mstrada

"Troll" is banned in the Nikon forum? I'm not one of the people who have hopped on the "Photo.net is a fascist bunch of censors" bandwagon (see, e.g., a couple recent POW discussions (though such comments have probably been deleted...)), but this seems a little overboard.

 

I understand the rationale behind censoring offensive language, like curse words, but if "troll" is banned, why not also ban "jerk," "idiot," "dummy," or "fool"? At some point, if you want to have free discussion, you have to admit some possibility that someone will be insulted, or someone will say something stupid, or call someone a "troll." The tool that stamps out all of that is way too blunt.

I would also vote for eliminating the "originality" rating. It's pretty meaningless, and people just use it as a proxy for overall quality anyway. (Although I rarely rate photos anymore -- in part because of silliness like this -- most of the past ratings I've given have been identical in aesthetics and originality because I can't figure out how to parse them out fairly.)

 

Not only is it senseless and impossible to apply, but it assumes that every shot is intended to be original. On the contrary, for the vast majority here, whether consciously or not, our goal is to ape things we've seen done elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with a boat in silhouette in front of a sunset, or a flower with a bee on it, or a shot of African women with buckets on their heads and colorful robes, or a gritty Tri-X shot of a panhandler. Those are all cliches for a reason: they make good photos (or at least are more likely to do so than most other photographic ideas in the world). But few are original. The people who can generate truly original renditions of those things should be busy getting their pictures published, not uploading crappy JPEGS to photo.net.

My computer has been acting all funny about photo.net lately, so I

wonder if this is just me, but has the selected "Photo Critique"

image on the front page gone away? (The image that formerly appeared

right below the POW.) Now, and for at least the last few days, I see

the "Photo Critique" heading and the options below, but there is no

picture.

 

If it's just me and my whacked-out computer, sorry. If the picture

is really gone, then I'm disappointed. I have discovered a lot of

really excellent pictures and photographers because they were shown

to me on the top page.

Mine runs out soon as well, and I was wondering if I was going to receive a reminder. I'd bet the site loses a lot of money because it doesn't nudge people to renew. I know I've seen patron icons fall off of people's names, and I'd guess that for many of them, it's probably out of laziness, not dissatisfaction. A couple strategic reminders would probably do wonders for renewal rates.

Me too. And there is some scary error message (reprinted below) when I try to look at one of my own folders.

 

Why am I always afraid that I'm the one who broke it?

 

 

 

Error Message:

HTTP/1.0 500 Internal Server Error Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:54:38 GMT Server: NaviServer/2.0 AOLserver/3.3.1+ad13 Content-Length: 547 Connection: close

Server Error

The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server.

Brian: Did I upload image bombs? I know a couple weeks ago a

couple of my uploads were rejected (because I had forgotten to

"save for web"), but I didn't know any bombs actually made it

onto a photo.net server. (Unless, of course, "bomb" refers to the

aesthetic appeal of my uploads, in which case my portfolio is full

of them :) .)

 

I guess I'll chalk it up as a fluke of my work PC.

Hmmm... And just to be clear (because I wasn't before), you guys can actually see the full-size pictures? I can get thumbnails on my screen, when in folder view, but it won't let me look at the medium or large versions, when I click on a particular picture.

 

I can't wait to get home to my Mac!

Weird... My girlfriend has the same problem as I do, using a different PC. I wonder if it is an IE6 problem, since it worked for you using IE5.

 

(Thanks for testing it, by the way.)

Last night, I uploaded a bunch of photos into a new folder ("Anti-

Death Penalty Rally") in my portfolio. On my Mac at home, I had no

problem viewing those images after uploading them.

 

Today on my work PC, though, whenever I try to view one of those

photos my browser (IE6) "breaks," and I can't view the photo or any

other graphics without quitting and relaunching. I have no problem

viewing any of my other uploaded pics, or anyone else's uploaded pics.

 

I know that saving images in Photoshop without using "save for web"

can generate a problem like this (by including some unwelcome xml

data or something like that), but I definitely used "save for web" to

generate these jpegs.

 

Anyone have any similar problem or know what my problem might be?

Good luck. I was in exactly the same predicament, and ultimately (after posting and researching here) was forced to move to the Nikon Coolscan IV. But if there is a way to get my S20 to work as well on my iMac, I'd love to learn it.

Brian: Heh heh, now I that I look back, I see you did include a nudge to subscribe. Never mind about that. I still think the several sarcastic sentences of your response were unnecessary.

Brian: What a snotty response to a criticism of the site. I didn't think the tone of his post was half as offensive as yours. If he was wrong, or if he wrongly construed your earlier statement, explain why and move on. But a response like that really just makes you (and therefore the site) look defensive and impolite. This is a site that asks its users for money -- service-for-fee providers should be a little more sensitive in their customer relations.

 

(On that note, the best possible response would have been polite and responsive, concluding with a gentle reminder that he has no "gift" next to his name and before he complains about the technical performance of the site, he ought to put his money where his mouth is.)

(For some reason, my first attempt to add this response didn't take ... Sorry if it

pops up later.)

 

My Coolscan IV ED came with Nikon Scan 3.1.3 as well... I use an iMac G4

800 and OS X.2.1 -- nothing unusual about my setup.

 

I wonder if Nikon Scan 3.1.3 works with the Coolscan IV but not with the LS-

4000 (although its documentation claims that it does). I simply have had no

problems using the Coolscan IV (though I've only been working with it for a

day).

There seems to be some misconception about the Nikon software that is available. While it may have a couple bugs (referenced in my earlier post), Nikon software running for Jaguar (not in Classic) is definitely available now -- I'm using it, and it shipped on a CD-ROM. The readme files expressly discuss Jaguar (and the small number of bugs associated with it). With my Coolscan IV, I haven't had any problems yet, but the readme does say there are additional problems (e.g., with sleep mode) with the LS-4000.

 

The new Jaguar software apparently does not include a Photoshop plug-in, which may be why some people deny its existence. (I do not have Photoshop set up on my Mac system yet, so I haven't taken the time to verify that no plug-in is included.)

I have not had a problem right out of the box. There is a readme file that mentions a couple problems (basically, as summarized here: http://www.macnn.com/news.php?id=14336), but they don't really affect me. (Problems with "sleep mode" if you're using an LS4000 or 8000, and problems saving in PICT format, which I have not had occasion to do.)

 

If you know of other specific problems people have been experiencing, maybe I can test them out for you (and me).

Funny you should ask. I just picked up a Nikon Coolscan IV ED today... Yes, it ships with software compatible with Jaguar -- I've been scanning all day with no problem. And I'm very happy with it -- seems far better than the HP S20 I used with my old pee cee system.