DavidRabinowitz Posted March 16, 2017 Author Share Posted March 16, 2017 My God! This is really not worth the endless debate. Just put the category back. It shouldn't have been removed in the first place. David's work is not what I consider "abstract". Just put the damn category back and be done with it. There are bigger fish to fry - speed, navigation issues with most of the galleries and such an assortment of glitches that we could open a Glitch store. . Jack, for me it is worth it. I’ve contacted the administration of photo.net with no answer and I don’t know if I’ll ever get a response. I’ve enjoyed photo.net for the past 14 years and if they cannot add a photo-composite or digital alterations category back into play then I can’t post my work (other than the abstract category that was recommended to me by pn). But I’d like to find out if this is a glitch or a disinterest in these types of images by pn admins. That’s all i ask. I’m hopeful that Glen and company will get around to addressing these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidRabinowitz Posted March 16, 2017 Author Share Posted March 16, 2017 I was told that there will be no more digital alterations category. It was not a glitch or mistake. I have the option of placing my work in the abstract category. I appreciate everyone’s feedback. Thanks my friends....David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Reid Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I was told that there will be no more digital alterations category Did they explain why not? I notice that there's both a "no category" and an "uncategorized" category--seems like it would be easy to change the name of one of those, since they both seem to be referring to the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Reid Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 It just struck me that where your work might fit beautifully is in the "Fine Art" category--it seems to fit all the definitions I've seen for "Fine Art," and that's a place that people would be looking for digital alterations (they definitely wouldn't be looking in "Abstract"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Usedta be "the customer was always right" -- not anymore, at least in dam few places. I know there can't be categories for everything, but we have some remarkable practitioners of Digital Alterations and by golly, they s/b a "jewel in the crown" of any photo site, particularly one "going through interesting times." There is no dark cloud without a silver lining, the "current unpleasantness" here has kicked me back into another lifelong hobby with more enthusiasm than in years. I'll still be dropping in, and will always be into photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McRitchie Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Wasn't there a survey at the top of this thread that asked if the Digital Alteration category should have been dropped? Of those who bothered to respond, 80% voted that it should have been kept. Why bother to ask the question if the answer is that there will be no adjustment. If management had intentionally gone out of their way to piss people off, they could hardly have done a better job. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 That's a shame, David. I wish you the best. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Let's just call the new version "Photo.net Lite" and be done with it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaTango Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) My God! This is really not worth the endless debate. Just put the category back. It shouldn't have been removed in the first place. David's work is not what I consider "abstract". Just put the damn category back and be done with it. There are bigger fish to fry - speed, navigation issues with most of the galleries and such an assortment of glitches that we could open a Glitch store. . Jack, it's sort of a split conversation. The prime "on topic" message concerns the deprecation of the 'Digital Manipulation' category--and the subtext is the nature of that versus 'abstract.' Perhaps the latter is best argued in the 'Casual Photographic Conversations' thread. The only fail there is that it likely will attract a certain cohort of cranky misanthropes out to grind an ax--devolving into a snarky, elite conversation between two or three people... :rolleyes: "Categories" encompasses two areas here in the "New and Improved" PN. There is first (at the most basic level) the category in Portfolio front end (the galleries). The same classification rubric has been applied in our range of selections to "group" in a search array. The second area is the fora board categories. Understand that setting both options for naming is a clear and simple process on the administrative panel side of both the Xenforo and likely XenMedio (the front end) configurations. A unilateral decision was made to do this--it is a two minute task to change either--or to add an infinite number of other categories--and the admins here have made the choice not to do so. And very obviously in stark contradiction to what users would like to have and see. I am getting the idea that it does not really matter if a bunch of us wander off--we seem to no longer be what the agenda for the new 'target market' of smartphone mobile users calls for. As they say, a new broom sweeps clean... :( Edited March 16, 2017 by PapaTango 1 "I See Things..." The FotoFora Community Experience [Link] A new community for creative photographers. Come join us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McRitchie Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 "I am getting the idea that it does not really matter if a bunch of us wander off--we seem to no longer be what the agenda for the new 'target market' of smartphone mobile users calls for. As they say, a new broom sweeps clean... :(" I am coming to pretty much the same conclusion myself. I believe management thinks that this will all blow over and the people will adjust to the new format and that in time memories of the old photonet will die. I think they are willing to let some of the unhappy campers walk. I don't believe there will be anything but a few cosmetic changes from here on out. They have simply drawn the line and dug in their heels. They are betting that they will attract enough new members to compensate for those older members that gradually slip away. For my part, I think they are dead wrong and that newer members won't be any more thrilled with this poorly thought out format and intransigent attitude then we are. