venicia_l

John,<p>

I reported this a long time ago. I've seen others report it. Like so many other software shortcomings here, it's obviously not important enough for the management to care about fixing. Add it to the long list<p>

VL

I get 40-50 job requests submitted to our company a year. A resume with such an item would be relegated to the round file without further ado.<p>

VL

Your first response was right on the money. Ratings, ratings, ratings. What childish nonsense!<p>

It's not enough that some participants expect only the highest ratings, but they play this site as though it's a contest for accumulated ratings. As though one's Photo net ratings average has some actual significance.<p>

I suppose they think that after accumulating some grand total, they can cash the points in for a prize. Or put it in their resume. "I had the highest average for Photo.net Aesthetics and Originality for 2005!"<p>

Amazing.<p>

VL

It just really annoys me to have people complaining that the Photo.net software is lacking. Real photographers don't need graphical interfaces or slick software that actually works to appreciate good photography. In fact, I think this site really does too much hand-holding and enabling of contributors who constantly demand too much.<p>

There would be nothing wrong at all with Photo.net being completely text oriented. No images at all. Any one who couldn't appreciate the characteristics of an image by its text description alone has no business calling himself or herself a photographer.<p>

The change would save Brian an enormous amount of work and give him much more time to run all the calculations he does on all the useless data the site generates. Why, he could carry out his various statistical analyses on ratings to far more decimal places than presently done (never mind that the meaningless numbers are single digits to begin with).<p>

I for one, would be so happy for him if he wouldn't have to ask for the millionth time, "Well instead of just complaining, what features do you think the site is lacking?"<p>

What's important around here anyhow? A site that works or a content administrator? Y'know what I'm saying?<p>

VL

You sensitive guys really do me!<p>

VL

<b> Jean-Philippe,</b> <p>

Your "talent" never goes up. Technique? Hopefully. But talent is something you bring with you before you ever start.<p>

<b> Bob,</B> <p>

Why are critiques few and far between? Why are ratings few and meaningless?<p>

Maybe those who are associated with the administration of this site need to pull their heads out from the dark hiding places they've put them and recognize the poor and diminishing sense of community the site has, fostered by the cavalier attitude admin has toward 1. membership, 2. abuse of ratings, 3. lack of meaning of the rating "system," 4. lack of ability of most contributors to have their images display in a way that could ever result in exposure and 5. the continued lack of relevence and consistency of any of the numbers the site generates about any image.<p>

VL

The FAQ section of any site is:<p>

1. An attempt by the regulars to avoid answering the same question for the millionth time, not just to newcomers, but to anyone who has not participated in a particular discussion.<p>

It's wishful thinking that it will work. Poor babies, those regulars who are just, oh so weary of dealing with <i> that </i> issue again.<p>

2. To newcomers, a dense list of boring "homework lessons" to be ignored that snotty regulars think they have a right to demand be read before "membership" is granted.<p>

How many FAQ lists have <i> you </i> read before participating here or elesewhere?<p>

VL

I haven't used the rating system since last year. I never will. It's a useless, meaningless, waste of time. And I think discussion of it is the most wearisome issue on these boards.<p>

But how is a new member to know that your otherwise unqualified slap at his time in-country is anything other than a put dowm? There are about a hundred ways you could have said that these issues have been raging here in almost as few words as you used. And you just <i> might </i> have gotten an ally out of your effort.<p>

And don't tell me he could have searched first before he brought up the issue. This site is as impenetrable to search efforts as it gets. Besides, doing such a serach before bringing up a topic on an Internet forum is not a part of normal human behavior.<p>

VL

Yup. Anyone just having joined couldn't possibly have a legitmate idea. The reactionary response of members here to object to ideas based on length of membership is one of the worst mindsets permeating this place.<p>

The most prevalent response to any new idea here (from members and administration) is, "Go away. We like it the old way. We don't want any change."

What possible relevence has Petre's date of joining to do with his question? And do you appreciate how offensive your response is?<p>

VL

Always glad to help. And to be appreciated for having paid my fee! Why, how nice of you to mention that! But why, oh why, does there seem to be something nagging me about the message behind his words? Oh, It's probably just me!<p>

And on it goes.<p>

VL

re:<p>

"Also after many months of being a subscriber to this site I have to say that I am generally appalled by the attitude of many of the moderators towards subscribers. As has already been mentioned we give to the site not just take from it. I can whole heartedly say that since I have been using this site I have not seen one idea from a subscriber has been implemented to tackle the problems of mate rating, bots (which incidentally are real), abuse, or any of the other problems that affect this site."<p>

