tijean

I think what I said is being misread. I was suggesting that the site remain as it is for anyone who does not specifically choose to filter out nudes.

<br><br>

Would this keep people from not marking nudes? No, just as the current system doesn't stop people from uploading flat out porn in the Pets section (though the mods have been good about cleaning up after jerks)? Count yourself lucky that they haven't decided to pick porn more relevant to the Pets section. But it would decrease the motivation. Right or wrong, some people don't want to see nudes around the site. They are attacking the nude section because they want to rate them into oblivion.

<br><br>

Why would I like a filter? Because photo.net is my break at both work and school (once I get home, I want little to do with my computer), and both the "rate recent" section and TRP page is a very dangerous place for a computer covered in by standard <i>no drugs, nudity, adult materials, illegal activities, blah blah blah</i> usage policies.

<br><br>

As for the "let the children see the nekkid people" section of the choir, I would agree whole heartedly if everything in the Nudes section was tasteful or artistic, but is not. Some of it is <i>very</i> not. I'm not saying that is should be zapped from the face of the planet, I just don't think anyone would be too happy if they found some of the grungier stuff in the Nude section on the 12 year old son's computer. As for throwing the censorship word around - if people specifically choose to see only G rated stuff, that's not censorship. Now if the site were to make itself G rated by default and make one dig for everything unacceptable to a Disney movie, then we could talk about censorship.

<br><br>

But this is all moot, because Brian (You've all met Brian. You know, the guy who knows the back and front ends of the gallery better than any human being on Earth) says it is not feasible. They know where their users stand on the issue (all over the place) and if they decide that is both important and possible, then they know how the always vocal handful of us would like it done. What I don't understand is why it's such a big issue, for both us here and the people attacking the Nudes section.

<br><br>

I still think they will tire themselves out though. And I will wait until I get home to check out the TRP. And Pnet will go on.

Brian, I understand. I was thinking a self imposed thing (a radio button, required field on upload) on new uploads, effecting mostly the rate recent and TRP areas. It would still probably be a lot of time/work for something that wouldn't totally solve a problem. A problem that's solving isn't vital to the operation of the site. Thanks for the feedback.

I have to agree with Mr. Western here.

 

I have been an advocate for a G rating filter that users can enable, making the site viewable in it's original form by default, but letting people in places where they can't have nudes popping up (work, school, ect.) filter out images checked by the photog as "nude." It would be nice, but not necessary and the administrators (Bob? Brian? Doesn't really matter) have decided it's either not necessary, not worth time that can be spent on more important thing, or just a bad idea.

 

That being said, I don't think we should do anything because of forceful persuasion. Even if they wanted to (I wouldn't want to chop up a site so focused on community, but that's not even the point) the admin couldn't give in to something like that, or they would no longer be controling the site.

 

I think we all learned the answer to this one from that bully in the 2nd grade. Ignore them and they will go away. Give them attention an dyou are their new favorite punching bag. Brian's handling it and they will tire themselves out soon.

I know all of this must be so frustrating, and I am not here to complain. The problem with ratings is that they are done by people, but that is the last of my editoralizing. I have one little suggestion. You may either discarded if you don't like it or put into the back of your mind to be pulled out when you update the gallery system if you do. You know those randomly pulled images of a alphanumeric code that you get when signing into some sites or, more often, when signing up for a free e-mail account? You may want to use a system like that. I know, anyone with enough free time create and use 5 or 6 accounts to rate won't see it as much of a problem, but it may slow down abusers and stop any use of macros to carpet bomb a photo. I also don't know how much work it takes to impliment or system resources it takes to run.

 

Thanks for all of your work on the site. I know that there is no way to make people stop being people (see above. all of the above), but figured my little suggestion was worth 5 minutes of typing.

Click on the photo from your portfolio. CLick the gray "options" tab. Click the "move photo" link. The folder that you want to move it to needs to already exist (you cannot create a new one at this point). There ya go. Not a mod, but hope I helped.

I am not a moderator (at all), but my guess is that they are going to need to know if you are getting an error message when you submit (and what the message was like), the comment appears to go through fine and then does not show up, ect.

Well, if you respond to anyone offering you advice on your photos like you've responded to the folks giving you advice here, then I'm not surprised that you don't get many people clamoring for the chance to help you a second time. Why exactly is your question? I'm sorry that you feel your method is better than the next guy's, that the people around you are untalented bafoons, or that boo hoo, you're a student. You are in excuse mode, and I say that as someone working full time, going to school full time (not a photo major), and wrist deep in dektol in the half of my kitchen that serves as a darkroom. You think digital is easy. I think pictures of ones own eyes nauseate me almost as much a photos of domestic cats no matter what they are taken with. If you are going to be tactless, then why should I bother being polite and holding <i>my</i> tongue? The difference is that I don't feel that anything I deem inferior should be banished from the planet. Drop the condescending attitude and you may have better results. The Hasselblad that I use to work with was a hundred times easier to use than my old Nikon Coolpix 4500, and I?m sure that you?re your point and shoot is easier to use than my Zorki 4. It?s a terrible argument based on generalizations based on inexperience and ignorance. Fine, you?re learning. But until you know everything (haha), lay off the declarations. Great, you have opinions. Recognize them as opinions, please, and don?t throw a hissy fit when people don?t share them. You?re better than everyone else. That?s apparent in your tone. What would you need with us? I am sorry, and maybe this post (or entire account) will be deleted very quickly, but maybe you should listen to all of the helpful advice that has been posted instead of dismissing it. You complain that nobody comments on your photos, but you don't comment on other people's, because last time you tried you were ridiculed. We what in the holy heck do you think you are doing to doing to the people who gave you advice on this very thread? Do you think you are encouraging an open and educational environment, or do you think that you are providing the same kind of ridicule that made you stop commenting? I don't care how much romen you are trading for it, your contribution only shows your appreciation of and support for pnet. What is doesn't do is buy you the time and expertise of photographers to give you advice and critique your work. It is up to you to network and produce work that people want to comment on. Yes, those nudes may have received more attention, because nudes do receive more attention. So? Is that the reason that your other work is not having attention heaped upon it? Nope. Take no comments and few ratings as it's own message, look at those photos, and figure out yourself, with that invaluable feedback (or lack of) being your hint that something needs to be improved.

