revisited: photos per thread limit

I like the idea of a general guideline, depending on the people that frequent this forum to encourage a specific resolution and number of images.<br><br>Be flexible though or you risk discouragement of using this forum to share experiences.<br><br><br>

I've been mulling this over for a couple of days now, and glancing at the TGR report Jeff linked above helped me understand what's been bothering me about photo-intensive trip reports.  It's that so often the words merely serve to explain (or, to be more precise, caption) the photos, which are in fact the real show.  Now, it's not that I object terribly to this approach; in the hands of a master photographer, words do start to feel superfluous or even intrusive.  Sadly, most of us are not master photographers. <br><br>Nor am I claiming that the possibility of posting photos necessarily renders us all speechless; clearly this is not so, as evidenced by trip reports I've recently seen by Sky and others.  Yet I think it's inescapable that the subtle rhythms and evocative richness of written language are being driven out by all the bold, colorful images which surround us, and this seems increasingly true given the proliferation of digital still and video cameras coupled with widespread broadband web access. This is not inevitable on an individual basis--you or I or many of our friends might resist the trend--but I think it is very likely unavoidable on a larger scale. I am afraid that this website--a labor of love and sustained effort by Charles over the years--probably qualifies as "larger scale."    <br><br>There's a reason I spend so many of my idle hours reading books, not staring at pretty pictures or watching television.  There are equally valid reasons why this is not true of the majority of Americans, and although I don't much care for this central truth, I'm willing to accept my own status as an incipient anachronism and cave gracefully on the issue.  I'll be interested in seeing how this all plays out; as always, I'm perfectly prepared to be proven wrong.  Maybe that can be taken as a challenge.<br><br>enjoy,<br><br>Mark<br><br>

I realize there are other tradeoffs such as dialup experience that may be the trump cards, but I continue to question the notion that less photos = more artful postings.

<br><br>I have no proof of it. But as I suggested in an earlier post, it is worth asking: Do you like TAY better than other forums? And if you like it better, why? What factors contribute to it? If it's not broken, beware of trying to fix it.<br><br>Having said that, I've already proposed a guideline which would allow 3 pictures per thread, and I could live with that happily. But I caution against making a more open, no-holds barred guideline. It's a philosphical thing for me, I guess. I feel that human progress requires both individual initiative and well defined rules. (If you want to read more about this, check out the book Creativity by Mihaly Cziksentmihalyi.)<br>

All good thoughts. I contend that wonderfully written posts are also rare, though not as rare as well done photo-rich posts. I believe visual communication is as rich a form as written. Master practitioners are equally rare. And it's hardly new, as the cave paintings in France attest. <br><br>What is new is the ease of slamming a ton of photos from your flash card onto the web. It reminds me of how easy it was in 1986 to slam a bunch of ugly fonts all into one MacWrite document. I recall much discussion of the "death of typography" among other now-quaint conversations that were very similar to this one. People learned over time not to do this (mostly...), in large part through feedback from their community. We're in another of these "eras of transition," this time around photography. The situation will mature, especially if folks have a chance to experiment and have a community that is willing to give kind but guiding feedback, as I've seen done here in so many ways so many times. If a given poster is prone to ones like the boring TGR post Jeff points to (totally agree there, by the way), either give feedback or ignore the posts. <br><br>I agree this is a great forum. As I said above, I'll be happy even if the one photo rule sticks, though it's obviously not what I'm prodding for. But I'm not afraid of seeing it tweaked over time - already I've seen several small and big (and very thoughtful) changes that Charles has made, and feel that it's only gotten better over time. While I've been a frequent utterer of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," I don't feel that maxim applies here. If I'm wrong, it doesn't seem hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

<br><br>Keep this a ski forum - not a writer's workshop. Good communication takes many forms.

<br><br>This line says it all for me.

Here's a reason why more photos should be allowed:<br><br> www.turns-all-year.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB...splay;num=1117696161

My mouse button would wear out if I tried to view all of Amar's photos.