You are so right. The responses from the site admin are either hostile and self-serving, or a mixed bag of excuses that the admins are terribly overworked and underpayed and that we really should be greatful and appreciative of the work they are doing. The response above that the abuse line is a volunteer position and that we should be sensitive to the plight of the poor volunteer, who after all, gets to do nothing but listen to complaints . . . is typical.<p>

The other constant response by the "old-timers" to requests for simple and straight-forward, changes to the site's frustrating, creaking, technical and design deficiencies, is, "Go away, we like it the way it's always been, with all its warts."<p>

In fact, it's quite amazing to read these responses. The Internet, if nothing else, is a constantly moving target of evolving technology. "Standards" and processes are obsolete as soon as they are used, if not before. Software and its capabilities are always improving, and the nerds who sit on operations such as this are usually loathe to allow anything new to escape their use.<p>

But on this site we have the equivalent of software Luddites who's attitude is, "If it was good enough for our founder it's damn-well good enough for everyone! This site was put together with code written with a piece of charcoal on the back of a shovel and we're proud to keep it that way. We're not going to change anything without a fight. Who ever said newer is better??!!! Bah!!! So the site is hard to use and is really, really quirky. BFD!!!"<p>

Having realized this about the site, I hardly contribute at all anymore, other than to write disgruntled, unappreciated, unwelcome responses like this which accomplish nothing but to get me further labeled as a troublemaker by the surly site admin.<p>

Cheers!

VL

Jeff,

Really? What have copyright lawyers told you in those classes? No I'm not a lawyer. I've handled graphic image reproduction for a lifetime.<p>

From what we currently know of this situation, why do you think Michele would prevail? From what we currently know, in what way does the painting violate copywrite law? Does Michele hold a copyright on the image?<p>

How about this:<p>

Sam designs and builds a unique and beautiful wooden rocking chair. While resembling every rocking chair before it, it is unlike any other in its lines, proportions and construction. No one can remember or identify a rocking chair built of the particular tropical hardwoods or the combination and juxtapsoition of woods that Sam uses. It is immediately recognized as a superior artistic effort and brings Sam recognition and fame and fortune. He becomes a successful rocking chair manufacturer as well as a maker of other pieces. The chair, however is his mark on the world and becomes an instantly recognized icon among knowlegeable buyers. Does Sam have copyright on his chair?<p>

Others appreciate the form and craftsmanship the chair represents. They strive to achieve the level of perfection embodied in it. They study it. Some buy a chair to disassemble it to understand the mechanical construction of the leg to seat joints and the proportions of the laminated and gracefully-tapered rocker rails. They copy every line and curve. They use the same woods and finishising materials that Sam uses. When referring to the actual design, they don't call it a "rocking" chair, they call it a "Sam" chair, and their woodworking ability is judged on the degree to which they are able to replicate a "Sam." They don't have Sam's permission to do any of this. But they proudly show their work in woodworking shows and exhibits. Are they guilty of copyright violation?<p>

VL

Michele,<p>

Something is just a little unbelievable here.<p>

You "found" a painting of one of your photographs on the Internet?! Just how did you manage to do do that?<p>

This painting is certainly a highly faithful reproduction of the photograph. But, by chance, on the whole Internet, you just happened to "find" this painting made by an artist who selected your work to copy exactly?!! What are the odds?<p>

So, Michele, what exactly IS your relationship with this painter?<p>

OK, accepting that this highly unlikely juxtaposition of photographer and painter actually has occured, and after we all agree that this is technically "copyright violation," (it is), I advise you to move on.<p>

I have been involved in the world of reproduction of graphic images and copyright issues for years. Yes, you could "prove" that you have the copyright to this image (it is inconceivable that you could have created the photograph after viewing his painting), but the chances that you could ever gain any compensation for that fact is vanishingly small.<p>

The most that you could hope to succeed in accomplishing, even if the painter has sold his work for payment, is a request that he desist. Once he has sold it, that hardly matters. If he paints another one, he could be warned again. Big deal.<p>

You would have to prove harm from his sale of his painting in order to be awarded damages. You would have to PROVE that sales of your photograph had suffered due to the presence of his painting in the open market. You would have to present marketing studies, testimony from witnesses that they preferred his painting to your photograph. Even then, you would not be able to collect. More important, it would be impossible for you to prove harm, because the court would rule that the two of you are not in competition because you work in different media.<p>

Lastly, the court would rule that while you did take the photograph, that there is nothing unique in your work and that you did not create the composition or tell the man to sit there or control the lighting, etc in any way that would be true of a studio shot where you could actually claim authorship of the scene. Street scenes are essentially public and it doesn't matter that a painter used your photograph as a reference of a public scene.<p>

