Posted by Charlie Baugh on August 12, 2011 at 12:27 PM
The landscape gallery runs a strict operation and having thought about it I want to say that I've come to the conclusion that we benefit from some rigidity to a standard.
It is obvious that I and others have had irritations from being moved from "landscape" to other galleries, but having thought significantly about the strict standard, I *now* agree with it. I feel somewhat intimidated by it, but believe that the few time I've posted there I was treated friendly and critiqued very fairly.
I will post there again as a result of how I was treated, BUT, I will take more careful attention to the image I post there than I do elsewhere.
If I have been too harse in my digs at your standard, Lon, I hope you will forgive me. I think you and your gallery show class.
Charlie
Posted by Bill Chambers on August 12, 2011 at 2:29 PM
Geez, don't tell Lon he shows class, he'll become insufferable! A photo diva!
"Geez, don't tell Lon he shows class, he'll become insufferable! A photo diva! "
Perfect, Bill!
--P
Posted by Carol Hyman on August 13, 2011 at 1:19 AM
Hey, Charlie, Lon is one of the most down to earth guys in NPN. LOL
Cheers,
Carol
Posted by Tony Kuyper on August 13, 2011 at 11:36 AM
I think you and your gallery show class.
Hmm. While I take your comments at face value, Charlie, I'm pretty sure that Lon would not assume that Landscape is his gallery. I will grant you that the moderation, critiques, and fairness he provides are first-rate, but I also see him learning as much from the critiques he receives as anyone. Lon certainly exemplifies the openness and fairness that characterizes this gallery, but this comes from loving the genre and participating with like-minded folks. It's these cohesive qualities that help to create the harmony there and which keeps the outstanding pictures coming. I'd find it hard to imagine anyone wanting to dominate the Landscape gallery. It's the diversity of images and opinions that is its strength. As far as Lon being a purist, I'm just not sure I agree with that either. That doesn't seem like the nicest way to thank someone for doing their job well.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on August 13, 2011 at 12:32 PM
Wow! Tony, your comments here only point out my shortcomings in expressing myself. I didn't intend to suggest (though it obviously did) that Lon was the very reason the landscape gallery is what it is, or that it is "his".
I hope you all will forgive me for not observing, quietly, the workings of this group of varied talents before trying to express myself on long established subjects like the landscape gallery and moderators of it. I am guilty of having thought I knew a bit about photography and have learned here, that I have so much more *yet* to learn.
Charlie, I like that you try to express yourself. I can see the struggle in it sometimes, but I think part of the struggle is just the balance between the seriousness (appropriately so) of NPN, especially with regard to the pros, and the just plain conversation that can be another appealing aspect of being part of a group like this.
"Charlie, I'm pretty sure that Lon would not assume that Landscape is his gallery. I will grant you that the moderation, critiques, and fairness he provides are first-rate, but I also see him learning as much from the critiques he receives as anyone. Lon certainly exemplifies the openness and fairness that characterizes this gallery, but this comes from loving the genre and participating with like-minded folks."
I know Lon from over five years of friendship, and I agree wholeheartedly with Tony's words.
--P
Posted by Charlie Baugh on August 13, 2011 at 2:03 PM
Barbara, I am a recently detoxed newsgroup addict. The vigorous, often nasty, way people deal with each other on newsgroups keeps coming into my conversations here.
Please, Lon, if I irritated you, accept my apology. I like, and am beginning to understand how you feel.
Charlie
Posted by Tony Kuyper on August 13, 2011 at 3:17 PM
And maybe I've been reading too many news vines. I don't participate, but have read the twisted, scathing words that seem to becoming the norm for our whole society, and I certainly don't want to misrepresent your intentions in this post. I'll readily admit to being a bit close-minded when it comes to the Landscape gallery and it's moderators. It has been a good place for a long time, I think, and the moderators have been part of the reason I've enjoyed it so much. In the end, I think we're agreement on its "class." We maybe just came at it from different angles.
Posted by Lon Overacker on August 13, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Hey folks, too much notoriety for one week!
Charlie, certainly no offense and no need to apologies. I'm pretty sure I understand what you were trying to say; I think basically referring to my comment on your M&N post.
