Familiar with Digg? It is a place for communal sharing of internet news that, once submitted, gets voted upon by the community. Stories or news of the greatest interest ends up getting more exposure to people that are interested in that particular topic. Very neat......but it is very oriented towards technology and current events. Photography doesn't fit neatly into any of the categories under which one can submit a story and it tends not to be a place where photographers hang out to look for items of interest.
Well, that may be about to end. I ran across photographyvoter.com, a site that functions very much like Digg, only it is specifically aimed at photographic topics. It is still in its infancy, but I think it has fantastic potential to be THE place to go to find items of interest specifically related to photography.
I have no relation at all to the site or its founders, but to me it looks very cool and potentially extremely useful. I intend to use it and certainly hope it grows into what could be an incredible resource.
Check it out!
May 21, 2007
Digg For Photography?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Great link! I skimmed through the site this morning, and have bookmarked it for perusing at my leisure tonight. Thanks for the lead!!
Since we're sharing my favorite is Imaging Insider at http://imaginginsider.com. They've got some respected people behind it.
That is interesting Erma, I hadn't heard of Imaging Insider before. Looking at their website, it isn't exactly clear to me how it works or what the mechanism is for getting information onto it....anyone know more about that site?
I too enjoy using photographyVoter. It's not mine (auer1816), but I've been a member since day one. I've talked with the site owner (god - Real name Paul) a couple of times, and he seems like a real down-to-earth guy who just wants to fill a void left unanswered by digg. The site is really growing, and I've seen considerable traffic from it, in addition to discovering a tremendous amount of good material.
Re your website and the issue of manipulated images.
I have dealt with the same issue for 35 years. However, it seems to me totally natural for the average person to (perhaps naively) expect that a photograph is in some way "accurate." After all, it is a mechanical device and, it is reasonable to expect some kind of "accuracy" in comparison to a hand-made painting or drawing.
That said, the questions on manipulations annoy me also. However, even here there is a boundary, I believe, between "anything goes" and normal manipulation.
The nature lovers I encounter seem to expect a "more or less" accurate image/print. That is, I don't redraw the picture, add or move trees, rearrange things, multiply the number of animals in a heard, etc. I do adjust contrast, brightness, burn and dodge, etc. Of course the line between what is ok and what is not is fuzzy and I am always willing to show my clients what I have done and not done.
When serious manipulation comes into play I choose to make it obvious that something has been done: tiling, for example or totally artificial color. So if someone should go to where I have made a landscape photograph they do find sometime recognizable.
Anyway, that's my perspective.
John Wawrzonek, http://www.lightsongfineart.com.
Lots of examples of both kinds on the web site.
Re your website and the issue of manipulated images.
I have dealt with the same issue for 35 years. However, it seems to me totally natural for the average person to (perhaps naively) expect that a photograph is in some way "accurate." After all, it is a mechanical device and, it is reasonable to expect some kind of "accuracy" in comparison to a hand-made painting or drawing.
That said, the questions on manipulations annoy me also. However, even here there is a boundary, I believe, between "anything goes" and normal manipulation.
The nature lovers I encounter seem to expect a "more or less" accurate image/print. That is, I don't redraw the picture, add or move trees, rearrange things, multiply the number of animals in a heard, etc. I do adjust contrast, brightness, burn and dodge, etc. Of course the line between what is ok and what is not is fuzzy and I am always willing to show my clients what I have done and not done.
When serious manipulation comes into play I choose to make it obvious that something has been done: tiling, for example or totally artificial color. So if someone should go to where I have made a landscape photograph they do find sometime recognizable.
Anyway, that's my perspective.
John Wawrzonek, http://www.lightsongfineart.com.
Lots of examples of both kinds on the web site.
Post a Comment