I am sure this topic has been raised before, but I was curious if there was any collective interest in an NPN photo gallery forum for the non-nature images that most of us make on our adventures.
I like to make images of old buildings, old cars, etc and would not mind some constructive critiques on those shots. Other than the large format site, this is the only photo site at which I hang out. Emphasis is on images for critiques, not trip snapshots, family snaps, etc.
Thoughts?
Posted by Charlie Baugh on October 24, 2011 at 5:34 PM
Count me as being very interested. I believe Jim has mentioned in passing on other threads that he has thought about this. Like you, I have other interests aside from what is covered here.
Charlie
Posted by Nancy de Flon on October 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM
I wouldn't mind a gallery in which other objects are prominent in a natural setting -- lighthouses, e.g., or historic buildings (think Cades Cove, e.g.), but photos with no nature, such as people portraits or city scenes, I think that's going a bit far beyond what NPN is all about.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on October 24, 2011 at 6:47 PM
Nancy, what you're describing sounds like the Man & Nature IC gallery.
Harley, there was an OT gallery at one time. I think it was dropped because no one was using it.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on October 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM
Actually I think it would be great. We get lots of photos that don't fit the M&N criteria at all and I would like a place to be able to move them to. We used to have an off-topic gallery.
Posted by Eva McDermott on October 24, 2011 at 7:29 PM
Ditto Kah Kit's comments. I think it is a great idea.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 24, 2011 at 8:02 PM
For the past year I've been shooting a lot with historic camera lenses (vintage 1855 to 1892) using either a c.1885 tailboard half plate camera or a Chamonix 045N field camera, b&w only. I'm having a lot of fun! Many of these images are too "weird" for any forums here though. I would volunteer to co-moderate a "weird" or offtop forum (but don't want to be the only one, LOL.)
An Off-Topic gallery may be worth a try. The first time around it didn't garner much traffic, but there does appear there is more interest. I certainly have images that I would post there.
--P
Posted by Carol Hyman on October 25, 2011 at 4:57 AM
Sounds like a winning idea ...
Posted by Cindy Garwood on October 25, 2011 at 5:08 AM
I 100% agree. I Love taking pictures of old cars, signs and junk so I'm in for anything like that.
An Off-Topic gallery may be worth a try. The first time around it didn't garner much traffic, but there does appear there is more interest. I certainly have images that I would post there.
Yeah, somewhere in the dim recesses of my brain I remember a previous attempt of some sort that died from lack of participation or something. I suggest that it be a forum with the option for posting a photo, rather than a regular gallery. I'm as interested in discussion of the techniques and subjects as I am the photos, a feature that kinda drifts away with a straight gallery. Lots of useful things to learn in the discussion.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 25, 2011 at 8:50 AM
Since the images would just be a hodge podge, make the requirement to post one that you have to explain how you took the shot and what considerations you had when you did it. The explanations could unify the forum, not the images themselves.
For this shot, I had to work with two exposures combined into one. To get the lights on the Christmas tree to show up, I had to use a slow shutter speed. However, the train was moving at 40 mph and I wanted it sharp, so I had to use two Nikon SB-28 flash to freeze the motion. The large f-stop I set to controlled the flash exposure, and the slow shutter speed controlled the Christmas lights/tree exposure. Why did I shoot the tank cars and not the engines? If I had used a slow shutter speed on the engines, yes the flash would have frozen them, but the three strong headlights would have left a long blur trail. The tankers had no lights on them, so that's why I shot them.
Posted by Phillip Noll on October 25, 2011 at 9:40 AM
Sounds like a great idea to me!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 25, 2011 at 12:26 PM
We had an off-topic photo gallery at one time but it didn't get much use. I have no issue with trying it again, as long as it remains "G-rated." I think Hank's suggestion as a forum instead of a gallery would be the way to go this time.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 25, 2011 at 1:02 PM
You know, I've owned the domain name canonshooter.com for a long time and it's parked doing nothing for years. I've often thought of making it into a photo critique site for all genres of photography. We'd even let Nikon shooters post on it! A NPN membership allows posting on Canonshooter and visa versa.
I think it's a good addition, but I still like the idea of the non-nature forum with or without it.
On second thought, how about registering nikonerds.com and using that instead?
