jay belton

I too like the names right above the posts. When I first joined it

was a while for me before I realized that the author was

underneath. It reads more like a traditional forum this new way

and it's easier on the eyes. <P>

Thanks Brian! :)

I think the comment itself should drop down one line rather than

immediately follow the name and time stamp. That's about it.

Everything else is sweet. :)

It's true. No one appreciates my pure genius. How can you deny

it? And yet only one poor soul came around to throw a rate at it.

And it was a 2/2. Not the kind you wear mind you. I suppose a

two for originally because everyone has photographed this?

Hmmm.... I've been searching photo.net and haven't found one.

Tis very curious. You judge.<P>

<A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/1734607"

>Oh Poo!</A><P>

<I>(take the bait, take the bait... Bwah-hahahahaha!....)</I>

Actually I'm interested on why I can't rate myself and why the past

ones were deleted. Letting everyone know how I feel about my

own shots is not appropriate? I just started doing this and now

I'm wondering what the harm was? I rated a 5/4 on one and 4/4

on the other. What's the big woo here?

Generally, I just don't bother requesting critiques anymore. I

hardly ever get any feedback. Since ratings are more important to

the site I don't expect this to ever be changed fairly. I joined to get

constructive criticism. It just doesn't happen. I get much better

feedback at the other photo sites since comments are required

for critiques. You should join one of the other ones as well.

OK. Big duh on my part there.

Yes, I'm referring to 35mm reels. My question seems to be moot

right now because I seem to have misplaced the cap! The 4 reel

tank uses a stainless steel lid and cap. The single reel I have

has a plastic lid and cap. As fate would have it the plastic one

does NOT fit on the 4 reel tank. I'm stuck doing one at a time.

As Murphy would have it, I just saw it two weeks ago when I was

rebuilding my darkroom. Argh. :)

I'm OK with it because it just means each roll gets special

attention. :)

Hi,

I have a four reel stainless steel tank, 32oz. I haven't used it

for a while and can't remember if it's classified as a small or

large tank. Kodak's website says 8oz & 16oz for small and

1/2 - 3 1/2 gallons for large. This one's twice as big as a small

and half the size of the 1/2 gallon. I guess it's medium. :)

Would you develop as a small tank or large tank for this? I just

got back from vacation in Arizona and have 9 rolls to do.

Thanks!

Thanks Andrew! I didn't know about that site. It kicks! :)<P>

<B>Lex:</B> You're right. After perusing digitaltruth.com I found

that there is only a 15 sec difference in the development

guidelines for XTOL 1:1 (68º) with both Tri-X's at 400. So the

"new" formula for Tri-X does leave room for scepticism.

However, I did notice that PlusX is quite different. 7.5 min for the

old formula and 6.25 for the new utilizing XTOL. An important

note for myself there.<P>

Thanks guys! :)

Hi,

Can some one help me determine if Tri-X on the J-109

technical sheet at the Kodak website for XTOL is for the new

or the old Tri-X? I have rolls of both and I know that delevopment

times have changed for the new Tri-X. If it's for the new one

where can I find times for the old? Or vice-versa.

The box itself for the old does not include XTOL and on the new

boxes it only shows times for 1:0.

Thanks! :)

Thanks Jorge!

That's what I thought but I just wanted to be sure. :)

Thanks a lot...

Hi,

This is my first time mixing the powdered based XTOL. I'm a

little confused about the directions. (Or the simplicity of the

pictures).

I get 4 liters of water.

Then mix in part A.

Then part B.

Then it just shows a picture with 5 liters next to it. Do I, add

another liter OR do I add water until it is 5 liters. I know there will

be some water displacement once I add the powder. I'm

guessing I add water until it equals 5 liters and shouldn't add

another whole liter.

Thanks! :)

To me critique and rating are two different things. This thread

started off talking about ratings but was called <I>Share Your

Interpretation of Critique</I>. (?)<P>

All I'll say is that this current system is very frustrating to me. I've

grown extremely tired of "Requesting Critiques." I even put in the

caption of my latest request "(please critique in lieu of rating)." It

doesn't matter. I still get ratings and no critiques.<P>

I wish the system would not allow just a rating number if the

photo has been specificially put up for critique. Especially when

I get an unsensible rating with no feedback. 2/2 I don't

understand how this is critiquing and I don't understand how it's

supposed to help me improve. Ok. I personally feel on a rating

scale it's 5=O & 4=A. Apparently they've seen this shot before?

What does it mean?<P>

I don't think the ratings systems should go at all (before

someone says that I do). I don't care when photos get rated that

I'm not looking for feedback on. But when I ask for critiques, I

expect critiques.<P>

Vent off.

After the shot, people who use traditional camera techniques

have a lot time invested. It's not like PS where if you make a

mistake you can Ctrl-Z it. It's pretty much start all over again in

the darkroom. The technical expertise it takes to do it is not

really appreciated by people who haven't tried it. I've done

dodging and burning in PS. I like it, it's a breeze. But the

darkroom means patience and stamina. And I hate it. So why

do I do it still? -- I have a greater enjoyment of my work when I

know I did it the traditional way.<P>

What kills me is stuff like, I recently had a critique on another

site, where I was told, "this is OK but it can be done better in

photoshop." And someone else said: "You should have taken

an underexposed copy of this shot and then masked it with this

one in photoshop. The highlights are washed out, soft and kind

of glowing." -- Kodak HIE film. Yeh, there's no special handling,

patience or uniqueness for that stuff. Screw halation. Do it in

photoshop. And It's a total lack of respect. But I just let it go...<P>

I like PS stuff. But when someone critiques my FILM shots

based upon how it can be done in PS.... that's when I'm

perturbed. It's completely unhelpful since I use film.<P>

To spell it out. When the two are separated the film shots can be

identified and appreciated for their technical value and merits.

