Carl Stone

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p><img src=" alt="" /><br> Unintended selfie with iPhone 4s. </p>

<div></div>

<p>Scott, I use Safari pretty much exclusively, and I've never experienced the behavior that you mentioned, in either version 1.0 or 2.0. </p>

<p>Glenn, the person that you used as an example of a recent user freely admitted that this site has "great info", which is why photo enthusiasts come here. Dressing it all up in a filigree package, with unneeded bells and whistles doesn't really help those enthusiasts. </p> <p>Having all of those avatars in each thread title instead of the name of the thread originator is a waste of resources, IMO. Once in a thread, the text showing the poster's names lacks contrast, and for folks like me that have less than the greatest eyesight, it is a genuine PITA to decipher those names. One would not expect a lack of contrast for text on a photography website. </p> <p>The size of the posted images has shrunk with V2.0, surely not a good thing for the viewers of those images. </p> <p>JMO</p>

<p>Andrew is right, 1.0 works just fine. Adding eye candy, as V2.0 does, offers no real benefit to users. </p>

<p>With all due respect, "TRYING" offers little solace to users. V2.0 either works, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, then there is no justification to use it. </p> <p>An analogy that comes to mind would be jumping out of an airplane then 'TRYING' to fix your parachute on the way down. Good intentions are not a replacement for good results. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p><img src="https://www.dropbox.com/s/4n0kxqib49sm25i/DSCN1694.jpg?dl=0" alt="" /></p>

Well, I don't have a qualifying camera, but, I hope this POTW continues.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>