Dear All, this is something i have been thinking about for a while mainly because it is relevant for quite a number of my pictures. In many cases these are based detail shots from nature which are for me interesting because of the interplay of shape, colour, form and texture for example from my gallery on NPN: Blue Flow, Fluid, Essence Of Winter, though i could pick any number of tight close-ups of plants from several well known members here (amongst others things). These images are often not macro (though sometimes, yes, this fits) and more importantly for me they are NOT 'Photo Art'. I do not want to decry the images in this gallery to any extent and some of the photoshop interpretations are absolutely suburb and i would be proud to have them in my own portfolio, but, that is not the same as an image that may be more or less 'abstract' as shot with no more photoshop editing than would be done for a 'normal' macro, flora or landscape image ...
The following image, Life On The Edge, I will post normally - it is from the Rio Tinto, Andalusia. This is a very special location ... The water derives from old mine workings where sulphide minerals are oxidised by microorganisms to sulphuric acid. The river has in places a pH of 1.7-2.5 and as well as a lot of iron (hence the colour) contains cobalt, manganese and cadmium. No plants, no fish, no amphibians and insects die pretty soon after contact, which means that despite the near 40°C, wellies are 'a must' ... The only organic structures in the water are very fragile strands made by the microorganisms which are able to survive in these very extreme conditions. Fascinating as a chemist, the resulting reds, yellows, oranges and greens which glow intensely in the Spanish sun are a dream for a photographer ...
It is not a Macro (Sigma DP3M, 50mm (75mm eq.)), it certainly isn't Flora or Landscape but, and this is the point I am trying to make, I don't see it as Photo Art either ...
Your opinions would be very welcome ...
(BTW: Here is the link to the rest of the portfolio from this trip ... )
Posted by Igor Doncov on September 12, 2016 at 5:32 PM
Mark, your portfolio is just stunningly beautiful. At times I thought I was looking at flames and at other times, bird plumage. Flamboyant colors and shapes.
In my opinion we are seeing abstract. If the subject is unidentifiable but suggests something else then it's an abstract. The problem is that abstracts are a continuum. There is range of abstraction with an area where you could argue that an is an abstract and is not an abstract. A lot of my images can be argued to be fairly abstract although it's very clear what the subject is. So if such a gallery existed you may end up again with disagreements.
But I do see where you're coming from and it does make some sense. There is another nagging issue and that is how few comments are being made on current galleries. Would the comments become even rarer if the galleries have fewer posts(dilution of content)?
Igor, many thanks for the compliments - You are of course correct that such pictures can be, and perhaps often are, abstract though they don't necessarily have to be, which is why I deliberately avoided this 'classification'. Whether the subject per se is recognizable or not does not detract from the original concept which is that the image is based around the colours and structures (found in nature) and to me this is different to images which are composited or painted in Photoshop (Good though many such images (though not all) may be!) ...
Posted by Igor Doncov on September 13, 2016 at 9:42 AM
Whether the subject per se is recognizable or not does not detract from the original concept which is that the image is based around the colours and structures (found in nature)
I agree with this statement. However, all good composition contain these elements.
As I understand it you are interested in a gallery where these components so dominate an image that their subject matter no longer is important. They are the subject matter. The interest lies in the relationship between these components and little else. IMO, that's an abstract.
It's a tricky matter because colors and structures are always important elements in any image. Without them you get busy images. All galleries currently have images with these elements. They are the best images. If you created a gallery strictly on that criteria everything would go into it. I'm confused about the suggested gallery. Your images are pretty clear what you have in mind, but your description of 'colours and structures' seems a bit vague.
Either way, I understand what you're proposing from your images and I agree that it could be an interesting gallery.
PS. Here is Charlotte Gibb's gallery page which I think is what you have in mind?
Although, here as well, you may not agree that all of these images belong in this category. Is a reflected pool an abstract or just an intimate landscape with a strong composition.
Posted by Mark Seaver on September 13, 2016 at 3:56 PM
Mark, Abstracts are routinely posted in what ever gallery they fit into. E.g. if it's a close up view, then Macro/CU, if it's a flower then Flora or possibly Macro, If it's not recognizable, then you could put it just about anywhere, but I suspect most folks would choose Landscape. Your mine runoff view could also go in Man & Nature. Views like Blue Flow get regularly posted in Landscape as you'll see if you poke around in the "archives". Take your pick of galleries and post away.