The judge would say you were wasting the court's time in your pursuit of copywrite protection. So don't waste yours. "Yes," he would say, the copyright is yours. Now go away.".<p>

VL

Brian,<p>

Thanks for confirming my description of your attitude. (Come on Brian, do you really think I'm a sweetie?)<p>

Bob,<p>

I frankly don't really care that much. But if I read one more time how tough the Sysop has it, I'll puke. If it is so hard for him, and if it is so terrible that he has to put up with the opinions of contributors on a site designed to allow people to publish their opinions, and if he is barely making enough personally to survive (his complaint), and if he works such long hours, why does he continue.<p>

I don't agree that his direction is what is making this site grow. I think he has acquired a GOOD THING and doesn't know how good he has it. But like so many others who have learned their "business sense" on the isolation and annonymity of the Net, he is wildly out of touch with the courtesy and thought that is required in the real business world.<p>

Interestingly, that is also true for the great majority of the participants here who care not one wit about the site, participation nor photography itself for that matter. They come here in droves to post their images, because they have digital cameras, it is easy to post and they then have recognition. And Brian then has numbers. And those numbers translate into revenue because advertisers still recognize raw numbers as meaningful (amazingly).<p>

It's a curious, fragile and flawed business model that persists. What do I know? I guess if you drive enough cattle past an advertising banner, enough of them blindly buy enough merchandise to justify the cost of advertising.<p>

VL

Regarding the entire first paragraph, I'm sorry Brian, but you really do NOT understand the concept of customer service. And you view censorship as the answer to complaints. When my subscription runs out, I will not renew for THAT reason alone.<p>

As for the second comment, then implement them.<p>

I make my living in this profession. The river doesn't flow to my door. I have long ago recognized the need to implement excellence for its own sake. And customer relations is the bedrock of my company. Mediocrity is death.<p>

Right now the river IS flowing to your door, and you are concluding that it always will. You are very wrong. You react to criticism with defensiveness. And you are very arrogant. And I've used up the few minutes that I care to spare on this site as a member of the minority giving you honest feedback.<p>

VL

Brian,<p>

You're like the guy who says nothing but, "NO!" in the credit card commercial. All you have said to many posters over many months, asking for a variety of improvements is, NO!." Now you want me to enumerate ways in which the site can be improved. Excuse me, but your message strikes me as just a bit ingenuous.<p>

How about the ability to enter formatted text here without resorting to inline HTML? How about a unified "look" in all areas of the site? How about the ability to search for images by their category. How about an update of the categories into something relevent? How about the ability to navigate easily throughout the site? How about redesigning the confusing labyrinth of site pages into a coherent, structured hierarchy? How about the ability to view, comment and rate images without becoming lost in the maze? How about paying attention to the people who are complaining about the horrible rating system?<p>

You have concluded that the complainers are in the small minority because you are growing so fast, and the great majority of users say nothing. Continue to ignore the minority of people who are the only ones to actually give you feedback at your own peril, Brian.<p>

VL

"If the software does not serve the customers, why are they all here?"<p>

Because the Internet is like a firehose. It delivers "customers" no matter how good or bad the site is. Also, many are here because other problems at at other photography sites make them equally bad in their own ways. That is absolutely no consolation or recommendation for this site!<p>

" photo.net was designed before all those bullletin board packages existed. A cranky site is the price you pay for being a pioneer."<p>

That's the kind of BS and reactionary thinking that is the core problem and that hampers any improvement. So you admit it is cranky. Funny, I don't remeber that being a desireable attribute of software. There is no justification for cranky. No one who paid a membership paid for cranky.<p>

"It is a wonder it has scaled as well as it has."<p>

If it's a wonder, then you are only confirming that the software is wanting. For the record it hasn't scaled well.<p>

VL

Kieran,<p>

As evident by the responses, the attitude here is counter to constructive criticism of almost any kind. The fact that you were castigated for being a newcomer is indicative of the entrenchment here. In fact, it takes new eyes to notice the problems, which are glaring.<p>

The Sysop cries that he is overworked and underpayed whenever someone advocates any upgrade of the system. (Poor baby. Maybe he needs to do something else, because his frustration is expressed as anger and resentment toward his customers) The system is seriously out of date. It is NOT just a matter of preference for particular software. The old software does NOT serve the viewers well at all. Worse, it is so hard to make changes that the only response we get to such requests is to go away and be quiet. Customer relations or customer service is not a concept that the site understands well, if at all. The decision maker(s) sees rapid growth (a fact that has NOTHING to do with the quality of the site) as a justification for status quo.<p>

