davidmccracken

<p>Josh,<br>

I do appreciate that I should have taken a screen shot but when my ears were abused, I shut the window down.<br>

It is strange that a company like 'Reckitt' would use dodgy ad servers to market their products. </p>

<p>There have been a lot of people complaining about adverts over the years. I realise that complaining about them rarely has any impact although you have, in certain cases, arranged to have certain ads removed.<br>

<br /> So here I am browsing a photo site (this photo site) and my ears get abused with a video advert WITH SOUND. I resent the fact that as a paying subscriber I have to put up with so many ads. However I am absolutely livid that my ears have to be abused in this way.<br>

<br /> The ad in question was for 'Harpic' which is a toilet cleaner here in the UK. I am fairly sure none of the photographers contributing to this site clean their cameras with toilet cleaner.<br>

<br /> Am I being unreasonable when I say that this is a new low?</p>

<p>I haven't a laugh so much in a long time. David Cavan's comment, <em><strong>"I don't even see the ads - I've become mostly blind to that stuff on web pages, and I wouldn't be surprised if I represent the majority of web users in that regard." </strong></em>is one of the funniest I have seen. While this comment made me laugh, I don't like is the arrogance of it. You do not represent me. I can remember the time when this site was pretty much ad free. Had the subscribers not made this site so popular, it wouldn't be attractive to advertisers. By all means throw as many ads at free users as you wish but stop increasing the amount of ads that paid subscribers see. </p>

<p>FWIW I have this problem when preparing a text in 'Word' and then pasting it into the comment box. Basically cut and pasting from another program is not a reliable way of doing it.</p>

<p>Thanks Lex. Where do I send the money? One point though... I think nudes is the most viewed section in this site.</p>

<p>The only 'rule' is concerning nudity. If there is any nudity in it, then it must be submitted in the nudes section. I really wouldn't give it too much thought. Certainly placing a picture of a tree in the portraits section does seem rather silly but perhaps this was just a slip of the mouse. Who knows? Try not to take things so seriously. Have fun and enjoy your photography.</p>

<p>I am guessing it won't be fixed until Monday. However, I am hoping to eat my words.</p>

<p>Found out how... feel free to delete this post... unless others want to know how to do it.</p>

 

<p>I accidently added an image to 'My Favourites' and can't find any way of removing it. Can anyone help?</p>

<p>Thanks for the explanation<em>(s)</em> Josh even though I am sad to see this feature disappear. Hopefully there will be a way to bring it back. It is a feature that I found ver useful.</p>

<p>I have just noticed that when I go to <em><strong>http://www.photo.net/pvt/home</strong></em> I can no longer see my most recently commented on photos. Was there any reason for removing this from the users home area? I really found this useful. Is there any chance that it will be brought back?</p>

<p>I guess if you are replacing a photograph that has not been submitted for rating or critique (certainly critique) then you should be allowed to do it. Personally I do not understand why this site allows people to change photos that have been submitted for critique. As soon as one comment is made on an image, the rest of the comments should be based on the same image. The system has the potential to be shambolic if all the comments refer to a different image.</p>

<p>99.9% of the time ALL numbers are useless. I guess they do let you know if someone liked or disliked an image but it doesn't tell you why they liked it or disliked it. It seems people are happy to receive 7s without an explanation but want an explanation if they receive a low number. Personally I think ALL ratings should require a comment but that isn't going to happen.I guess receiving a lot of ratings (with or without words) does tell you that the image had appeal <strong><a href="../photo/3090581">as is the case here</a></strong>. Personally, I do not think that is anywhere near my best image on this site but people did take the time to hit the numbers and thankfully quite a few left words too.<br>

I also find giving comments helps me improve my photography. If you truly want to improve, commenting on the work of others forces you to look at an image and tell yourself why you like or dislike it. Leave a number without a comment and you will more than likely forget the image. I am sure most of the photographers on this site have tried to emulate something they have seen and liked. Try to emulate what you like and learn from the process.</p>

<p>Josh,<br>

I definitely got it from the critique queue... 99.99% sure... You have got me thinking... it happens once in a while! (thinking I mean) Let's leave it and if it happens again... I will let you know.</p>

<p>I came over this image in the critique queue and left a comment. (http://www.photo.net/photo/10405910) However when I went to rate it the 'rate tab' was not there. As far as I can tell it has not been submitted for critique only. This has happened a couple of times today. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>You have requested 30 critiques. You have commented on only 1 photo. Does that tell you something?</p>

<p>It appears Bob was right. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction and thanks to the others who contributed too.</p>

<p>Here's an interesting one.</p>

<p>I was using a 5D MkII the other day and using mixed lighting sources of available natural light, some tungsten and 3 speedlites fired remotely with an ST-E2. I take a shot of a large white card filling the frame. When attempting to set the white balance I get the message "Correct WB may not be obtained with the selected image"</p>

<p>Taking a shot without the speedlites was fine. White balance could be set. Also using a single speedlite on the camera allowed me to set the white balance. (If I bounced it.) Interestingly though, using one speedlite firing straight at the white card gave me the same error message.</p>

<p>Does anyone have a definitive answer as to why I cannot set the WB? I never had any problems before when using a 5D.</p>

<p>"Having anonymous ratings is good"<br /><br />No it is not. Nor is having any rating without a comment!</p>

<p>Lex, If there are so many people who like ratings ONLY, the site should provide a medium for them to submit for rating only. As I have said many times before, we are submitting our photos for critique. Should someone wish to rate it, then a critique should be mandatory. All my humble opinion you understand.</p>

<p>And Val has rated 356 photographs and commented on 43. Perhaps practising what you preach would be a good starting point!</p>

<p>Yesterday when uploading a photo I kept getting the 503 (or was it 504) error. After about 8 attempts I gave up only to find the image had uploaded. I guess that is what has been happening here with the duplicate posts although thankfully my image didn't upload multiple times.</p>

<p>You could try critiquing or commenting on photos you like, telling the person why you like it or why you don't. Personally, I think handing out ratings without a comment is just plain silly!</p>

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>"I though the idea was to help other people."</p>

<p>Yes! I like to help people who want to be helped. It is my opinion that those who expect comments / critiques and don't give them out don't want help. These people just want their egos stroked.</p>

<p>I look forward to it Josh!</p>