Posted by scott lanz on September 14, 2016 at 11:14 AM
Mark , I think your suggestion for a color and form (abstract) gallery is a good one, and I personally would participate in it, but, like Igor, I wonder how much activity it would get. I think most abstracts that could conceivably be posted in landscape would continue to be posted in that gallery in order to get more views and comments (the posting criteria here are loosely enforced). Some of the galleries already receive relatively few posts and comments, and I think that a color and form gallery would have the same fate. I have actually suggested fewer rather than more galleries (specifically, combining macro and flora, and eliminating man and nature (while at the same time doing away with the "hand of man" restriction in landscape) to try to generate more comments on the posts in these galleries.
Posted by Kathy Barnhart on September 14, 2016 at 12:34 PM
I agree with those who have a concern about the number of comments on photos diminishing as the number of galleries increases. I wonder if any of the "old timers" would be willing to speculate on why the numbers have decreased so dramatically. When I first joined NPN, several years ago, the comments were greater in number and more substantial. I wonder if all the folks who were participating have now gone on to their own private web pages and businesses and have "graduated" from needing feedback.
Personally I love abstracts but would not want another gallery opened for them.
Posted by Igor Doncov on September 14, 2016 at 1:33 PM
Regarding comments: Two years ago getting 20 comments in landscape was an achievement, now getting 10 comments is an achievement. I don't measure quality by numbers, but if you're going to the trouble of posting you want someone responding. That's the purpose of this site. Incidentally, grand landscapes always get more views and respect in the landscape gallery than intimates (Ansel called them extracts) or abstracts. Just have to accept that. Hopefully this post is still on topic.
This is an interesting discussion that has brought up points to ponder.
While I think that a 'Colour and Form' gallery would be interesting, I agree with those who state that yet another gallery would likely see little traffic. I also agree that such images be posted in the appropriate gallery: Flowers and plants in Flora, close-ups in Macro, and intimate landscapes in Landscape, etc.
I have actually suggested fewer rather than more galleries (specifically, combining macro and flora, and eliminating man and nature (while at the same time doing away with the "hand of man" restriction in landscape) to try to generate more comments on the posts in these galleries.
I agree with this. Such a move would take a little getting to, but I think it would work well. Images with more 'Man' than 'Nature' could be posted in the POP gallery, as an alternative.
As an old, old-timer ( I became a member in 2002) there was a time when an image posted in Landscape would move to the second page by the following day, and there were many more comments. This was the result of a large cadre of active members. As we have seen, the number of active members and, thus, postings in all of the galleries and discussion forums has decreased significantly.
There are many reasons for this, some of which Kathy mentioned. One big factor has been the emergence of other photo sharing sites (such as Flickr, 500px, and Instagram, etc.) as well as personal blogs and Facebook.
Consolidating some of the galleries, (which would increase total views, image posts, and comments in those galleries, along with encouraging members to post more comments would be a good thing.
--P
Hi, some really interesting points here which I had not considered. The amount of traffic and numbers of comments I think would be a real concern. I had not really appreciated that the definitions were applied quite so loosely. I think there is quite some room to consolidate and perhaps the time is right for this - though nobody really wants there picture to disappear from he first page within 24 hours. I am a member of another forum in Germany (German language) which, although pictures are posted to a particular genre actually appear only on the main home screen unless you specifically go looking for them. However the main difference is that all images depending whether it be a flower, fox, wasp, sunset or abstract are given stars by any members that wants and this results on a 'top hits' list which is also an interesting gallery. I am not advocating such a thing per se but it does generate a lot of interest in the images of alternative types of photography in the same 'view'.
To note from another perspective if I search my own name of all the various ways to access my images NPN does not come very high on the Google hit list although I consider myself to be a relatively active member - also not a good sign ...
I don't know how to increase traffic / comments and agree dilution is the last way to go. If one was to consolidate my suggestions would be: Landscape, Colour and Form, Flora, Insects, Animals & Birds, With Man, Photo Art. Not everyone ;-) will agree but just my two cents ... In any event an interesting discussion ...
