-=- Poll: Separate Pets Forum from Wildlife Forum? -=-

[Pentaxis]

Is it possible to establish a separate forum for pets, and one for wildlife?

Just an idea. I know sometimes its hard to tell what you are clicking on with what the title states, and I have very little interest in snapshots of pets. I'm sure there are others that feel the same, on both sides of the fence. ;)

Chime in!

Thanks,

-Paul

[Turbowolf]

I gave up on this forum way back ... not that I don't like pets, but we need a separate area for wildlife. Until that happens, look for me on Flickr!

It cannot be that hard to create a separate area, been done before, and no doubt will happen again.

[Travisj]

Leave it as is, if you're too lazy to hit the back button if it's not something you want to look at then move on. Yes it could be done but then you would have to do it for every unhappy person just like all the wedding section BS.

[fotodan]

To me "Nature and Animals" means nature and animals, not household pets. JMO....:rolleyes:

[sanrossscot]

To me "Nature and Animals" means nature and animals, not household pets. JMO....:rolleyes:

Last I looked my household pets ARE animals ;)

I'm easy either way, I like to look at both domesticated and 'wild' animals, but where do you draw the line? Household pets include a lot of exotics these days, where do you put them, same for captive animals :confused:

[::John::]

Nature & Animals
Flowers, trees, fish, bugs, dogs, cats, spiders and hippogriffs.

So, would you then want to separate out the Flowers, trees, etc?

[IraRunyan]

Well, I have nothing bad to say about pets, in fact I have worked in several vet offices taking care of sick pets.

I do however feel that it would be better to have a seperate Pet section and a Wildlife/Nature section.

[Travisj]

Ya’ll I can respect everyone’s position on this but lets think realistically for a second. The owner and the mods have enough to do without having to sit there and worry about 400 different sections of the forum. If everyone sat there and complained about not having their own section that they could post in we wouldn’t have this forum. It’s not that hard to navigate through the forum. Enjoy what you have and realize that you might not always see what you want to. It’s not that hard to figure out.

[bill boehme]

If it were as simple as dogs and cats, it would be easy, but it isn't. Even something as seemingly easy as defining the term "pet" can be problematic. A simple example would be horses. They can be a pet, a show animal, a work animal or a wild animal. How about monkeys? I hear that some people have pet monkeys, then of course, there are zoo monkeys, show biz monkeys, and "free range" monkeys. Can a reptile or a fish be considered a pet? It's hard to get one to curl up in your lap. Where do domestic farm animals fit into this? Or elephants and donkeys that are used as work animals in some parts of the world. Things that we call pets might be table fare elsewhere or just plain feral.

[Pentaxis]

I *think* you might be over analyzing. Its pretty obvious how things would be split up.

The main problem I have with pet photography is the same issue I have with baby photography. Most of the examples of it posted are just snapshots people CONSTANTLY take in and around their house. 3000 clicks of the shutter of your dog or cat not doing anything just isn't captivating. Most of these shots don't take even a moment's consideration to composition.

True wildlife photography by its nature usually involves some thought of composition due to location and how shy most creatures are. Even if a shot in the wild isn't well executed, at least the effort to even be able to take the picture is there.

I much prefer that instead of just picking up your camera from your desk and firing off 35 shots of your dog sleeping while in auto mode and sitting in your computer chair.

That is my main reason for desiring a separation. As many would agree.

[EOSAddict]

When you have got off your photographic high horse pentaxis, remember that this is, above all, a community of photographers, most of whom do not have the ability or kit to go in search of a unicorn. Snaps or not, those contributions are no less valuable.

If you don't like them, skip them. Don't force everyone to live by your standards.

Oh, and Happy Christmas ;)

[Pentaxis]

No high horse involved. Just explaining why a separation would be nice.

I'm not saying you have to go hunt for some elusive species to make it worthwhile. Just take a moment to think about the pictures you are taking and put a little more effort into them than just raising the glass to your eye and pressing the button. The fact that wildlife photography already REQUIRES a certain level of effort means that more people take a moment to stop and think about the shots they are taking. It doesn't matter what equipment you have. Kit lens or L. Or Kodak Disposable for that matter. Its all about your eye.

As far as value, your gallery is quite impressive. Do you believe the hard work you put into your pictures is of equal value to that of someone who just points and clicks? I certainly don't. It is obvious by your photographs that you put more thought into your work than others, and it shows. I can appreciate that quite a bit more than a point and a click. The thought behind a picture is what makes photography interesting and an art in my opinion.

As far as not liking them, It surely would be easier to to sort through if they were in a completely different sub forum! :D And everything would still be present and on the site just in slightly different locations, so no forcing of standards involved! ;)

Happy Holidays to you too

-Paul

[EOSAddict]

Paul,

Fair enough. Have to say your explanation above is much less arrogant sounding than your previous comments... and makes sense.

Thank you for your comments on my gallery... ;) but there are still those who are very new to this, who are in the early stages of learning (we are all still learning). Pets themselves can be demanding subjects to your separation in itself won't help.

I also think that if you choose not to go into any such forum (which by implication you would not) you would probably miss some great shots!