Posted by Mark Stahlke on October 25, 2011 at 1:28 PM
I'm as interested in discussion of the techniques and subjects as I am the photos, a feature that kinda drifts away with a straight gallery. Lots of useful things to learn in the discussion.
Since the images would just be a hodge podge, make the requirement to post one that you have to explain how you took the shot and what considerations you had when you did it. The explanations could unify the forum, not the images themselves.
Hank and Kent, I like where you're headed with this. I'd like to see a gallery that focuses on the message being communicated by an image. I envision a photographer posting an image with a description of the message he or she is trying to convey and an explanation of the techniques and compositional devices used to convey that message. I think an example would better illustrate what I mean.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on October 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM
A Modern Life
This image is an attempt to depict the chaos of modern life. Competing demands pull us in a thousand different directions at once. They can multiply until they become an impenetrable thicket that stops all forward progress.
The lack of a focal point in this image is intended to express this mode of life's lack of meaning and purpose.
I used a long lens (355mm) to compress the subject in an effort to enhance the feeling of impenetrability.
I shot this image in B&W for two reasons. First, the subject is monochromatic. Second, I think a contrasty B&W treatment better illustrates how harsh and bereft of joy and beauty this modern lifestyle can be.
There would follow a discussion of how well the composition and techniques communicate the intended message and what I might do differently to communicate the message more clearly.
I sense that many of folks here on NPN want to take their photography to the next level. They want to move beyond making pretty pictures to making meaningful pictures. I think it's easier to learn the language of visual communication with non-nature subjects. A gallery like this, if done well, could be a good learning tool.
My biggest fear is that an OT gallery would devolve into a collection of insipid snapshots of sad eyed puppies. Blech! Post that junk in the member lounge.
Mark, yes, actually it did convey the message. It is an image of controlled chaos and with your explanation, it is an easy leap to the chaos of modern life. Nicely done and I also like the image as a stand alone.
Charlie, if it happens, I will post images of Bodie, old vehicles, sides of building, etc that don't fit the M&N gallery guidelines. All good shallow material.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on October 25, 2011 at 2:45 PM
I do need to "think" on that.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on October 25, 2011 at 3:23 PM
I hope room will be made for those who don't overthink their photography.
Oooh, Charlie, that's the first time I've ever been accused of thinking let alone overthinking.
But seriously, if you want an image to say something you have to know what you want to say and how you want to say it. Otherwise you end up with what Ansel Adams called "a sharp photograph of a fuzzy concept".
Please don't misunderstand me. I like a pretty picture at least as much as the next person; I strive to make them every chance I get. At the same time, I realize most nature photography, including (or especially) my own, doesn't say anything. I want to change that, I want to say something and I think there are others on NPN who feel the same way. In my opinion, an OT gallery could be used to create a space for people to learn to communicate visually. Like I said, I think visual communication is easier to learn with non-nature subjects. The lessons can then be applied to nature photography.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on October 25, 2011 at 3:41 PM
As so often happens I don't express myself as clearly as I'd wish. I think it is certainly what we all want, to convey a clear concept. I did say "room will be made" for other than "message" concepts.
I think your example above was a good message and clearly showed you thought about what you wished to convey. I like it. I really do. I also believe there are very good photographs that only convey a pleasant, unique or unusual subject that has no other message than that they are pleasant, unique or unusual.
Charlie
Posted by Mark Stahlke on October 25, 2011 at 3:57 PM
As so often happens I don't express myself as clearly as I'd wish.
We're on the same page. I posted my example because I didn't think my textual description in my prior post clearly conveyed my thoughts.
I also believe there are very good photographs that only convey a pleasant, unique or unusual subject that has no other message than that they are pleasant, unique or unusual.
I'm right there with you. These are what I refer to as "pretty pictures" and I really enjoy looking at them and making them (or trying, anyway ).
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 25, 2011 at 11:50 PM
The chaos I got. By putting it in b&w it was emphasized, as any color would just be a distraction. Many of my shots aren't meant to be "pretty," that's not my goal. I'm more after emotional impact and the emotion doesn't have to be a positive one. Sometimes it is though. Here, I found an open door on a Chicago Metra train late one night. It seemed to invite me in out of the dark to a safe, well lit place where I could rest after a weary day.
