are strong candidates for the weekly pick and why.
Barbara: I really should do a better job of doing the highlights. I have eased up a bit on my commenting and often don't comment on every shot like I used to. I do appreciate Pat's viewpoint and for him it makes perfect sense since his comments are more comprehensive than mine as a general rule. After over 20,000 of them mine tend to be short and concise. Reminds me of my prescription signature which over the years has evolved into a barely legible scrawl . There was a time where you could tell who I was by the signature. No more. A point well taken and I'll try to comply this week after the pick is announced and posted. >=))>
I didn't expect so many responses to my suggestion. But unfortunately I feel that many of you don't understand it. To conclude I'm asking a simple question:
Why we have in NPN different gallery posting criteria?
Example: Wildlife - Avian (doesn't eagle belong to wildlife?)
..............Landscape - Man & Nature (why the separation of images showing sign of man from landscape?)
Only flora gallery is a mixture of everything which belongs to flora.
Can somebody clarify, without any emotions, the reason?
Finally I wish to clarify that making this suggestion I was in no way thinking about weekly picks. Every time I'm glad to present my photos and to learn from your comments. I don't care very much about weekly pick (of course I'm happy when my photo was honored, but it is not the main reason to be a member of NPN).
Once more many thanks for all your comments and suggestions.
Posted by Ramamohan Pai on June 18, 2011 at 11:14 PM
All things considered I don't think staged shots are significantly overrepresented in the competition for official recognition.
Bill, Thank You for the detailed analysis. May the best photo win always
Why we have in NPN different gallery posting criteria?
Example: Wildlife - Avian (doesn't eagle belong to wildlife?)
..............Landscape - Man & Nature (why the separation of images showing sign of man from landscape?)
Only flora gallery is a mixture of everything which belongs to flora.
Can somebody clarify, without any emotions, the reason?
Miro: A legitimate question and I'll give you what I know of the situation from close to ten years on the site. Avian and Landscape are the monster galleries. At 4900 and 4500 posts respectively they are twice the size of #3 Flora at 2350 posts. The other galleries in order of size are Wildlife at 1800, Man & Nature at 1270, Macro at 1100, Weekly Challenge at 1015 and Photo Art at 825. In the early years of NPN the site was dominated by bird and landscape guys. The original avian group splintered off and formed a new site while most of the landscape folks stayed put. The rest of us just kind of sat on the sidelines and watched. Jim and NPN weathered the storm of the avian defection very nicely but some vestiges of the early organization remain to this day. The original birders had no desire to share a gallery with wildlife and there were purists in landscape who were strongly opposed to hand of man. I can see their point in a zero tolerance policy because it makes the dividing line between the two galleries crystal clear. We have no such line in Flora thus the occasional thread like this or the debate about what is a straight shot suitable for Flora vs one that is manipulated some and ought to be in Photo Art. Then you have Macro where just about anything small goes including flowers. Some of my own weekly picks were in Macro and of those most were of flowers. Another fairly popular nature site has Flora and Macro combined. I would not want to moderate that!
I think that fragmenting galleries into smaller morsels like natural and staged Floras, vegetative macro and bugs, land and sea wildlife, etc might be OK but as for me I like the gallery the size it is and would not like to split it. I love the variety of images we get and would not want to see any of them go their own way so to speak. Hope this helps. >=))>
If I understand what has been posted by the moderators, it is that everything is fair, equally considered and will remain as before. This being a "Nature" group of photographers I wish to ask if our moderators consider a flower purchased at a nursery or florist "exactly equal" to a flower found and photographed from nature?
Charlie: Not sure what you mean by a flower found in nature. Are you only referring to pure wildflowers planted by God or flowers growing in a garden but still outdoors? Many of my shots are taken in our garden which is planted with regard to potential light and BG considerations. If only wildflowers were eligible we'd have a pretty small gallery. I'm concerned that there is an implication that only the effort in capture should be considered when evaluating the merits of an image. For me expending energy in comp, setup and capture in the wild is different than but not superior to someone patiently setting up a flower in a vase, arranging the lighting and completing the final product in post processing. They're two sides of the same coin and heads is no better than tails. Again, the posting guidelines are broad but concise Flora Gallery - Plants and flowers. Staged, set-up, or studio shots must be stated as such. I see no need to reinvent the wheel.
