PeterKrenek

I gave up. I installed Firefox. I had to log in almost after every click on the Photo.net...

I shall remember to copy the message if it occurs again. I use no proxies or gateways.

Jin, I tried the workaround, it did not help. You may perhaps see from the number of my logins that it happens often. Sometimes I get an error message from PN when logging in (if I get it again I shall post its text). After that I can access my workspace.

I have upgraded to Internet Explorer 8. Since then, it often happens that I am prompted to login although I had

chosen to "remember me" on the computer. It happens regardless of whether I run the photo.net in Compatibility

mode or not. Cookies are enabled. Anyone else experiencing this ?

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Josh, to prevent possible bias (and calm down people who are afraid who fear that somebody gave them a bad rating maliciously, e.g. to knock them off the TRP or to artificially move another image up in the TRP) would it not be better if the raters were unable to know the identity of the photographer until the rating has been given ? This way, the rating would be truly anonymous. Such a system works well e.g. in admission procedures for schools, where the identity of the applicant is concealed to the examination board during the writing and evaluation of the test.

Hello. The Follow-up of comments does not appear to work correctly. I have responded to comments on my photo

(http://www.photo.net/photo/5869745) and still in Follow-up I see that there are 18 new comments.

Anyone else having a similar problem ?

Richard, you say that you are not too confident in the resolution of 35 mm film. Have you actually tried printed that size ? What emulsions are you using ? It may matter very much. I shoot mostly Velvia 100F (35 mm) scan it at 4000 dpi and regularly print 12x18 at 300 dpi (about 20 MPx). Printing with the same amount of data at lower dpi (bit less than 240) after upscaling to 16x24 does not result in a significant deterioration (at least with this film). Bear in mind that the viewing distance is a bit longer for larger prints. To come back to your question, if you do want to produce highest quality 16x24 prints at 300 dpi without interpolation, you need 4800x7200 resolution (35 Mpx). If you scan your 6x7 slides at 4000 dpi, you get about 100 MPx. Of course, this is a theoretical figure, but the actual resolution with a good film and lenses shall be superior to what a 5D would provide you with. On the other hand, a 5D would enable you to use your old lenses and give you extra flexibility. You have to know what matters more for you. Best wishes. Peter

Hello,

 

as it is the right time at the northern hemisphere and I have not found many pictures of fireflies (or their trails), I would

like to encourage you to post a link to an image, suggest a technique of how to best perform this uneasy task, or try

yourself and post the result. I tried this last year, to no avail (film, ISO 200 was not enough). Crazy idea, but I believe

the results may be interesting.

 

Thank you.

 

Peter

Now I see it has been updated.

I have a similar problem, I uploaded a new version (a better scan) of an image that had already been critiqued. It did not resolve after >24 h. Curiously, the thumbnail has changed, but not the image itself. Tried to clear the cache, but this did not help.

Josh, I reposted <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7235659">the photo</a> about 12 hours ago. Again I cannot find it when filtering for Photo Category "Landscape", Timeframe "Past 3 days", Sort By "Recent Ratings (average)" = default. The photo has received 5 anonymous ratings (A:5.60, O:6.20), which is more than many images retreived by the filter have. I can only find it in the TRP if I select All ratings (average). Is this OK ?

I tried again, now it works. The system remembers, though, the previous image that had been loaded and then it transfers you to the one you clicked.

Josh, I noticed this, too. After cleaning my cache, it worked correctly, but on a following visit to the site, the problem was there again. There is probable a bug, I suppose we should not clean the cache each time we revisit the site.

Thank you, Josh, I understand. I guess I'll repost the image later on, to see if this was a temporary glitch.

Past 3 days

Josh, although I found the image using the procedure advised by Fred, I am puzzled that it does not appear if I use the default "Sort By" option, i.e. Recent Ratings (average). Much less images (150 compared to 888 using the "All ratings (average)" appear this way. In addition, when I filter Photo Category for "Landscape" (where I posted), my photo does not appear among the 46 images retrieved by the filter. I was not upset that the photo did not appear, but rather I wanted to let you know that something might be wrong. Perhaps the issue is related to the very recent changes to PN.

Sorry for the broken link. Here is the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00PLZz&photo_id=7219740&photo_sel_index=0">correct one</a>.

Hello. I cannot find my photo in the top rated, although it received 7

anonymous ratings and I uploaded it the day of submission. In the top rated I

find photos with lower average ratings. Have I done anything wrong ? The photo

in question is:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00PLZz&photo_id=7219740&photo_sel_index=0

 

Thank you.

 

Peter Krenek

Barry, Josh, thank you both for your answers. I understand the nature of the upgrade better now. I will be patient. Peter

Josh, I believed the latest upgrade of the Photo.net would also bring a

solution to a problem I mentioned several times. The Photo Critique Mail

Summary ("E-mail alerts" in My workspace) should contain links to photos

instead just listing the Photographer and title of the picture. I did send you

an e-mail and you admitted the current format is not good and promised to help.

Perhaps it is indeed a feature that not many people use, but I find it helpful

to find new pictures of what users consider interesting according to keywords

they specify. It is certainly better that searching the database in some

aspects. I am tired of searching for the users (try to find one with an initial

instead of a surname...). I would enjoy this site more if this were improved.

Thank you. Best wishes. Peter

Josh, I sent the e-mail tonight. Do you know now ?