:)

[bill boehme]

I *think* you might be over analyzing. Its pretty obvious how things would be split up.

The main problem I have with pet photography is the same issue I have with baby photography. Most of the examples of it posted are just snapshots people CONSTANTLY take in and around their house. 3000 clicks of the shutter of your dog or cat not doing anything just isn't captivating. Most of these shots don't take even a moment's consideration to composition.

True wildlife photography by its nature usually involves some thought of composition due to location and how shy most creatures are. Even if a shot in the wild isn't well executed, at least the effort to even be able to take the picture is there.

I much prefer that instead of just picking up your camera from your desk and firing off 35 shots of your dog sleeping while in auto mode and sitting in your computer chair.

That is my main reason for desiring a separation. As many would agree.

I'll have to agree with EOS Addict that your response gives all appearances of being incredibly arrogant and I think that in "clarifying" your position, your position it isn't nearly as much to do with the subject material as it is about the capabilities, skills, and equipment of the person making the photographs.

It is too easy to dismiss anything that I said as being over analyzing as a way of avoiding the need to face some practical considerations. Instead of dealing in hyperbole and denigrating the skills of people who take pet pictures, things would be better served by sticking to facts and being civil.

To clarify what I said earlier, the fallout that I see with subdividing forums into more focused groups relates primarily to administrative issues and I didn't claim to be opposed to the idea, but the way that you present it seems counter to the POTN spirit of acceptance and friendliness.

The process of change needs to go beyond a straw poll popularity contest to insure that it serves the interests of the community at large. Planning needs to be more than creating a category title.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The way that a forum gets created is when a group of like minded individuals want a new forum for there specific field of work.

ie: we don't create a forum to boot people out of one sandbox and force them to post into another,

...we do it when people want a new forum to post in.
Macro people asked for a Macro forum, it did not happen because a small handful of NA shooters didn't want to look at bugs.


Motivation is all wrong on this one I'm afraid. No one involved in this forum is interested in promoting segregation or exclusion based on either subject matter or equipment used..

Merry X-Mas :)

[kevin_c]

The title of the thread usually gives a clue as to what's inside - 'Look at my cute new kitty' or 'Fido chewing on a bone' for instance. Just don't look at these if you don't want to -

I do this all the time in the Transportation section, sifting through all the Subaru shots with wonky horizons... :rolleyes: :lol: :lol:

Merry Christmas :)

[FlyingPhotog]

The title of the thread usually gives a clue as to what's inside - 'Look at my cute new kitty' or 'Fido chewing on a bone' for instance. Just don't look at these if you don't want to -

I do this all the time in the Transportation section, sifting through all the Subaru shots with wonky horizons... :rolleyes: :lol: :lol:

Merry Christmas :)

Oh so true...

[Woolburr]

I do this all the time in the Transportation section, sifting through all the Subaru shots with wonky horizons... :rolleyes: :lol: :lol:


Ain't it the truth!:lol::rolleyes::lol:

[bill boehme]

Remind me to visit that forum some day.

[Keith R]

No one involved in this forum is interested in promoting segregation or exclusion based on either subject matter or equipment used.

Not really sure what point you're making there, though - there are already separate forums for birds, for Nature & Animals, for lenses, for G Series cameras, for EOS (SLR) cameras, and so on...

I think the OP makes a very good point.

A line could easily and reasonably be drawn between captive and wild animals (and wild birds): so pictures of pets, livestock, critters in zoos etc. go into one forum, and wild animals and birds go in the other.

In common with a lot of birds photographers, I consider the ability to successfully approach birds (and other animals) in the wild (fieldcraft) to be a huge part of the photographers "skill set", and to see that skill demonstrated in a picture of a wild bird is a big part of what impresses me about a picture.

Proper wildlife photography is a completely separate discipline, and to me it makes sense to facilitate the separation of such images from portrait shots of puppies and of monkeys in zoos...

[T.D.]

Not really sure what point you're making there, though - there are already separate forums for birds, for Nature & Animals, for lenses, for G Series cameras, for EOS (SLR) cameras, and so on...

I think the OP makes a very good point.

A line could easily and reasonably be drawn between captive and wild animals (and wild birds): so pictures of pets, livestock, critters in zoos etc. go into one forum, and wild animals and birds go in the other.

In common with a lot of birds photographers, I consider the ability to successfully approach birds (and other animals) in the wild (fieldcraft) to be a huge part of the photographers "skill set", and to see that skill demonstrated in a picture of a wild bird is a big part of what impresses me about a picture.

Proper wildlife photography is a completely separate discipline, and to me it makes sense to facilitate the separation of such images from portrait shots of puppies and of monkeys in zoos...

I believe his point is that new sections are created when a particular area has such a draw that a separate, focused area of the community is the best way to accommodate that genre. As opposed to, we don't want that crap in this section so get rid of it.

See the difference? ;)

[SoaringUSAEagle]

I think its a great idea.

[kevin_c]

I think the problem is 'where do you stop'.