Posted by Anne K. Rusk on June 19, 2011 at 11:50 PM
My two cents worth...
I have found the flora gallery to be the most welcoming and inclusive gallery on NPN. I think this is because the general rule already stated "if it grows, it goes." Before joining NPN, I had never looked at scanned images, I thought still life had to include fruit (old art class idea), and PS filters were cheating. In my 8 months as a member, all of these ideas have changed and my photography has grown more than I could have imagined. Many other galleries are intimidating (not just to me) because of all the rules and forbidden images. Regarding issues of nature, if the subject has, in fact, been grown and not constructed by some other means, isn't that a natural subject? Even if natural elements have been arranged, aren't they still the primary subject? Interesting discussion that can probably go on forever! I enjoy the mental exercise this has provided!
I vote to keep the flora forum open to all things that grow.
Not sure what you mean by a flower found in nature. Are you only referring to pure wildflowers planted by God or flowers growing in a garden but still outdoors?
**************************
I did not word that well at all, Bill. I *do not* feel that flora should only be wildflowers. However being a Nature group I have a very negative feeling about flora bought in a store or shop specifically to photograph for a nature group. Your garden photos and mine and everybodies are living growing parts of the nature we surround ourselves with.
I'll live with flora if the way it is now done, is going to stay. I can not say I like it, because I do not.
I think the way "landscape gallery" is strictly controlled as to anything man made, is too strict. I feel your much broader feel about flora is better.
As an example of how I feel about shop flowers purchased specifically for posting on flora. It would be like someone taking a shot of the Disneyland Matterhorn and posting it in landscape.
I like you Bill and Pat is a pleasant and helpful moderator also. Sorry I have to disagree with you sometimes and hope I didn't go too far in voicing my opinions.
1. When NPN launched 11 years ago, bird, wildlife, landscape and macro were the major genres of nature photography. We set up our galleries accordingly.
2. The landscape photographers are perhaps the greatest "purists" of all and the general consensus was that there should be no hand-of-man in any landscape photo. This was/is not a NPN guideline, just a general opinion of most landscape photographers. So, our Man & Nature Gallery was set up early on to create a place for those landscape shots that show some HOM. Today, it is generally considered more of an "outdoor photography" gallery and still only has a fraction of the traffic of the Landscape Gallery.
3. There was/is a division in wildlife photography too - shots taken at games farms versus those taken in the wild. We could have split it into two galleries, but the lesson learned from the M&N/Landscape split is that there are not enough game farm/zoo shots to justify it. Today, we simply ask that if the shot was taken in controlled conditions (such as a game farm), that it be labeled accordingly. So far, that has worked out just fine.
4. The "hot topic" in bird photography (and wildlife too) is the use of bait, especially live bait, to lure the subject in for photography purposes. We never considered a "Baited Bird Photography" gallery but because the technique has potential impact on the well being of the subject, it needed to be addressed. Once again, this is not a "NPN thing" but rather addressing a concern that exisits in the nature photography community as a whole.
5. The NPN Flora Gallery started off very slowly. It was only through the efforts of the gallery moderators that it really started to grow in activity. So now that it has become a major "genre" (at least on NPN), we're having the same kind of discussion that we had previously with wildlife and landscapes.
So, that is the background. It's a good conversation and one that was bound to happen with the growth of the Flora Gallery.
As I sit here this morning, my inclination is to leave it as is. I suspect a separate "still life" gallery wouldn't get much use and suffer the same fate as other "non-nature" galleries we have experimented with in the past. As popular as photography genres such as architecture, portrait, still life, etc. are, I don't think they'd get much traction on a nature photography site.
I truly do not see anything "broken" with the current arrangement. We ask that staged shots be labeled as such (some are obvious and really do not need the label) and that the photographer share their technique in capturing the photo. That is what NPN is really all about - us sharing our photographic skills and expertise with each other.