Like Tony and others elude too, I'm certainly not the only moderator and I'm pretty sure we all take a similar approach - and at a minimum try our best to follow the guidelines that were set up long before I ever came upon this site. While this could be a subject for a separate thread, I'll just say this about my opinion on the Landscape vs. M&N Galleries. "No evidence of Man" is a pretty clear statement. However, there may be some who would nitpick and say what about contrails? what about this, or that... Heck, one could argue that the air between your camera and the subject contains man-made particulates! But rather I approach it in the spirit of the guideline. I came to NPN because I don't want to view pictures of the GG Bridge, Seattle skyline, someone's pet or grandchild. I like lots of other genres of photography, but I love beautiful images of nature.
Anyway, I appreciate the sentiments and thanks very much to my friends who have commented here.
As far as being a purist? nah... maybe a traditionalist. But the better I get at Photoshop, the less traditional and pure I become. I can clone and blend with the best of 'em.
Thanks. Next.
Lon
Posted by Basil Greber on August 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM
I came to NPN because I don't want to view pictures of the GG Bridge, Seattle skyline, someone's pet or grandchild.
LOL, particularly at the last two.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on August 14, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Lon, NPN works pretty darned well, IMO. There are standards and for the most part there is flexibility. Somewhere in this thread someone said that it is because of the standard in landscape gallery that they are here. For someone like me it is such a great advantage to be rubbing elbows with such talent and to have some of this great talent here, precisely because of a high standard, in your gallery is, I think, a wonderful justification for keeping that standard. I admit to slight intimidation by the degree of quality of images, for the most part, in landscape but it only makes me be more careful in thought and preparation of images I may post there.
I have enjoyed the give and take in this thread and hope everyone else sees it that way.
"I came to NPN because I don't want to view pictures of the GG Bridge, Seattle skyline, someone's pet or grandchild. I like lots of other genres of photography, but I love beautiful images of nature. "
Well said Lon. A rules a rule.
Mind you I have shots that I will not post to NPN simply because the M&N gallery is far less popular and get less activity and feedback than the Landscape one. It seems a pity that a superb landscape with say an errant fence post or other minor man-made intrusion results in a kind of second rate treatment.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on August 14, 2011 at 9:01 PM
Why with Lon's disdane for man made "anything" should I not expect to read that there was a big guy arrested riding his steed bareback, himself without clothes, through the neighborhoods of Livermore?
I don't want to forget these after that post.
Posted by Lon Overacker on August 15, 2011 at 12:02 AM
It seems a pity that a superb landscape with say an errant fence post or other minor man-made intrusion results in a kind of second rate treatment.
Totally agree Rodney.... BUT here's the rub. It's the ole' slippery slope. An errant fence post or distant power pole, turns in to a distant fence line, which then allows for a distant trail, then the trail turns in to a distant road, then the distant road has a nice curve, and the distant fence contains some horses, with a little tiny barn, then the dirt road leading to the farm gets paved, then the nice, long s-curve turns in a highway, then to a freeway, and ultimately the road ends at the GG Bridge. Whew! Ok, a silly, perhaps extreme example, but I think you know what I mean. That's really why I think if one keeps the "spirit" of the guidelines in mind, it's all fine. A believe me, there are plenty of errant fence posts of dots of boats on the sea's horizon that we don't bother with. In the end, if you as the poster thinks it probably belongs in Man & Nature, then most likely you'd be right.
Appreciate the stab at some light-hearted humor Charlie, but I can't even respond to that one.
Lon
Posted by Eva McDermott on August 15, 2011 at 10:52 AM
"Mind you I have shots that I will not post to NPN simply because the M&N gallery is far less popular and get less activity and feedback than the Landscape one. It seems a pity that a superb landscape with say an errant fence post or other minor man-made intrusion results in a kind of second rate treatment."
I think more people should visit, comment, and post in M&N. The gallery is far from second rate and it is a real shame a lot of people on NPN have that perception.
I think more people should visit, comment, and post in M&N. The gallery is far from second rate and it is a real shame a lot of people on NPN have that perception.
Eva, is there any chance that the 25% guideline/rule could be perhaps removed from M&N? I think that would really open the gallery up to a lot more posting. Sometimes a bit of nature in a non-nature environment is so beautiful, and there's no place for that here at the present time.