You could apply the same thinking to Macro, I personally don't like huge pictures of a moths eyeball, but do like plant/flower close-ups.
The same thing with Transportation, as I said earlier ^^^ I don't particularly want to look at pictures of Subaru's in a trading estate car park with a wonky horizon and fake sky, but I do enjoy looking at other things in there.

You just have to sift through the headers and make a choice what to look at.
Having said that it would be helpful if posters made the header descriptions more meaningful sometimes...

[condyk]

Wot Kev says and wot TD says ... looking in there tho', haven't for a while, there are a lot of 'pet aka domestic aka zoo' shots around and I wouldn't take it seriously if I was serious. On the other hand, folks post shots that they like and wanna share and I guuess the encouragement they get will help them decide if they wanna hang out and learn and develop or wanna give up or find another subject matter. snobby responses don't help someone shoot a Unicorn, as Al said. Some of the threads feel more like 'Generral Chat' fun style tho'. there is a clear difference with the Birds threads compared to Wildlife/Animals and that is probably 'sub-forum culture'.

[Keith R]

I believe his point is that new sections are created when a particular area has such a draw that a separate, focused area of the community is the best way to accommodate that genre.

Which is what I - and I believe the OP - are saying: that there is a perfectly reasonable argument for separating off proper wildlife photography (a discrete "discipline" that involves specific skills not relevant to, or necessary for, pet/livestock/zoo photographs) from other animal shots.

As opposed to, we don't want that crap in this section so get rid of it.

Which is absolutely not what I am saying. Emotionally I respond as positively to a cute puppy photograph as readily as anyone, but photographically it isn't something of interest to me, and I visit POTN to feed my photographic interests, not my emotional needs.

See the difference? ;)

Well I do. I'm not convinced everybody else does though.

Far more has been read into the original post than is really there, and the implication that the OP's opinon (and those of people who favour his view) is somehow elitist or indicative of unreasonable bias is unfair and unjustified.

[Keith R]

I think the problem is 'where do you stop'.

You could apply the same thinking to Macro, I personally don't like huge pictures of a moths eyeball, but do like plant/flower close-ups.

But the discplines and techniques are broadly the same regardless of whether your macro shot is of a fly or a flower.

It is absolutely not true to say that of a picture of a chimp in a zoo compared with, say, an image of a rare, hard-to-approach bird that took the photographer a whole day to get into a situation where he could take the picture and which involved specific gear and technique decisions utterly irrelevant to zoo or pet shots.

In fact I'll go as far as to say that it's demeaning to skilled wildlife photographers to simply lump their work in with cutesy pet shots: and again, saying that is not an elitist thing, it's simply acknowledging that wildlife photography is an art in itself.

[Jon]

But the discplinestechniques are broadly the same regardless of whether your macro shot is of a fly or a flower. and

It is absolutely not true to say that of a picture of a chimp in a zoo compared with, say, an image of a rare, hard-to-approach bird that took the photographer a whole day to get into a situation where he could take the picture and which involved specific gear and technique decisions utterly irrelevant to zoo or pet shots.

In fact I'll go as far as to say that it's demeaning to skilled wildlife photographers to simply lump their work in with cutesy pet shots: and again, saying that is not an elitist thing, it's simply acknowledging that wildlife photography is an art in itself.Sorry - but your logic fails. A moth's much harder to approach than a flower. So your attitude still comes across as "we don't want to have our (elite) skills sullied by mixing with the hoi polloi who photograph domesticated or captive animals.

For the record, photographing domesticated animals in a manner to please their owners is more difficult than squeezing off the random frame. You need to capture more than the pysical presence - you also, as in human portraiture, need to capture the essence of that animal, and what makes it special to the people in its life.

However, the OP, and you, are approaching this from the "get them out of our area" position. That's not going to happen for that reason. It's not going to arise because someone doesn't want to have to look at "other stuff". A split is going to happen only when members ask to have their own photos split off from a larger category due to the volume of their interest group's work (not just number of threads - number of posters). That's how Motor Sports was split from Transportation. That's how Birds was split from Nature and Animals. And that's essentially how Weddings & other family events was split from People. So pet photographers may be able to show enough interest and activity to warrant their asking to be split off. But they need to show the activity and make the request. Wildlife photographers may be able to show enough interest and activity to warrant a separate wildlife forum, if they request it, but I think you should appreciate that you're not going to find it following the "habitat" policies you're espousing, simply because it's impossible to draw a sharp line between an animal loose in the wild, a wild animal habituated to life around humans, a reintroduced and protected species in a large parkland area, a contained wildlife park and a zoological garden. If a forum's set up for wild animals, who's going to decide that the bear in the back country of Yellowstone National Park belongs while the bear (which may even be the same one) raiding trash cans or panhandling from cars doesn't? Or the bear seen on the way to the trash cans but in an apparently "natural" setting? If you want a separate forum, you have to define it in such a way that it's readily apparent to all what fits in, that the standards are consistent, and that's wanted by the people who will be using it. I can assure you the moderators aren't going to be able to keep up with anything that essentially demands a provenance in order for photos to be posted in it. And we aren't going to create a forum that wasn't requested by the people whose photos it's supposed to accommodate.