Posted by Igor Doncov on September 14, 2016 at 3:28 PM
I would suggest that Man and Nature be interpreted a bit differently than it is currently. My suggestion is that this be man interacting with nature - hiking, photographing, camping, canoeing, etc. An image with a part of a fence in it or a trail shouldn't belong in this category but in landscape. There was one image of a coot in open water that had no sign of man but was posted because the water was a man made lake.
Hi, some really interesting points here which I had not considered. The amount of traffic and numbers of comments I think would be a real concern. I had not really appreciated that the definitions were applied quite so loosely. I think there is quite some room to consolidate and perhaps the time is right for this - though nobody really wants there picture to disappear from he first page within 24 hours. I am a member of another forum in Germany (German language) which, although pictures are posted to a particular genre actually appear only on the main home screen unless you specifically go looking for them. However the main difference is that all images depending whether it be a flower, fox, wasp, sunset or abstract are given stars by any members that wants and this results on a 'top hits' list which is also an interesting gallery. I am not advocating such a thing per se but it does generate a lot of interest in the images of alternative types of photography in the same 'view'.
To note from another perspective if I search my own name of all the various ways to access my images NPN does not come very high on the Google hit list although I consider myself to be a relatively active member - also not a good sign ...
I don't know how to increase traffic / comments and agree dilution is the last way to go. If one was to consolidate my suggestions would be: Landscape, Colour and Form, Flora, Insects, Animals & Birds, With Man, Photo Art. Not everyone ;-) will agree but just my two cents ... In any event an interesting discussion ...
Posted by Jim Zablotny on September 14, 2016 at 5:17 PM
Hi Mark,
I would characterize your Life on the Edge image as a "Micro-Landscape". It has textures and colors that are not usually encountered in nature, but you provided information necessary to understand how nature created this scene. The interaction of bacteria with essential elements is what you captured in this image. Critiques and comments are becoming more rare. I usually post one or two images and then comment on at lest 5 to 6 images as time permits. I am not pleased that some of the editor's picks have only one comment and in some cases zero comments. This needs to change because comments are essential to the improvement of technique, composition, and post processing. The landscape viewers provide the most constructive comments--they are the most analytical of the viewers. Macro comments have disappeared and the number of macro-shooters appears to have decreased as well. Every photographer that posts on this website offers a unique perspective on how they decided to capture a particular scene. This is why critiques need to be posted because I expect that viewers also have something unique to contribute to reinforce excellent photography and provide valuable comments that leads to improvement of the final image. Just my 5 cents worth.................................Jim
Posted by scott lanz on September 14, 2016 at 5:39 PM
Igor, I agree 100% that it makes no sense to exclude a landscape image from the landscape gallery just because it contains a path or fence. However, I disagree with your suggestion to keep the gallery open for images of people interacting with nature. Although logical, keeping the gallery in place but even further restricting the images that would meet the M&N gallery criteria as you suggest would mean even fewer posts (and, of course, comments) in that gallery. Consequently, I prefer Preston's approach. Either landscape or POP depending on the posting criteria (which should then be enforced by promptly moving images that belong in POP to POP).
Mark, the reason I suggested combining Flora and Macro (or Flora and insect) is that there is often an overlap between the galleries and, more important, it would result in more posts, and hopefully more comments, in a single gallery. As noted by Jim, comments in macro have become scarce, which just discourages posts in that forum, which reduces comments, and so on. At one time, there was good reason for having separate Flora and Macro galleries, but I am not sure there is any longer.
This is a great discussion; one that I encourage NPNers to add their thoughts. I would especially like to hear from the Gallery moderators regarding consolidating some of the galleries, as mentioned above. Many thanks!
NPN is "Our Place".
--P
Posted by Igor Doncov on September 15, 2016 at 1:14 PM
Ok. In that case ...
I would like to give a different perspective. Unlike other photo sites NPN is about nature photography exclusively and therefore subgroups on nature photography make more sense here that elsewhere. From the beginning I've felt that the landscape gallery was intended to resemble the Sierra Wilderness calendars in content and subject matter. The Man and Nature gallery I thought would contain subjects you would find in magazines like Backpacker, Field and Stream, etc. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought that was the original vision. The proposed changes turn away from that vision. Is that a good idea?
Personally I would like to keep the landscape gallery restrictions as they exist now.