Posted by Eva McDermott on August 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM
"A believe me, there are plenty of errant fence posts of dots of boats on the sea's horizon that we don't bother with. In the end, if you as the poster thinks it probably belongs in Man & Nature, then most likely you'd be right. "
Lon
I have no beef with the enforcement of the rules at all. I just feel its a shame that M&N gallery doesn't get more attention that's all.
Its an unintended consequence of segregation there is no easy solution.
"Eva, is there any chance that the 25% guideline/rule could be perhaps removed from M&N?
Barbara, the 25% guideline was put in place several years ago because many posted images had little, or no, 'nature' content. Eva and Kah Kit do have 'wiggle' room with respect to the guideline, but in general, sticking with the rule keeps the spirit of Man and Nature intact.
"Sometimes a bit of nature in a non-nature environment is so beautiful, and there's no place for that here at the present time. "
I agree that natural beauty can be found in man-made environments; a flower growing from a crack in pavement has a certain undeniable beauty. There may be a place for such images at NPN: the Environmental Photojournalism gallery. I say 'may' because that gallery has it's posting guidelines, as well. Perhaps Hank or Steve could weigh in, here with their thoughts?
To my mind, 'Nature Photographers Network' (NPN) says it all: It's a place for Nature Photography. As Lon said above; "I came to NPN because I don't want to view pictures of the GG Bridge, Seattle skyline, someone's pet or grandchild.". I heartily agree with Lon's sentiment. There are many other places to post and view these kinds of images.
Several years ago, NPN did have an 'Off Topic' gallery that existed for members to post non-nature images. It didn't work out very well in the sense that relatively few images were posted there. It is my belief that it failed to achieve a following because members were far more interested in posting, and commenting upon, nature photography.
There are, indeed, many wonderful images posted at Man and Nature. It is my belief, however, that the lack of traffic there is due to the fact that most members, myself included, are here for photographs depicting the world in it's natural state. It would be nice if the gallery saw more activity, but the focus of NPN is not really geared to those types of images. Will this change? I don't know. However, I do encourage NPNers to post there if they have images that meet the guidelines.
Discussion
20 repliesIt is obvious that I and others have had irritations from being moved from "landscape" to other galleries, but having thought significantly about the strict standard, I *now* agree with it. I feel somewhat intimidated by it, but believe that the few time I've posted there I was treated friendly and critiqued very fairly.
I will post there again as a result of how I was treated, BUT, I will take more careful attention to the image I post there than I do elsewhere.
If I have been too harse in my digs at your standard, Lon, I hope you will forgive me. I think you and your gallery show class.
Charlie
Perfect, Bill!
--P
Cheers,
Carol
Hmm. While I take your comments at face value, Charlie, I'm pretty sure that Lon would not assume that Landscape is his gallery. I will grant you that the moderation, critiques, and fairness he provides are first-rate, but I also see him learning as much from the critiques he receives as anyone. Lon certainly exemplifies the openness and fairness that characterizes this gallery, but this comes from loving the genre and participating with like-minded folks. It's these cohesive qualities that help to create the harmony there and which keeps the outstanding pictures coming. I'd find it hard to imagine anyone wanting to dominate the Landscape gallery. It's the diversity of images and opinions that is its strength. As far as Lon being a purist, I'm just not sure I agree with that either. That doesn't seem like the nicest way to thank someone for doing their job well.
I hope you all will forgive me for not observing, quietly, the workings of this group of varied talents before trying to express myself on long established subjects like the landscape gallery and moderators of it. I am guilty of having thought I knew a bit about photography and have learned here, that I have so much more *yet* to learn.
Charlie
I know Lon from over five years of friendship, and I agree wholeheartedly with Tony's words.
--P
Please, Lon, if I irritated you, accept my apology. I like, and am beginning to understand how you feel.
Charlie
Charlie, certainly no offense and no need to apologies. I'm pretty sure I understand what you were trying to say; I think basically referring to my comment on your M&N post.