In that regard, Bill and Pat have done an outstanding job in running "the finest flora gallery on the planet."
Posted by Charlie Baugh on June 20, 2011 at 10:14 AM
Thanks for the brief history of the varying guidelines throughout NPN galleries. It makes sense and is a tribute to your management style to let members come to some consensis in each gallery as to how they want their gallery. The very fact that opinions have been expressed freely is wonderful and your thinking about not making changes on this subject is, I agree, the best way forward.
Flora Folk: Thanks for all your input and the lively discussion. It certainly spiced up my weekend. I would encourage everyone to read Jim's response. I was also encouraged by Anne Rusk's last comment which sums up the philosophy I've wanted to grow and maintain since I've been a moderator. I have the advantage of looking back over this gallery from the time where a weekly pick might get 5 comments. Most shots were of wildflowers with some garden grown images tossed in now and then. When I started moderating stacking was just starting to show up and no one was using a scanner. Both of these innovations have facilitated some pretty spectacular imagery in the past two or three years. In my term as moderator I've also seen advances in capture techniques that have produced equally impressive albeit dramatically different image. Cramming, double/multiple exposure, lens babies and SOA abstracts have expanded the Flora genre significantly. The common denominator is the subject matter which is natural grown flowers, trees, fungi, shrubs, - hey, if it grows, it goes! That means I will draw the line at silk flowers or other artificials but if it comes out of the ground at some point I think its fair game. Capture and presentation techniques do interest me although I personally don't stack, scan, lens baby or multiple expose.
I think we have pretty well exhausted every angle of this subject so I will be locking this thread. If you have any other unique concerns please e-mail me and we can discuss things further privately and if need be present it to the general membership. Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion and for your part in making this the finest Flora gallery on the planet. >=))>
Discussion
70 repliesPlease note, I am not making a case for a separate gallery, WP whatever. I just enjoy sharing my work and seeing the work of others - rest is inconsequential for me.
I love shooting both indoors and outdoors, and try to comment on the full gammut of flora posts. But for me, my time outdoors is impacted by having a young child at home, so I tend to shoot more studio stuff right now out of convenience. I really value everyone's input and feedback about my images, and would think it a detriment to the flora group if separation meant like Mark said "participants will stick in their own gallery". I'm certainly not opposed to some form of change, just not sure what that would be... So I'll be checking back to see what others have to say.
Flowers and such are beautiful outdoors in natural settings, and indoors in staged settings. Why get hung up on a vase, only to not get hung up on whether there's a fence post, or wagon wheel in an outdoor shot? Maybe that's a bad example, but my point is it's a tough question, and one that certainly isn't cut-and-dry IMO....
Yes
Not when you have the advantage of taking 50 shots for stacking from the comfort of your chair with three lights (where do I have the liberty of 3 Suns).
Another outside example is freezing insects for Macro Photography - its not the same.
One thought I had is can there be subgalleries like most forum software allows subfolders for posts? That way Bill and Pat could still remain in charge of all of it.
We do need to hear from management.
Absolutely. Then there are some who argue wildflowers are the only real flowers
Only way to go, in my opinion. Arguments will lead us nowhere. After giving some room for venting, the management needs to perhaps say, this is how (whatever that decision might be) it WILL be on NPN.
And I agree, once the moderators explain the course for the gallery, I think their opinion and decisions deserve everyone's respect. In things like this there will inevitably be some people that disagree, and I just hope everyone can agree to amicably disagree and continue to have a welcoming and productive forum. After all, that's why we're all here.
BTW - Meant to tell you, if you had access to three suns your shots would be even more mind-blowing!!
Would I have been able to arrive at this view without participating and seeing all this incredible images in Floral gallery as it is? If Floral were already split into different galleries, I would probably not have ventured into the still life gallery. Having the opportunity to be exposed to different images is a good thing IMO. Cross fertilization can stimulate and challenge the mind.
There is no compulsion for anyone to view every images in the gallery. You can pick and choose and view whatever interest you. As for the WP award, I see both types of images getting picked and I do not see any biases towards one type or the other.
