Delete folder not working?

[manel_soria]

Hi,

 

I want to erase all my folder "insects and arachnids", 117 photos:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=464434

 

For some reason the sytem stalls when I use this option.

 

I did the same, not without trouble, with my folder "nature".

 

Is this the place to report this problem ?

 

Thanks

[vivek iyer]

Hey Manel! Mark Chappell said it right about the ratings, etc. Do you make pictures for a living? or for your satisfaction? - in either case how others *rate* your pictures here should not bother you.

 

FWIW, I *was* a *professional scientist* as well. Believe you me, science has nothing to do with photography aside from some technical aspects of image making.

 

If you get worked up by this rating business, may I suggest that you channel all that frustrations and anger in to your photography? Give it a try, it may do wonders.

 

Vivek.

[vivek iyer]

Are you in Barcelona? If you run in to Victor Puntes (Physics guy), say hello to him for me.

[manel_soria]

Thanks, I appreciate your support.

 

>Hey Manel! Mark Chappell said it right about the ratings, etc. Do you >make pictures for a living? or for your satisfaction? - in either >case how others *rate* your pictures here should not bother you.

 

No, the problem is not how the others rate my photos, it is about how dirty PS tricks are rated. Belive or not I don't care that much about my own ratings. If people here like the reflection trick, this is not my place.

 

>FWIW, I *was* a *professional scientist* as well. Believe you me, >science has nothing to do with photography aside from some technical >aspects of image making.

 

I agree, that was a silly sentence, out of context.

 

>If you get worked up by this rating business, may I suggest that you >channel all that frustrations and anger in to your photography? Give >it a try, it may do wonders.

 

Yes, I'll do it, but I won't post nature photos here, there are better places to do so.

 

I don't claim that my nature photos are excellent, here there are many better folks.

 

But good or bad, they are my best, the result of my effort, and I don't want them to be in the same place as that nasty cheap reflections. If at lest the author knew how to program the effect, that would be of some value.

 

Now my problem is how can I erase all the folder ?

[manel_soria]

Problem solved. I don't know how but the folder is not there anymore. Thanks and best regards.

[vivek iyer]

Ha! Looks like the insect folder is gone!

 

Manel, I appreciate your interest in phoptographing nature and doing a very good job of it. Keep it up!

 

If you look critically, you would find pretenders everywhere, including in your department- in positions they do not deserve to be! Please do not let that get to you.

 

Keep your cool, be passionate and all the best!

[aphanius]

Manel, deleting your own photos is a bad choice. You'll have to deal with PS manipulation here in Pnet, but also with PS manipulation, insect manipulation and scenary manipulation in your favourite "nature photography forums". The point is author's honesty and ethics.

<br><br>

Furthermore, a PS manipulated shot may deserve high skill and merit on its original format. Remember that if you put all the eggs in one basket... probably you'll loose them... but, of course.. it's up to you...

<br><br>

By the way, Pnet rating system doesn't work for me, specially top average list, but I can live with it ;)

[manel_soria]

>Manel, deleting your own photos is a bad choice.

 

All my nature photos are already gone.

 

>"You'll have to deal with PS manipulation here in Pnet, but also with >PS manipulation, insect manipulation and scenary manipulation"

 

My point was that the nature editors don't seem to consider this an important issue. Is it because the mainstream PN users don't care about the difference between a real photo and a fake ? If so, I don't want my nature photos to be here.

 

>Furthermore, a PS manipulated shot may deserve high skill and merit >on its original format. Remember that if you put all the eggs in one >basket... probably you'll loose them... but, of course.. it's up to >you...

 

Yes Joan Ramon, but here I was talking about cheap dirty nonsense manipulation. Have you seen the photos ? I expected some kind of support from the nature photographers here. There are amazing kingfishers next to the fake reflection ! How can people give such ratings ?

 

Don't worry, I'll allways have at least a couple of baskets :)

 

See you and thank you, one day we can drink a beer and talk longer

[aphanius]

You're welcome, Manel! One beer or two or three... (lol)

<br><br>

I guess that PN nature editors think (as you and me) that PS manipulation should be avoidable in nature photography, but manipulation vs original has been dealt for years here in Pnet, and it's similar to argue about nikon vs canon.

<br><br>

The fact that a manipulated shot jump to the top list isn't unusual. By instance, one of my PSed nature shots got pretty good ratings last year, and I explained then how that manipulation could be done easily. Does that shot turn me into a nature photography transgressor?

<br><br>

I regret your folder deletion, and hope that in your other baskets don't exist PS manipulation. Otherwise, I suggest you to manipulate one of your best shots to get another great image and share it ;)

[manel_soria]

I'll post in birds a pink donkey flying low over the sea towards the sunset (with the reflection). Then I'll write that I'm a wildlife photographer, I just did some PS enhancements.

 

I know (I think I know) what photo are you talking about, you know it is not the same.

[mottershead]

Manel, I deleted your folder, logged in as you. I am not sure why you had a problem before.

 

As for this issue about manipulation, I think you are getting all emotional over nothing. Not a very scientific attitude, I would say. As Bob explained, Photoshop manipulation is a very well-trodden topic on photo.net. There is little point in going over all this ground again, especially as it is a topic that tends to degenerate into flame wars.

 

If you had cared to read the numerous threads on this topic, you would probably have found that Bob actually agrees with your position. However, he was acting as the moderator of the forum, not as someone with an axe to grind about Photoshop manipulation, and made the decision that the archives didn't need yet another discussion of this topic. The discussion was allowed to go on for a couple of days, but a short lifetime was put on it. When the expiration time arrived, the system deleted it rather than putting it in the archives. If anybody had been writing anything fresh on the topic, and not simply going over the same ground, no doubt it would not have been given a short lifetime. It was not a question of whether the issue was important, it was a question of whether people were writing anything new or interesting about it.

[bobatkins]

Brian is correct in saying that he thinks I'd agree with your point. As far as I'm concerned, nature images should not be manipulated and manipulated images should not be permitted in any nature photography contest (let's pretend here that we all know what is, and isn't manipulated).

<p>

However, photo.net doesn't run any nature photography contests. It has a "nature" category, but it's broadly drawn and doesn't follow the PSA rules on what constitutes "nature".

<p>

The TRPs are beauty contests. They reflect the popular taste. Cute fuzzy animals, oversaturated scenics and naked women do well. People aren't looking for scientifically accurate images, they're looking for wall art.

<p>

If you want a wildlife contest, try the one run by <a href="http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?articleId=1005&issueId=72">National Wildlife Federation</a> or the one run by the <a href="http://www.bbcwildlifemagazine.com/wpoy.asp">BBC Wildlife Magazine</a>.

<p>

Since the TRPs aren't a contest, there are no rules or restrictions other than the image must entirely the work of the photographer. That applies to all images submiited to photo.net. There are no restrictions on the use of Photoshop, even when the Photoshopped image is over the top and ugly. Some people seem to like ugly, over the top Photoshopped images. Go figure.

[manel_soria]

I think you don't get my point. I'm not interested in competitions, never took part in one (except against myself) and I'm not so worried about the ratings of *my* photos. Otherwise do you think I would have posted for critique images so against mainstream taste like this ?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3563408

 

or this ?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3765870

 

What makes me feel sad is the poor criteria of the average raters, that don't seem to find any difference between a brilliant kingfisher photo (far beyond my skill) and a dirty trick. If you agree with me, and I think you do, why don't try to do something about it ? I know it won't be easy.

 

Respect about I not being able to erase the folders, I'm using mozilla firefox, maybe that was the reason ?