Like Tony and others elude too, I'm certainly not the only moderator and I'm pretty sure we all take a similar approach - and at a minimum try our best to follow the guidelines that were set up long before I ever came upon this site. While this could be a subject for a separate thread, I'll just say this about my opinion on the Landscape vs. M&N Galleries. "No evidence of Man" is a pretty clear statement. However, there may be some who would nitpick and say what about contrails? what about this, or that... Heck, one could argue that the air between your camera and the subject contains man-made particulates! But rather I approach it in the spirit of the guideline. I came to NPN because I don't want to view pictures of the GG Bridge, Seattle skyline, someone's pet or grandchild. I like lots of other genres of photography, but I love beautiful images of nature.
Anyway, I appreciate the sentiments and thanks very much to my friends who have commented here.
As far as being a purist? nah... maybe a traditionalist. But the better I get at Photoshop, the less traditional and pure I become. I can clone and blend with the best of 'em.
Thanks. Next.
Lon
LOL, particularly at the last two.
I have enjoyed the give and take in this thread and hope everyone else sees it that way.
Charlie
Well said Lon. A rules a rule.
Mind you I have shots that I will not post to NPN simply because the M&N gallery is far less popular and get less activity and feedback than the Landscape one. It seems a pity that a superb landscape with say an errant fence post or other minor man-made intrusion results in a kind of second rate treatment.
I don't want to forget these after that post.
Totally agree Rodney.... BUT here's the rub. It's the ole' slippery slope. An errant fence post or distant power pole, turns in to a distant fence line, which then allows for a distant trail, then the trail turns in to a distant road, then the distant road has a nice curve, and the distant fence contains some horses, with a little tiny barn, then the dirt road leading to the farm gets paved, then the nice, long s-curve turns in a highway, then to a freeway, and ultimately the road ends at the GG Bridge. Whew! Ok, a silly, perhaps extreme example, but I think you know what I mean. That's really why I think if one keeps the "spirit" of the guidelines in mind, it's all fine. A believe me, there are plenty of errant fence posts of dots of boats on the sea's horizon that we don't bother with. In the end, if you as the poster thinks it probably belongs in Man & Nature, then most likely you'd be right.
Appreciate the stab at some light-hearted humor Charlie, but I can't even respond to that one.
Lon
I think more people should visit, comment, and post in M&N. The gallery is far from second rate and it is a real shame a lot of people on NPN have that perception.
Eva, is there any chance that the 25% guideline/rule could be perhaps removed from M&N? I think that would really open the gallery up to a lot more posting. Sometimes a bit of nature in a non-nature environment is so beautiful, and there's no place for that here at the present time.
Lon
I have no beef with the enforcement of the rules at all. I just feel its a shame that M&N gallery doesn't get more attention that's all.
Its an unintended consequence of segregation there is no easy solution.
Barbara, the 25% guideline was put in place several years ago because many posted images had little, or no, 'nature' content. Eva and Kah Kit do have 'wiggle' room with respect to the guideline, but in general, sticking with the rule keeps the spirit of Man and Nature intact.
"Sometimes a bit of nature in a non-nature environment is so beautiful, and there's no place for that here at the present time. "
I agree that natural beauty can be found in man-made environments; a flower growing from a crack in pavement has a certain undeniable beauty. There may be a place for such images at NPN: the Environmental Photojournalism gallery. I say 'may' because that gallery has it's posting guidelines, as well. Perhaps Hank or Steve could weigh in, here with their thoughts?
To my mind, 'Nature Photographers Network' (NPN) says it all: It's a place for Nature Photography. As Lon said above; "I came to NPN because I don't want to view pictures of the GG Bridge, Seattle skyline, someone's pet or grandchild.". I heartily agree with Lon's sentiment. There are many other places to post and view these kinds of images.
Several years ago, NPN did have an 'Off Topic' gallery that existed for members to post non-nature images. It didn't work out very well in the sense that relatively few images were posted there. It is my belief that it failed to achieve a following because members were far more interested in posting, and commenting upon, nature photography.
There are, indeed, many wonderful images posted at Man and Nature. It is my belief, however, that the lack of traffic there is due to the fact that most members, myself included, are here for photographs depicting the world in it's natural state. It would be nice if the gallery saw more activity, but the focus of NPN is not really geared to those types of images. Will this change? I don't know. However, I do encourage NPNers to post there if they have images that meet the guidelines.
--P