1. Some landscapes look awesome to me with hand of man - even with a man/woman standing in the scene. We move them elsewhere on NPN.
2. We have terrific conversions to digital art. Why do we post them in Photo Art ? If all Art were to be the same ? Will we permit for example This Photo in Flora Section ? (Remember I told you about Florabella Actions in one of your posts). If not why not ?
3. On the Fauna Form, its expected that people disclose photos made in an un-natural setting like a Zoo or Farm or otherwise captive conditions. I can tell you those photos don't generate as much interest (with some honourable exceptions).
There is a line beyond which things begin to deviate faster.
Having said that, your last paragraph has a lot of interesting thoughts, I think.
Why I raised this subject? It was not my intention to split this well doing FLORA GALLERY. But with the time I've realized that the FLORA GALLERY is growing large. Too many new photos within very short period. I don't mind many photos, but it is sometimes difficult to consume it. What is FLORA? Any live plant belongs to flora; flowers, grasses, bushes, trees, mushroom, etc... And for this entire very large floral group we have only one gallery, where we can post images of trees, flowers, grasses, mushrooms, leaves, etc... Now I must ask a question, why NPN doesn’t have only one FAUNA GALLERY?
FAUNA GALLERY is split to AVIAN, WILDLIFE, and partly MAN & NATURE (for domestic animals). If there shall be an argument that we have already too many galleries, what about to close ANONYMOUS gallery (with almost zero contributions)?
I'm not pushing hard for immediate changes, but I'd be glad if the NPN Management would consider this subject during the next revision.
Many thanks to all of you for your excellent contributions.
Miro
For the purists in our midst flora means wild flowers taken in their natural environment and only wild flowers. Taking the purist route would eliminate most images presently posted because they are of hybrid flowers and trees. Almost everything bought in your local florist or garden center and planted in our gardens would be off bounds. I have found over the years that the beauty of florals comes in many different forms, all of which I enjoy. Staging an outside shot or cutting a bloom goes against my grain because I enjoy the hunt as much as taking the photograph. Therefore I tend to take images of flowers and trees as they are presented in nature whether "wild" or "hybrid." Others excel in post processing, scanning or making floral arrangements, etc. and I appreciate their efforts as well.
We all have our views, techniques, equipment and artistic talent. That difference grants us a great range of ideas which, in turn, ultimately lets us all grow in our art. Variety is what makes the floral gallery such a great place to meet like minded individuals and enjoy the talents of others.
My vote is to keep it as is. "Don't fix it if it ain't broke."
So, I guess it shouldn't come as any surprise that what we have works well for me. That said, I'm not opposed to sub-galleries or new galleries but I'm not going to be a champion for them either. Gallery organization just doesn't interest me. I post where I think I can get the best feedback on my images. For the last couple of years, that's been Flora. I would expect you all to do the same. I guess I don't understand how a different gallery structure affects that, so long as you can post where you want of course but I don't need to understand it either. (smile)
If you want to pursue it, I'd suggest that you email Jim about it. I'm assuming there would be some minimal programming costs associated with whatever is decided and Jim is on the hook for the costs of course.
pat
Wish you a very nice weekend.
I'd like to make this comment and then I'll stay out of the discussion. I photograph trees usually several times a week. If you look in my gallery, three of the images that were weekly picks before I became a moderator were images of trees. I posted them in Photo Art as opposed to Flora because I used HDR treatments on them and thought they more appropriately belonged in Photo Art. There is a forth image I posted in Landscape in my gallery because it was a mountain scene but the main subject is an aspen grove. It's in my gallery because it's my favorite of any aspen image I've done.
I'm currently reading the "Wisdom of Trees" by Jane Gifford (lots of beautiful images) as well as "Zen Flowers" by Berkely and Kitamura. I also routinely study Lon Overacker's tree images which are probably consistently the best I've seen anywhere. If I could choose a subject and an image that I'd like be remembered for, it would be an image of a tree. The reason I don't post my tree images very frequently recently is because I rarely have a capture that I think is interesting enough to post. But probably 30 percent of my posted flora images over the past four years though have been of trees. I also still shoot birds a couple of time a week but I don't post them for the same reason - they interest me but given the quality of the avian images over on Avian, they're not worth posting in my opinion... (sorry for the digression - back to trees.)
