So, my point is that it's not just our experience at DPC that educated us--it's a combination of things happening to everything in our life. Ready or not, there is much more to see, better technical quality, more immediately available. We have to learn to be selective in self-defense & we have to be ruthless about it. We are harder to impress. DPC is competing for our attention in general, not just still photography. My opinion!
pretty much. not sure about self defence or ruthlessness, but for sure the general attention has squandered itself and wandered away.
IMNSHO, part of the problem is that there are too many feel-good places where you can go to have one's egos stroked without the realities of hard scrutiny and honest critique which you WILL get here.
I started a thread about how this place keeps you humble. Despite sales, winnings, and accolades from the "Real World", this place is always a good place to return to to really push yourself. If I want someone to fawn over anything I crank out, FaceBook or any number of places will oblige. If I want real scutiny, serious critique, or to stretch my talents and abilities, I come here.
The true upside is that there are always people here who will work with you in any venue/genre that you want help with.....just ask.
It never ceases to amaze me that after all this time what an amazing resource DPC still is for me.
So what is the theory on the drastic reduction in members? People are too busy? I-phones are the "camera of choice" now? Competition too tough? Too much "Photo shopping" of the images? I hate to see the membership so low, as this is a great site to learn and challenge yourself.
Not to go all millennial or anything, but a site design/layout refresh would probably help bring in some fresh blood. I do agree that a lot of people can take amazing photos on their smartphones, but I have seen this improvement in phone technology pushing people to want to go further and have an actual camera on hand. I love this website, and I love the excuses for art that it gives me as a hobbyist, but the website still kinda looks like it was designed in the early 2000s.
So what is the theory on the drastic reduction in members? People are too busy? I-phones are the "camera of choice" now? Competition too tough? Too much "Photo shopping" of the images? I hate to see the membership so low, as this is a great site to learn and challenge yourself.
Not to go all millennial or anything, but a site design/layout refresh would probably help bring in some fresh blood. I do agree that a lot of people can take amazing photos on their smartphones, but I have seen this improvement in phone technology pushing people to want to go further and have an actual camera on hand. I love this website, and I love the excuses for art that it gives me as a hobbyist, but the website still kinda looks like it was designed in the early 2000s.
I always wonder exactly what layout changes people think would make such huge difference un user participation.
The site was designed for the purpose of presenting photos for evaluation in a simple and neutral environment -- that boring light gray color is the same one you'll find in print editors' offices and print shops and other places where images are judged. There are no videos or flashing elements to distract, the navigation is pretty obvious and simple to use, and the links almost always work as expected.
Not advocating fossilization (though I once wanted to be a paleontologist), but I am a fan of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of updating.
...
Not advocating fossilization (though I once wanted to be a paleontologist), but I am a fan of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of updating.
There's nothing wrong with the colors here, but I think that for new people this site looks outdated with the interface of 10 years ago. I'm used to it and still like it, but it would be nice if we could use more (wonderful) modern techniques here to present photos. The world has changed.
Well I just looked at my pictures at Flickr and the main difference seems to be that they're on a darker background, which might benefit some pictures but work against others during voting (18% gray is the "industry standard" for a photo viewing environment).
They can have a simpler "menu bar" since there aren't as many options available, which makes the use of recursive menus sensible (though I wish ours would disappear faster if not used). I see (tiny!) gallery thumbnails at the bottom -- I suppose that's slightly more flexible than our "next" and "back" options. What else makes it so useful?
