DavidRabinowitz

I have the 9000...i haven’t used it in ages but it’s a great scanner for medium format film if you don’t have the money for a drum scanner. I’ve also used it for slides and 35mm negatives. Noisy machine but it does the job for me.

Bottom line is whether or not things get fixed. You can report something, admin can say they’ve received it but the next step is the most important one, fixing the problem. As consumers, we should be patient but eventually things need to be resolved.

I am really unable to use this site now. It’s a shame as I’ve been a devoted user for 14 years.

I don’t know Tim, maybe there’s something going on in how I upload that can speak to the increases I’ve mentioned. I can now upload larger files as well.

Welcome Partha...i think it’s a good shot...the dark areas show body and the dark along the right side depicts the people in that area...i might add some light to that area but this is a stage with lighting and it will look dark in spots...overall a nice shot...regards....David

Nothing changed as of yet but i was told it has to go to another area to get added. I would assume everyone at pn is busy and trying to make this a better site. But best for photographers is that the images have much better resolution, range and color fidelity which was sorely lacking in pn 1.0...regards....David

I didn’t know about the rule but I’ve had a picture of my face up on photo.net for 14 years and Jackie Robinson was one of my favorite players. It was only temporary, i didn't think anyone would make a fuss.

Well, with all your good work and support, I was just told by Glenn Palm that the digital alterations category will be returning in the near future, possibly with the heading, photo-manipulations which is what everyone was doing in that category. Photo-manipulations is a clearer distinction. Thanks again! David

I would completely understand though, if the intention was to keep photo.net to the purists. Those people who want to create photographs out of the camera with traditional adjustments to tone, color and light levels with a little dodging and burning (digital or film). There are other sites for people like myself who do more with the imagery and I’ve found several former members there. I have the same thoughts as Jack, that the direction has been set and the lines have been drawn. I’m not bitter about it, just sad. I’ll probably still post but it’s different for me now. Thanks everyone for your kind words of encouragement. I really appreciate them. David

I was told that there will be no more digital alterations category. It was not a glitch or mistake. I have the option of placing my work in the abstract category. I appreciate everyone’s feedback. Thanks my friends....David

Jack, for me it is worth it. I’ve contacted the administration of photo.net with no answer and I don’t know if I’ll ever get a response. I’ve enjoyed photo.net for the past 14 years and if they cannot add a photo-composite or digital alterations category back into play then I can’t post my work (other than the abstract category that was recommended to me by pn). But I’d like to find out if this is a glitch or a disinterest in these types of images by pn admins. That’s all i ask. I’m hopeful that Glen and company will get around to addressing these issues.

Sometimes it’s good to question the status quo. Sometimes people, organizations, politicians etc., need to be questioned. If not, our world could become very boring and stagnant. In this case, one might call it valuable feedback while another would consider it heresy. I say, “let them eat cake”. Maybe that makes me a liberal.

I have not received a response yet from photo.net regarding this subject but if and when I do, I will post it.

that’s Jackie Robinson...i’ll switch back to my mug soon...

might have been the best they could come up with but no, i don’t get it either...

thanks Tony...