If I'm able to look at one of my own images and immediately see a problem with it or something I would prefer were different about it, I don't bother to post it. There's no need for me to post it. I already know it's not what I want. Recently, the last year or so, my tree images have struck me that way. Now, I'd love to have a gallery/sub-gallery devoted to trees. And as far as I'm concerned Lon or Bill could moderate it. The thing is, I probably still wouldn't post in it because I can already identify problems with my tree images. I'd certainly follow the postings in it though. I suspect we all have a favorite Flora subject - mine happens to be trees and it sounds like yours might be as well.
If you post an image of a tree in this gallery, I can guarantee you that it will certainly get my attention. To be honest, much more so than a flower or even a flower and a vase combined. (smile) And if you post it in black and white - even better. After about thirty years now of collecting photography, the only images I have on my walls are black and whites and they're all trees.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't pursue subdividing the galleries, if you'd like, but I am stating categorically, that if you post an image of a tree in this gallery, it will get my attention and interest.
pat
As far as people not venturing outside of "their own" type of gallery, I don't think that's something that NPN needs to be concerned about or deal with. I think that's something that people need to deal with themselves.
I've moderated Flora for a little over 4 years and it has grown tremendously in both quantity and quality. The diversity of subjects and techniques is pretty incredible. I asked Pat to join me last year as I felt his strengths complement mine and that having a sounding board for evaluating the weekly picks would take a little pressure off and also take the edge off any personal biases that may have crept into my judgment. I would consider myself a capture and comp guy while I think it is fair to say that Pat is an expert on controlled lighting and processing. I thought it was interesting that at the end of last year when it came to choosing the yearly Editor's Pick Awards Pat and I had a lot of overlap when we shared our choices before negotiating the final picks and submitting them to Jim.
There is a tension between natural captures and studio shots. I like them both and try to strike a balance when considering images for awards. For the most part I think we have done a good job. The common denominator is the subject matter while presentation is the variable. In this discussion I catch a note of concern that the controlled environment/lighting shots may be getting too much attention. This year we have had 24 WP awards: 15 Outdoor/Natural flowers, 5 Florascapes and 6 Controlled shots. In the past 4 years of the 12 images picked for the yearly Editor's Pick award only one was shot in a controlled environment. Peeling off the controlled environment images strikes me as a solution without a problem.
As for non-flower flora there is certainly a place for it here and I think those images are given equal consideration. I've seen a lot of fungi shots that were thoroughly cool and I agree with Pat that trees are great subjects. For some reason folks tend to post trees in Landscape but they're welcome here.
In summary I'm not one to oppose change for the maintenance of tradition. But I'm not all that excited about change for change sake. I view the diversity of the gallery as its strength and not in any way a weakness. Breaking it up seems like a way of diluting the overall impact. >=))>
From my standpoint there is no "need" for more outdoor photography any more than there is a "need' for more staged shots. The need is that it's flora and it's something you enjoy photographing and discussing. This is purely a hobby for me. I'm doing what I enjoy. I hope you are.
I really do think Bill's "If it grows it goes." sums up my feeling about what should be in the gallery.
pat
I am ok either way but I do believe staged shots are unfair to typical nature photography efforts as there is not much staging we can do in the field. Wind, Lighting, backgrounds, almost anything is in favour of staged shots.
At a very minimum we need to have two Weekly Picks. One for natural shots and one for Staged.
I respectfully disagree
I am OK to leave it as it is with the understanding that Staged Shots are unfair to Natural Shots
Posting Guidelines
Charlie: The 25% standard applies only to the Man and Nature gallery. No posted standard is mentioned for any other gallery.
Without a proper objective assessment of the WPs between Staged and Natural (I don't think we can have 100% objectivity, I can accept that), doubts will always linger. At least in my opinion.
Bill, agree with the stated guidelines. The question was about whether we need a change.