I agree with the idea of shrinking the number of galleries. My views:
- I never understood the "hand of man" limitation, so I would agree with seeing it go away. In fact, I always wonder how many posts in Landscape are heavily edited to remove human elements, and isn't this act in itself a hand of man???
- Thus, eliminate "man and nature", but I would also rename POP to something more appealing, e.g. "Human landscapes". I admit that I am showing my bias with this, though, as what I have in mind are chiefly urban landscapes, architecture, etc. I am utterly uninterested in photos in which humans are the focal elements. If I see a portrait or a photo of people hiking or riding bikes or rock climbing or shopping at some exotic market etc. I move right along - sorry folks, that's me.
- Fully agree with combining macro and flora. I have waffled between them many times, and more often than not decided after the fact that I had made the wrong choice. Make life easier for posters, commenters and editors.
- I do like man and fauna very much, so I'd like to see it stay, but participation is very low. Not sure why, especially because those tend to be easy photos to make (much easier than birds or insects, for sure).
Discussion
16 repliesThe following image, Life On The Edge, I will post normally - it is from the Rio Tinto, Andalusia. This is a very special location ... The water derives from old mine workings where sulphide minerals are oxidised by microorganisms to sulphuric acid. The river has in places a pH of 1.7-2.5 and as well as a lot of iron (hence the colour) contains cobalt, manganese and cadmium. No plants, no fish, no amphibians and insects die pretty soon after contact, which means that despite the near 40°C, wellies are 'a must' ... The only organic structures in the water are very fragile strands made by the microorganisms which are able to survive in these very extreme conditions. Fascinating as a chemist, the resulting reds, yellows, oranges and greens which glow intensely in the Spanish sun are a dream for a photographer ...
It is not a Macro (Sigma DP3M, 50mm (75mm eq.)), it certainly isn't Flora or Landscape but, and this is the point I am trying to make, I don't see it as Photo Art either ...
Your opinions would be very welcome ...
(BTW: Here is the link to the rest of the portfolio from this trip ... )
In my opinion we are seeing abstract. If the subject is unidentifiable but suggests something else then it's an abstract. The problem is that abstracts are a continuum. There is range of abstraction with an area where you could argue that an is an abstract and is not an abstract. A lot of my images can be argued to be fairly abstract although it's very clear what the subject is. So if such a gallery existed you may end up again with disagreements.
But I do see where you're coming from and it does make some sense. There is another nagging issue and that is how few comments are being made on current galleries. Would the comments become even rarer if the galleries have fewer posts(dilution of content)?
I agree with this statement. However, all good composition contain these elements.
Patricia's image is four horizontal bands and a circle. http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=237913&CGISESSID=e944b8c067fa0eaa2d41f6d4a789ce1d&u=6898&title_action=
Preston's image is 2 triangles with an oblique band between them: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=237702&CGISESSID=e944b8c067fa0eaa2d41f6d4a789ce1d&u=7244&title_action=
As I understand it you are interested in a gallery where these components so dominate an image that their subject matter no longer is important. They are the subject matter. The interest lies in the relationship between these components and little else. IMO, that's an abstract.
It's a tricky matter because colors and structures are always important elements in any image. Without them you get busy images. All galleries currently have images with these elements. They are the best images. If you created a gallery strictly on that criteria everything would go into it. I'm confused about the suggested gallery. Your images are pretty clear what you have in mind, but your description of 'colours and structures' seems a bit vague.
Either way, I understand what you're proposing from your images and I agree that it could be an interesting gallery.
PS. Here is Charlotte Gibb's gallery page which I think is what you have in mind?
http://www.charlottegibb.com/#/gallery/abstracts/sunrise-clouds-reflected-tuolumne-meadows/
Although, here as well, you may not agree that all of these images belong in this category. Is a reflected pool an abstract or just an intimate landscape with a strong composition.
Personally I love abstracts but would not want another gallery opened for them.
This is an interesting discussion that has brought up points to ponder.
While I think that a 'Colour and Form' gallery would be interesting, I agree with those who state that yet another gallery would likely see little traffic. I also agree that such images be posted in the appropriate gallery: Flowers and plants in Flora, close-ups in Macro, and intimate landscapes in Landscape, etc. I agree with this. Such a move would take a little getting to, but I think it would work well. Images with more 'Man' than 'Nature' could be posted in the POP gallery, as an alternative.
