arashdejkam

Bob, the file I uploaded was 88k and dimension was 600x451 (you can see as I attached the oringinal file to my first message), isn't this within limit ? seems the system recompresses all files regardless of size and dimension.

I tried to upload the file again, this time the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1623381&size=lg">result</a> was much better (still not perfect), seems a more generous box processed my photo this time :))

I saw some other complaints about image quality reduced after

uploading in this forum, I'm posting this again to see how severe

this problem becomes in some cases. this is the image after

uploading:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=1623004&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=1623004&size=lg</a>

and the image attached is the original before uploading.

look at the cracks on the ball! it seems quite out of focus in the

uploaded file ! I personally give 4 to original and 2 to uploaded

file :)

by the way, don't comment on the uploaded file I'm going to delete it.

hope to see this problem solved in future.

 

Regards,

Arash Dejkam<div></div>

What you're looking for is here:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1481">http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1481</a>

Hi all,

 

Photos in folders are sorted from old to new, IMO it should be

reversed, everybody likes his/her new photos to be seen first. I see

some photographers have created folders called 'new photos'

or 'latest works' etc... to solve this problem. I think it's as easy

as changing a single db query string, isn't it ?

 

Arash

<p>It's very interesting for me that most of the replies to my message are condemning me for posting this here and not condemning the "rating in revenge". almost justifying it! thanks! I learned something from you that when someone gives a 2/2 to you in revenge he is a man with sportsmanship but when you say it you are a kid!

maybe this is because he is a patron and I'm not ?? but I don't think being a patron is just paying that 25$.

<p>I posted that message because I like this website and don't like to see such behaviour in it, when I come here I feel I'm in a photography club or something and not a website, I've been in web publishing industry myself and know how hard it is to achieve this! I can't pay because it's hard to transfer money from where I live but I am ready to give any help to keep this website going.

<p>What disturbed me was not the 2/2 rating but the obvious rating in revenge (this is what a 5 year old kid does when you take his toy). I'm not here for the ratings but for creative comments I get on my photos, I was just trying to help others by rating their photos while it doesn't have anything for myself, I used the random rating because it's in the pull down menu on the first page and when something's there it means "we encourage you to use it" and I think the meaning of random rating is just rate what you see without knowing who the photographer is or what he says, at least the design of the interface says this to me.

<p>thanks for your attention.

Arash

I'm new here and was not taking the "rating in revenge" seriously so

tried at least once to rate <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=1597207&photo_sel_index=1#photo">a photo that I don't

like</a>, and gave it 2/2. in less than 20 minutes I received a 2/2

on <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1589194">one

of my photos</a> from the same photographer :)<br>

is this common? seems its better just to rate photos that I like, or

don't take the ratings seriously at all.

Yes, exactly.

IMO This smile which seemed mysterious to some viewers is because of combination of opposites:

She is equally selfish and kind! and I think frowning to the sun while at the same time trying to keep smiling to the camera has pushed these characteristics and lets both appear in her face at the same time with high contrast.

Remy, Thanks for your reply! I knew its not a new idea. I usually like to find out something myself and then suddenly see that it's written in a book. I may have wasted my time but at least I've trained my mind how to solve such problems :)

by the way, we probably have good and bad shadowy areas. I hope mentioning the setting above as a good one can help some people.

 

Arash

<p>Hi everybody,</p>

 

<p>In past year I've been more reading about photography than

actually taking photos, only lately after I got my Minolta D7i I was

able to experience what I was reading during this time.</p>

<p>What I read in many references was that "light at high noon is not

good for photography because of very high contrast and harsh shadows"

which I personally experienced when I used to take photos with my old

35mm Pentax K1000.</p>

<p>but in that very "high noon" one can find places with perfect

lighting situation which I think can hardly be achieved even with

sophisticated lighting equipment.<br>

here is my experience and the story behind this photo:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=1582607">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=1582607</a>

</p>

 

<p>Me and the subject (my sister!) where in the balcony, the roof was

preventing direct sun light so the main light was skylight (not

sunlight) coming from left (relative to my position), also the light

colored wall about 1 meter to the right, the roof at about 2 meters

high from subject and the floor about 1 meters below the subject

where acting as reflectors. the result was perfect light with soft

shadows but still powerful that I could take the photo with 1/500

shutter speed at F3.5 (otherwise I couldn't prevent camera shake at

200mm focal length without a tripod). however I had to darken the

edge of the balcony in PS later which was under direct sunlight and

was overexposed.</p>

 

<p>what do you think? how is the resulting photo? have I been

waisting my time thinking too much ? :)</p>

 

<p>Arash Dejkam</p>