Quality software and programming should not only provide good services, but should also allow rapid and painless improvements or corrections when they are needed. This site is creaking under its own weight. It is a classic example of a poorly designed system, put together with little anticipation of the need for growth or change, running on antiquated (read obsolete) software. No amount of justification that, "We like it the way it is," changes that.<p>

VL

A hundred years ago, he would have been one of the loudest objectors, refusing to "allow" photographers to be considered artists. Only "true" painters needed to apply then.<p>

This kind of idiocy always finds some zealots as champions.<p>

VL

Bob,<p>

re: "Anyone who causes the forum moderators a disproportionate amount of work is known as an "expensive user". They consume more than their share of resources. Whether they do this directly or indirectly doesn't matter. When such users become more of a burden and a liability than an asset, it's time to thank them for their contributions, but regretfully inform them of the fact that they have outstayed their welcome."<p>

What arrogant hostility! So, someone who intelligently has an honest difference of opinion with the moderator(s) is as unwelcome as an offensive lout whose only purpose is to offend?<p>

An "expensive user!" Thanks for revealing such contempt of your patrons.<p>

VL

Way to go guys!<p>

An "Atta Boy" for you Monoxide, and a "You're our hero, Brian" award to, um . . . Brian.<p>

*whew* We all will sleep better tonight!<p>

VL

Brian,<p>

Exactly then, how many angels <i> can </i> actually dance on the head of a pin? If 1000 actually have both feet on the pin head, but one only has one foot down, is he (she) to be considered a dancer, or just an interloper?<p>

Let's see now, if I use a split ND filter plus a warm polarizer, thus eliminating a huge shaft of flare and and capture an exposure range normally outside the capability of my film "underexposing" by a stop and pushing the film in hot developer, and print the image with judicious use of dodging and burning, I am not "manipluating."<p>

But if I use an image editing program to "clone" out a single TV antenna in an otherwise pristine pastoral scene, I am guilty of manipulation and somehow I have <i> deceived </i> the viewer? Why? Is it necessary that my image be judged by standards meant to apply to forensic data?<p>

Lord save me from you people who know nothing about photography but have come to this craft because the digital "revolution" has made yet another art form available to the great unwashed. Save me from the petty minds that clamp, vise-like and pedantically onto tiny minutiae and apply them as <i> <b> Rules </i> </b>.

I guess you have nothing better to do, Brian than deal in such anal exercises. "Manufactured" pixels? Good, God. Give me a break!<p>

Photography is and has always been the abstraction of reality. There is nothing "real" about a photographic image. It does <i> not </i> duplicate reality, no matter how "real" the final image looks. It is only an abstraction. And being an abstraction, the image is fair game to <i> any </i> changes the artist sees fit to make. Whether something which was technically in the optical path of the lens is, or is not, ultimately allowed to register on the final viewed image, is of absolutely no consequence.<p>

It matters not if I eliminate the TV antenna by post-processing cloning, or by changing the camera position when I make the shot. As long as a forensic use of the image is never the intention.<p>

Thank God I have spent decades in this industry during the time my abilities to make my client look good by all manner of technical manipulation, trickery, sleight-of-hand, other tricks-of-the-trade and just basic complete understanding and control of my materials (can you say, "Ansel Adams?") have been called "professional competence", and not subjected to this ignorant manipulation flagellation phenomenon.<p>

Gary Woodard said all this much more eloquently, "How silly."<p>

VL

Here's how to completely eliminate getting irate email as the result of perceived "poor" ratings:<p>

Don't rate!<p>

I haven't rated an image in many months and don't intend to ever use the rating system again (at least not in its current form). It is meaningless, misleading and generally misused. The current rating system has so little relationship to any attribute of an image as to be useless. And if its purpose is for the site to have a way to rank images for display (or for other statistical reasons), well, garbage in, garbage out.<p>

I leave comments on images that interest me (negatively or positively) and try to constructively critique the image (don't know if I always succeed). Aside from one particularly nasty contributor here, I have never gotten any "hate" email for my efforts.<p>

VL

It's obvious that manual focus 645 lenses function as manual focus lenses on the autofocus camera bodies. But they also lose auto stop-down diaphragm on the AF camera? Is that certain?<p>

Stopping down a lens manually is an unbelievably difficult task to accomplish in any but the most static of shooting situations. I had a "preset" lens on a Pentax H3V many, many, many years ago. Photographers using such a setup invariably resorted to shooting everything wide open.<p>

I'm not aware of any other auto focus camera-lens combination that loses auto diaphragm when using manual focus lenses. I'm interested in this camera, but not at such a penalty just because I don't need autofocus.<p>

VL

And Brian has <i> <b> zero </i> </b> interest in any of this discussion or any suggestion about change.<p>

VL