As an old, old-timer ( I became a member in 2002) there was a time when an image posted in Landscape would move to the second page by the following day, and there were many more comments. This was the result of a large cadre of active members. As we have seen, the number of active members and, thus, postings in all of the galleries and discussion forums has decreased significantly.
There are many reasons for this, some of which Kathy mentioned. One big factor has been the emergence of other photo sharing sites (such as Flickr, 500px, and Instagram, etc.) as well as personal blogs and Facebook.
Consolidating some of the galleries, (which would increase total views, image posts, and comments in those galleries, along with encouraging members to post more comments would be a good thing.
--P
To note from another perspective if I search my own name of all the various ways to access my images NPN does not come very high on the Google hit list although I consider myself to be a relatively active member - also not a good sign ...
I don't know how to increase traffic / comments and agree dilution is the last way to go. If one was to consolidate my suggestions would be: Landscape, Colour and Form, Flora, Insects, Animals & Birds, With Man, Photo Art. Not everyone ;-) will agree but just my two cents ... In any event an interesting discussion ...
Thanks for listening. It's been on my mind.
To note from another perspective if I search my own name of all the various ways to access my images NPN does not come very high on the Google hit list although I consider myself to be a relatively active member - also not a good sign ...
I don't know how to increase traffic / comments and agree dilution is the last way to go. If one was to consolidate my suggestions would be: Landscape, Colour and Form, Flora, Insects, Animals & Birds, With Man, Photo Art. Not everyone ;-) will agree but just my two cents ... In any event an interesting discussion ...
I would characterize your Life on the Edge image as a "Micro-Landscape". It has textures and colors that are not usually encountered in nature, but you provided information necessary to understand how nature created this scene. The interaction of bacteria with essential elements is what you captured in this image. Critiques and comments are becoming more rare. I usually post one or two images and then comment on at lest 5 to 6 images as time permits. I am not pleased that some of the editor's picks have only one comment and in some cases zero comments. This needs to change because comments are essential to the improvement of technique, composition, and post processing. The landscape viewers provide the most constructive comments--they are the most analytical of the viewers. Macro comments have disappeared and the number of macro-shooters appears to have decreased as well. Every photographer that posts on this website offers a unique perspective on how they decided to capture a particular scene. This is why critiques need to be posted because I expect that viewers also have something unique to contribute to reinforce excellent photography and provide valuable comments that leads to improvement of the final image. Just my 5 cents worth.................................Jim
Mark, the reason I suggested combining Flora and Macro (or Flora and insect) is that there is often an overlap between the galleries and, more important, it would result in more posts, and hopefully more comments, in a single gallery. As noted by Jim, comments in macro have become scarce, which just discourages posts in that forum, which reduces comments, and so on. At one time, there was good reason for having separate Flora and Macro galleries, but I am not sure there is any longer.
NPN is "Our Place".
--P
I would like to give a different perspective. Unlike other photo sites NPN is about nature photography exclusively and therefore subgroups on nature photography make more sense here that elsewhere. From the beginning I've felt that the landscape gallery was intended to resemble the Sierra Wilderness calendars in content and subject matter. The Man and Nature gallery I thought would contain subjects you would find in magazines like Backpacker, Field and Stream, etc. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought that was the original vision. The proposed changes turn away from that vision. Is that a good idea?
Personally I would like to keep the landscape gallery restrictions as they exist now.
- I never understood the "hand of man" limitation, so I would agree with seeing it go away. In fact, I always wonder how many posts in Landscape are heavily edited to remove human elements, and isn't this act in itself a hand of man???
- Thus, eliminate "man and nature", but I would also rename POP to something more appealing, e.g. "Human landscapes". I admit that I am showing my bias with this, though, as what I have in mind are chiefly urban landscapes, architecture, etc. I am utterly uninterested in photos in which humans are the focal elements. If I see a portrait or a photo of people hiking or riding bikes or rock climbing or shopping at some exotic market etc. I move right along - sorry folks, that's me.
- Fully agree with combining macro and flora. I have waffled between them many times, and more often than not decided after the fact that I had made the wrong choice. Make life easier for posters, commenters and editors.
- I do like man and fauna very much, so I'd like to see it stay, but participation is very low. Not sure why, especially because those tend to be easy photos to make (much easier than birds or insects, for sure).
I hope some of these ideas are useful.