I'd be delighted to come and shoot with you but i wouldn't plan to show you anything - merely observe your technique. And If I could crawl into the viewfinder while you made your images, I'd do that.
pat
I think Bill and Pat have a huge workload in managing and participating in this gallery, and I would hate to see their time diverted to moving images to different galleries, and other "housekeeping" tasks, when they could be using that time to enrich all of our experiences here.
I just did a very quick and dirty analysis of the past 250 posts. 35-40 have what I would consider significant staging. That works out to between 14-16%. There are others in a gray area (shot outside with a man made BG, lighting other than flash/reflector, etc) so let's say that 18-20% are in the not natural classification. On my first response I showed that of the 24 WP's this year 6 are staged. That's 25% so perhaps there is a small bias except that one should bear in mind that of the six staged WP's four were selected when it was my week to make the final call. So the capture Mod chooses the staged versions more than the staging Mod. Go figure. Also refer back to my first response where I noted that of the last 12 finalists in the yearly Editor's Pick Awards over the past four years only one was a staged shot. All things considered I don't think staged shots are significantly overrepresented in the competition for official recognition. >=))>
pat
Since I became a moderator, I've made a point of commenting on every image posted in the gallery. I generally try to express my thoughts about the image in the comment I make. I'm a big fan of making comments. I've learned a lot from commenting and then comparing the other comments made to my assessment of the image. In fact I'd say that's mostly how I've been able to develop a photographic aesthetic. If you want to know what I think about the images posted during the week, then just read my comments. They are as honest a critique of the image as I can make.
I quit writing a highlights piece because it struck me as being redundant. It took me about an hour to do and it wasn't as comprehensive or as informative as the comments I'd already written. If you read my comments on each post made during the week, you should have a pretty good idea at the end of the week, whose images are strong candidates for the weekly pick and why.
Pat
Why we have in NPN different gallery posting criteria?
Example: Wildlife - Avian (doesn't eagle belong to wildlife?)
..............Landscape - Man & Nature (why the separation of images showing sign of man from landscape?)
Only flora gallery is a mixture of everything which belongs to flora.
Can somebody clarify, without any emotions, the reason?
Finally I wish to clarify that making this suggestion I was in no way thinking about weekly picks. Every time I'm glad to present my photos and to learn from your comments. I don't care very much about weekly pick (of course I'm happy when my photo was honored, but it is not the main reason to be a member of NPN).
Once more many thanks for all your comments and suggestions.
Bill, Thank You for the detailed analysis. May the best photo win always
Miro: A legitimate question and I'll give you what I know of the situation from close to ten years on the site. Avian and Landscape are the monster galleries. At 4900 and 4500 posts respectively they are twice the size of #3 Flora at 2350 posts. The other galleries in order of size are Wildlife at 1800, Man & Nature at 1270, Macro at 1100, Weekly Challenge at 1015 and Photo Art at 825. In the early years of NPN the site was dominated by bird and landscape guys. The original avian group splintered off and formed a new site while most of the landscape folks stayed put. The rest of us just kind of sat on the sidelines and watched. Jim and NPN weathered the storm of the avian defection very nicely but some vestiges of the early organization remain to this day. The original birders had no desire to share a gallery with wildlife and there were purists in landscape who were strongly opposed to hand of man. I can see their point in a zero tolerance policy because it makes the dividing line between the two galleries crystal clear. We have no such line in Flora thus the occasional thread like this or the debate about what is a straight shot suitable for Flora vs one that is manipulated some and ought to be in Photo Art. Then you have Macro where just about anything small goes including flowers. Some of my own weekly picks were in Macro and of those most were of flowers. Another fairly popular nature site has Flora and Macro combined. I would not want to moderate that!