We can get feedback that actually pertains to what we are doing.

Not what we should do with it in PS. It has nothing to do with

discrimination. The fact that you think it is... is well... kind of

weird. Sorry. But it is....<P>

By the way, I don't really <B>need</B> or want a separate area.

It would be too confusing. (Unless someone talks me into it).

Administrators: I added [snip] to protect emails. If you need this

info let me know and I will email it to you directly.<P>

Uh... I never even knew about this topic. It's something that at I

wouldn't be interested in at this time. Yet:<P>

<pre>

Return-Path: <[snip]@mail.pt>

Received: from smtp.netcabo.pt (smtp.netcabo.pt

[212.113.174.9])

by hotcity.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h65JgQS8002783

for <[snip]@[snip].com>; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:42:29 -0700

Received: from oemcomputer ([213.22.180.150]) by

smtp.netcabo.pt with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329);

Sat, 5 Jul 2003 20:40:38 +0100

From: [snip]@mail.pt

Subject: Response to Durst 139 G Negative Carrier/ Glass or

Glassless?

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

boundary="----------LPPXPC09SNCY2J"

Bcc:

Message-ID:

<EXCH01SMTP01EBtKarv00008097@smtp.netcabo.pt>

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2003 19:40:39.0007 (UTC)

FILETIME=[4FEDA6F0:01C3432D]

Date: 5 Jul 2003 20:40:39 +0100

Status:

David Goldfarb ([snip]@[snip].edu) responded to a message you

requested notification for in the Large format photography

bboard:

Subject: Response to Durst 139 G Negative Carrier/ Glass or

Glassless?

I prefer glass, but you do have more surfaces to dust and keep

clean. You can

also get anti-newton glass from www.stephenshuart.com.

-----------------

To post a response, come back to the bulletin board at

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004LK

D

Content-Type: application/x-msdownload; name="Backline

list.sdw.pif"

Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Backline

list.sdw.pif"

Attachment converted: Pump It Up!:Backline list.sdw.pif

(????/----) (001B5135)

</pre>

Autosubmit is when you select an originality rating and an

aesthetic rating. It will "autosubmit" immediately after you make

selections without hitting the submit button. "Explicit submit" will

only submit your ratings when you hit the submit button.

OK, yeah that's how I personally meant it plus teasing. But I

wrote him anyway just in case. You know how us artists can get

easily rattled sometimes. I'm one. I admit it. :)<P>

Ok off to see my shrink now. Toodles!

What does avoid rating mean? That they want to say that they

don't like it but fear revenge if they rate or something?<P>

Oh no. I hope that's not what it means because I was teasing

someone in that manner that I felt to be a friend. This sucks. I

hope I didn't piss him off. I didn't know there was a clique

meaning to this... :(<P>

I need to write him now...

Thanks Seven. I misunderstood its purpose I guess. I thought it

was something like the POTW.

You have notoriety. Debate and disagreement over you. This is

something that every artist dreams of.... You have arrived.

I was wondering when does "this week's featured critics"

change? It's been the same people for a month. Or is it a typo

and should read "of our featured critics." I've been waiting to see

who the next ones were.... waiting in vain? :-}

Hello, my name is James and I'm.... I'm...<P>

I'm a photo.net-aholic. There I said it.<P>

Good job Jimmie.

At the risk of trying to be helpful again and getting my head bit off

again....(I'm guessing you guys have been fighting over this for a

long time so become automatically defensive).<P>

<B>< Feeble > </B><BR>

Would it be helpful to make the "Top Photos" default something

other than "Top Ratings?" Say, "Sum of Ratings." How I see it

right now. Hypothetically, I can piss 50 people off, get them all to

1/1 me and voilà! Because it defaults to "top ratings" I'm at the

top because I have the most ratings. Of course they're crap. But I

have the most. So with Anna, she has "friends" AND the

"rating-balancers." The TWO groups put her in the top even

faster. I know my idea doesn't help with a bunch of 7/7s but it's a

thought (?)<P>

Sidenote: All I ever wanted when I joined was some good

feedback so I could improve my skills. I didn't realize that the

ratings were so important. I guess I just don't understand the

system either because I just can't figure out how to improve my

work with ratings. The gallery is no big deal to me. Critique

Requests, THAT's a big deal to me. That's what I don't get. I

make a request, I get rated. Never critiqued. Am I missing

something?:( Seriously. It doesn't make sense to me.<BR>

<B>< / Feeble ></B><P>

Brian will probably get upset at me for the second half so please

email me.<P>

Thanks!<BR>

JB

Interesting. Why not just remove the ratings system all together?

It serves no useful purpose. At least without comments. Why

not require anyone leaving a rating no matter what level to leave

a comment. And require comments to be of a certain length.

Summation: If you rate, you comment, if you comment, it has to

be yeah long.<P>

You already have this mechanism in place. (Commenting

required for certain ratings) We may get less ratings but who

cares without constructive critism?<P>