I think that limits are silly and unnecessary. Most people will self-limit themselves, especially if they don't receive the positive reinforcement of feedback complimenting their work.
Ocassionally, some folks may find a burst of energy, creativity, insomnia, OCD or a simple anal-expulsive impulse to overdo it (I've been guilty more than once), but I honestly haven't come across anyone who is a chronic "offender."
Furthermore, in the case of more than a few folks here, I actually enjoy seeing their creative process or the strong thread of a documentary, portrait, landscape or other project unfold when they dump more than the usual number of images into the Gallery.
Two people recently come to mind whose volume not only doesn't bother me in the least, but actually serves to enable to see a little more deeply into their process, vision, etc. I'm thinking of Blaz (bk1970), whose foray into all those gorgeous images of corrosion and peeling paint were remarked upon favorably and frequently by many of us. The immersion into his work in short, but big bursts has been really enjoyable and revealing (a bit of double entendre, as the photos reveal a bit about Blaz and more still of his subject matter as it sheds layers of paint). His more recent investigation of peeling outdoor posters in B&W is just as captivating and I look forward to seeing more of it. And seeing it in exactly whatever way he opts to share with us.
In a similar vein, Maiku has graciously admitted to sometimes posting a lot of images all at once. I enjoy seeing his reading of urban geometry, city life and his recent slew of decaying abandoned buildings. He presents it as chunks of an emerging oeuvre. It works for me seeing it that way.
And, even my friend Keith who started this thread, whose work I always enjoy, I think would be stingy with his work if he didn't ocassionally post a whole bunch of photos at once (I'm thinking of his wonderful collection of old photos, his studies of art in the making, his great shots of life in Australia, etc., etc.).
I could go on and on about folks who might ocassionally exceed a limit and by doing so actually be rewarding us with their generosity.
Does anyone take offense at seeing more of koolazumba's fine landscape works ... Lynn's seascapes ... Paulfish's work capturing life in Alabama or recording his view of life as a cancer patient (then, thankfully, cancer survivor) ... Dotour showing us Zagreb ... Mike Lehrman's Manhattan or bushwick1234's Brooklyn ... Robert Hill Long's Oregon or his exceptionally sensitive study of his sister. I really could go on and on and on here....
I understand where some of you suggesting limits are coming from and I respect, but strongly disagree with your prescription.
I see the virtual gallery here as very much like any physical gallery space any of us might walk into. What do you do when you see wall after wall of images you like? You probably linger and enjoy. Your mind wanders. Maybe you even let what you see filter into questions of how to let your own work evolve and grow.
What do you do when you enter a room in the same gallery where you see things that don't do it for you? Simple. You keep moving until you see something that catches your eye. Or you go home. It think we can all treat RFF's gallery in the same fashion. Linger where you like and move on where you don't.
Think about it for a moment. When our old friend Frank Petronio was actively posting to the gallery expertly-made images of nude/semi-nude women, did very many people (except perhaps folks who don't like seeing nudity on the web) complain over how many images he put up at once? Never to my recollection.
Now, I'm sure I post plenty of duds that the rest of you skip over. I'm cool with that. Keeping skipping by. But why would you want to limit the amazing range of creativity, vision and talent that others offer to share?
So, rather than imposing some arbitrary limit (1 per day, 5 per day, 25 per hour...?), why not simply vote with your eyes and your computer mouse?
I suppose most of you know of Mayor Bloomberg's well-intentioned regulation (currently stayed by a court) to protect New Yorkers from themselves by limiting their intake of sugary beverages. Are we on RFF not capable of policing our own intake (and output, too) of empty photographic calories???
By the way, I think the rising volume of images being posted is only partly due to the nearly unlimited quantity we're allowed. I think it also owes a lot to the wonderful job Jorge Toralba has done in making the gallery very user friendly for both posters and viewers/commenters. Thank you to Stephen and Jorge.
We have lots of folks posting who never did so before and that's a good thing. We should encourage more people to participate by being friendly and supportive rather than making anyone think we're going to judge them harshly by what they see, how the see it or how much of they choose to share. I doubt that this website will ever descend into the often meaningless and unusually unfiltered, unedited mess we all see frequently on Flickr.