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidRabinowitz Posted March 16, 2017 Author Share Posted March 16, 2017 I would completely understand though, if the intention was to keep photo.net to the purists. Those people who want to create photographs out of the camera with traditional adjustments to tone, color and light levels with a little dodging and burning (digital or film). There are other sites for people like myself who do more with the imagery and I’ve found several former members there. I have the same thoughts as Jack, that the direction has been set and the lines have been drawn. I’m not bitter about it, just sad. I’ll probably still post but it’s different for me now. Thanks everyone for your kind words of encouragement. I really appreciate them. David 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidRabinowitz Posted March 16, 2017 Author Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) Well, with all your good work and support, I was just told by Glenn Palm that the digital alterations category will be returning in the near future, possibly with the heading, photo-manipulations which is what everyone was doing in that category. Photo-manipulations is a clearer distinction. Thanks again! David Edited March 16, 2017 by DavidRabinowitz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Reid Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 digital alterations category will be returning in the near future Great news! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaTango Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Super deluxe... Now if they would just put the confabulator button back in the galleries so that I could properly mesmerize my pixels--all would be good in heaven and earth... :cool: 2 "I See Things..." The FotoFora Community Experience [Link] A new community for creative photographers. Come join us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Reid Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Now if they would just put the confabulator button back in the galleries so that I could properly mesmerize my pixels For pixel mesmerization, see Reply #9 3/4 in the How-to manual. It’s no longer done using the confabulator button. Instead, First, you need to enable mesmerization on your “personal details” pageTo do so, mouse over your name at the top of this screenClick on “personal details” in the drop-down menu that appearsToggle the mesmerization switch at the bottom of the page to “on” (note—this doesn’t seem to work on some browsers)Now navigate to your portfolio pageClick on “My Library,” and find the photo for which mesmerization is neededClick on the “settings” menuThe third entry will now be “Pixel Mesmerization”Click on that, and you’re good to go. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidRabinowitz Posted March 17, 2017 Author Share Posted March 17, 2017 I didn’t know about the rule but I’ve had a picture of my face up on photo.net for 14 years and Jackie Robinson was one of my favorite players. It was only temporary, i didn't think anyone would make a fuss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 I didn’t know about the rule but I’ve had a picture of my face up on photo.net for 14 years and Jackie Robinson was one of my favorite players. It was only temporary, i didn't think anyone would make a fuss. It appears no PN administrator or moderator is making a fuss either about using other people's photos or copyright protected commercial images (i.e. Mickey Mouse, The Grinch, etc.) as a PN avatar. Since we now can have avatars in the new PN 2.0, I think it needs to be made clear. Maybe it's deemed fair use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaTango Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 I didn’t know about the rule but I’ve had a picture of my face up on photo.net for 14 years and Jackie Robinson was one of my favorite players. It was only temporary, i didn't think anyone would make a fuss. I wouldn't worry about it David, avatars are the least of our worries! Maybe I should update mine. That photo was taken right after the accident, and the doctors managed to extract the Yashica from my head... :confused: "I See Things..." The FotoFora Community Experience [Link] A new community for creative photographers. Come join us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 It appears no PN administrator or moderator is making a fuss either about using other people's photos or copyright protected commercial images (i.e. Mickey Mouse, The Grinch, etc.) as a PN avatar. Since we now can have avatars in the new PN 2.0, I think it needs to be made clear. Maybe it's deemed fair use. As already answered - I expect that unless changed the Terms of Use and User Guidelines apply to the publication of one's Avatar (previously the image that appeared on the Bio Page). Not that there needs to be any fuss about it. It is simply the rule - possibly confusion though with the advent of the Avatar use. Hopefully it is clear now. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Hoowah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidRabinowitz Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 Nothing changed as of yet but i was told it has to go to another area to get added. I would assume everyone at pn is busy and trying to make this a better site. But best for photographers is that the images have much better resolution, range and color fidelity which was sorely lacking in pn 1.0...regards....David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 David, have you given up baseball? (Just kidding) We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Nothing changed as of yet but i was told it has to go to another area to get added. I would assume everyone at pn is busy and trying to make this a better site. But best for photographers is that the images have much better resolution, range and color fidelity which was sorely lacking in pn 1.0...regards....David Not according to this thread I started on image quality unless you consider better resolution to mean lack of sharpness... https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/loss-of-sharpness-in-no-words-image-uploads.5497437/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidRabinowitz Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 Not according to this thread I started on image quality unless you consider better resolution to mean lack of sharpness... https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/loss-of-sharpness-in-no-words-image-uploads.5497437/ I don’t know Tim, maybe there’s something going on in how I upload that can speak to the increases I’ve mentioned. I can now upload larger files as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Could you post a screenshot here of one of your images that shows what you consider increase in resolution, range (?) and color fidelity? I'm trying to see if this is my low bandwidth with AT&T or my turning off Adobe Flash in PN preferences. Something has definitely gone down hill in image quality of my uploads than what I experienced in PN v1. It also doesn't happen on other photo websites forums I visit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now