Just curious, Jim, but was the title of the new forum Harley's idea? He does have a rather off-the-wall sense of humor. Even if it wasn't his idea, it's certainly eye catching!
--P
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM
It wasn't Harley's fault!
We thought it needed an off-the-wall title to help attract interest.
Discussion
33 repliesI like to make images of old buildings, old cars, etc and would not mind some constructive critiques on those shots. Other than the large format site, this is the only photo site at which I hang out. Emphasis is on images for critiques, not trip snapshots, family snaps, etc.
Thoughts?
Charlie
Harley, there was an OT gallery at one time. I think it was dropped because no one was using it.
Lens: 1937 Voigtlander Heliar:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/U-Pipe.jpg
Below lenses have no shutter, so they're easier to just shoot at night.
Lens: c.1860 Derogy 6" Petzval:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/CorsonTankers.jpg
Lens: 1900 Dallmeyer Stigmatic
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/SFdepot.jpg
Lens: c.1875 Darlot 4" Petzval
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/PetzDeerSignS.jpg
Kent in SD
--P
Yeah, somewhere in the dim recesses of my brain I remember a previous attempt of some sort that died from lack of participation or something. I suggest that it be a forum with the option for posting a photo, rather than a regular gallery. I'm as interested in discussion of the techniques and subjects as I am the photos, a feature that kinda drifts away with a straight gallery. Lots of useful things to learn in the discussion.
For this shot, I had to work with two exposures combined into one. To get the lights on the Christmas tree to show up, I had to use a slow shutter speed. However, the train was moving at 40 mph and I wanted it sharp, so I had to use two Nikon SB-28 flash to freeze the motion. The large f-stop I set to controlled the flash exposure, and the slow shutter speed controlled the Christmas lights/tree exposure. Why did I shoot the tank cars and not the engines? If I had used a slow shutter speed on the engines, yes the flash would have frozen them, but the three strong headlights would have left a long blur trail. The tankers had no lights on them, so that's why I shot them.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/ChrstmsTank-1.jpg
Kent in SD
Thoughts?
On second thought, how about registering nikonerds.com and using that instead?
There would follow a discussion of how well the composition and techniques communicate the intended message and what I might do differently to communicate the message more clearly.
I sense that many of folks here on NPN want to take their photography to the next level. They want to move beyond making pretty pictures to making meaningful pictures. I think it's easier to learn the language of visual communication with non-nature subjects. A gallery like this, if done well, could be a good learning tool.
My biggest fear is that an OT gallery would devolve into a collection of insipid snapshots of sad eyed puppies. Blech! Post that junk in the member lounge.
I would agree about the no snapshots . I put that in the original post.
But did my image communicate my message?
us an opportunity to show some old historical bldgs. such as Bodie.
Charlie, if it happens, I will post images of Bodie, old vehicles, sides of building, etc that don't fit the M&N gallery guidelines. All good shallow material.
Oooh, Charlie, that's the first time I've ever been accused of thinking let alone overthinking.
But seriously, if you want an image to say something you have to know what you want to say and how you want to say it. Otherwise you end up with what Ansel Adams called "a sharp photograph of a fuzzy concept".
Please don't misunderstand me. I like a pretty picture at least as much as the next person; I strive to make them every chance I get. At the same time, I realize most nature photography, including (or especially) my own, doesn't say anything. I want to change that, I want to say something and I think there are others on NPN who feel the same way. In my opinion, an OT gallery could be used to create a space for people to learn to communicate visually. Like I said, I think visual communication is easier to learn with non-nature subjects. The lessons can then be applied to nature photography.
I think your example above was a good message and clearly showed you thought about what you wished to convey. I like it. I really do. I also believe there are very good photographs that only convey a pleasant, unique or unusual subject that has no other message than that they are pleasant, unique or unusual.
Charlie
I'm right there with you. These are what I refer to as "pretty pictures" and I really enjoy looking at them and making them (or trying, anyway
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/DoorMetra.jpg
All in all, the things that tend to most attract me to taking a shot are the play of light, and an image that connects to an emotion.
Kent in SD
Joe Rogers
Using the drop-down menu in the navigation header, Forums > Road Kill
There's already a post.
--P
We thought it needed an off-the-wall title to help attract interest.