I think that fragmenting galleries into smaller morsels like natural and staged Floras, vegetative macro and bugs, land and sea wildlife, etc might be OK but as for me I like the gallery the size it is and would not like to split it. I love the variety of images we get and would not want to see any of them go their own way so to speak. Hope this helps. >=))>
I have found the flora gallery to be the most welcoming and inclusive gallery on NPN. I think this is because the general rule already stated "if it grows, it goes." Before joining NPN, I had never looked at scanned images, I thought still life had to include fruit (old art class idea), and PS filters were cheating. In my 8 months as a member, all of these ideas have changed and my photography has grown more than I could have imagined. Many other galleries are intimidating (not just to me) because of all the rules and forbidden images. Regarding issues of nature, if the subject has, in fact, been grown and not constructed by some other means, isn't that a natural subject? Even if natural elements have been arranged, aren't they still the primary subject? Interesting discussion that can probably go on forever! I enjoy the mental exercise this has provided!
I vote to keep the flora forum open to all things that grow.
Not sure what you mean by a flower found in nature. Are you only referring to pure wildflowers planted by God or flowers growing in a garden but still outdoors?
**************************
I did not word that well at all, Bill. I *do not* feel that flora should only be wildflowers. However being a Nature group I have a very negative feeling about flora bought in a store or shop specifically to photograph for a nature group. Your garden photos and mine and everybodies are living growing parts of the nature we surround ourselves with.
I'll live with flora if the way it is now done, is going to stay. I can not say I like it, because I do not.
I think the way "landscape gallery" is strictly controlled as to anything man made, is too strict. I feel your much broader feel about flora is better.
As an example of how I feel about shop flowers purchased specifically for posting on flora. It would be like someone taking a shot of the Disneyland Matterhorn and posting it in landscape.
I like you Bill and Pat is a pleasant and helpful moderator also. Sorry I have to disagree with you sometimes and hope I didn't go too far in voicing my opinions.
Regards,
Charlie
I so very much feel the same way as the above.
Some comments and observations;
1. When NPN launched 11 years ago, bird, wildlife, landscape and macro were the major genres of nature photography. We set up our galleries accordingly.
2. The landscape photographers are perhaps the greatest "purists" of all and the general consensus was that there should be no hand-of-man in any landscape photo. This was/is not a NPN guideline, just a general opinion of most landscape photographers. So, our Man & Nature Gallery was set up early on to create a place for those landscape shots that show some HOM. Today, it is generally considered more of an "outdoor photography" gallery and still only has a fraction of the traffic of the Landscape Gallery.
3. There was/is a division in wildlife photography too - shots taken at games farms versus those taken in the wild. We could have split it into two galleries, but the lesson learned from the M&N/Landscape split is that there are not enough game farm/zoo shots to justify it. Today, we simply ask that if the shot was taken in controlled conditions (such as a game farm), that it be labeled accordingly. So far, that has worked out just fine.
4. The "hot topic" in bird photography (and wildlife too) is the use of bait, especially live bait, to lure the subject in for photography purposes. We never considered a "Baited Bird Photography" gallery but because the technique has potential impact on the well being of the subject, it needed to be addressed. Once again, this is not a "NPN thing" but rather addressing a concern that exisits in the nature photography community as a whole.
5. The NPN Flora Gallery started off very slowly. It was only through the efforts of the gallery moderators that it really started to grow in activity. So now that it has become a major "genre" (at least on NPN), we're having the same kind of discussion that we had previously with wildlife and landscapes.
So, that is the background. It's a good conversation and one that was bound to happen with the growth of the Flora Gallery.
As I sit here this morning, my inclination is to leave it as is. I suspect a separate "still life" gallery wouldn't get much use and suffer the same fate as other "non-nature" galleries we have experimented with in the past. As popular as photography genres such as architecture, portrait, still life, etc. are, I don't think they'd get much traction on a nature photography site.
I truly do not see anything "broken" with the current arrangement. We ask that staged shots be labeled as such (some are obvious and really do not need the label) and that the photographer share their technique in capturing the photo. That is what NPN is really all about - us sharing our photographic skills and expertise with each other.
In that regard, Bill and Pat have done an outstanding job in running "the finest flora gallery on the planet."
I think we have pretty well exhausted every angle of this subject so I will be locking this thread. If you have any other unique concerns please e-mail me and we can discuss things further privately and if need be present it to the general membership. Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion and for your part in making this the finest Flora gallery on the planet. >=))>