Jump to content

Elimination of the digital alterations category


Should the digital alterations category been eliminated in pn 2.0>  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the digital alterations category been eliminated in pn 2.0>

    • absolutely yes
      3
    • no
      15


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by PapaTango
  • Like 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

"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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DavidRabinowitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

  1. First, you need to enable mesmerization on your “personal details” page
  2. To do so, mouse over your name at the top of this screen
  3. Click on “personal details” in the drop-down menu that appears
  4. Toggle the mesmerization switch at the bottom of the page to “on” (note—this doesn’t seem to work on some browsers)
  5. Now navigate to your portfolio page
  6. Click on “My Library,” and find the photo for which mesmerization is needed
  7. Click on the “settings” menu
  8. The third entry will now be “Pixel Mesmerization”
  9. Click on that, and you’re good to go.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...