<br><br>

Now, did you have a question or did you just want to tell everyone how stupid they are?

<br><br>

(Note to Bob: the delete key is calling. Sorry, but it was post or bust a vein.)

John, "a little bit at a time" was pretty misleading wording. When in school, I use to make 10 gallon batches, so a liter seems pretty bite sized to me. I know you can probably just picture someone with a teaspoon and a cup of water trying to make stock solution.

 

Thomas, I have graduated to the kitchen, so pit stops aren't a problem, but snack breaks are. :-D I need to post pictures when I get everything set up. When I was looking for a rental, I saw the large, underground (two story duplex set into a hill) kitchen and asked when I could sign a lease. Then I remembered to ask how much rent was. Priorities.

 

Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I finally have the room to end a 3 year hiatus from the darkroom. I've already done a lot of research (i.e. lurking) to try and refresh the ol' memory, but I'm sure I'll have plenty more odd questions.

This may be an odd question, but what the hay. I have gotten into the

habit of mixing D76 in small batches, usually right before I intend

to use it. Well, as I'm sure you're all aware, the mixing temp is in

the 120-130ish range and the usable temp is 75 at the most. I try to

get it to 68. I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but it just

seems to have always been the "recommended" developer temperature.

Well, is there any harm in quick cooling D76? I use to measure it out

into an open container, then put it in the freezer for a bit, but

since the weather has turned cold (wind chill of -10 the other night)

have taken to putting it on the front steps (watching the tv with one

eye and out the window with the other, in case any stray cat decides

it might want a drink). I have just started doing this and haven't

had the chance to set back up the enlarger yet after a recent move (I

develop the negatives and scan them, producing web quality images for

cataloging purposes) so I cannot judge highlight and shadow quality

very well.

 

I know that this should not be a problem, but I figured that I would

dip into the big ol' knowledge pool of this board before I make it a

regular practice.

 

Thanks!

Yes, it definately helps to have a good, strong water heater when mixing D76. Mine can carely make it to the top of D76's mixing range, and I don't think I would have it set that high if there were children in the house.

Don James, just don't buy a Holga please. I am kidding, of course, but it is a bit chuckle worthy when something I've loved for a long time (not 30 years over here, but long enough) comes into vogue. I minded things like that until I realized that the more people using, say, black and white film (not the little C-41 disposables, obviously) the shorter my drive to find decent film and a larger then selection of chemistry stocked at the local supply house.

 

A friend of mine was trying to argue the other night that film photography should no longer be taught in schools because digital is the new standard for commercial photography. (She has only worked in very low end commercial photography, e.i. the local rag) I told her, sarcastically, that Auto Shop class should bar students from working on, say, a '67 Barracuda because it is not directly relevant career preparation. We can replace art classes with commercial design classes. Of course, students will get neigther the love nor the fundemental knowledge for either to be of any use, but at least it will be relevant. Erp. She didn't get it, and agreed that art class was silly and auto shop should be training only how to work on new cars with high end diagostics equipment, so I said that I needed to go wash my hair.

 

It does not, by looking at the numbers, make sense to use film. It doesn't make sense that half of my kitchen is about to be a darkroom instead of dining room or that I will drive 40 miles for two rolls of Ilford Delta 3200. Or that the newest addition to the family, a red Zorki 4, makes me so happy.

 

But that same friend said something the other day that quantified it. She said "Yeah, you take better pictures than me, even with that junkie old camera you have." My main camera is now very old, and I wouldn't discribe it junkie, but it's film, so it's relic.

 

Sorry for the rant.

Ouch! All this negativity! (I don't mean from you John, by any means). My suggestion would be to post the new photo as a comment to the old photo. That is probably not quite what you are looking for, but it would do well to keep the conversation going in a linear fashion instead of being spit into distinct stages. I guess you could also replace the old photo with the new, then immediately post a comment with the old photo in it as a referance and to give new comers to the conversation an idea as to what is going on.

 

And Bob, com'n, you're a smart guy. You understand that he's not talking about sending it out for to have someone add a lion to the background - probably not even enough modification to mark it as modified, or just enough to put it over the line. Should I give credit to the fine folks at my local photo finisher on every nondigital color (I do digital & b&w myself) I post? Is my boyfriend considered a contributor if he suggests a particular angle while we're out shooting? I don't mean to be argumentative, but you're being silly.

Jory, it is quite possible that the 3/3s for obviously technically perfect and beautiful photos are coming from the "baboons who appreciate nothing but pictures of babies at sunrise" catagory, or have an axe to grind with the photographer, or are having a bad day, or hate that type of photo. I will learn originality out of this as it seems even more subjective, and two very reasonable people with extensive skill could argue for a 2 or a 7.

 

I understand where you are coming from and it would be nice if there were a solution. My frustration is with the people who constantly arguing that they have the answer to all the rating woes, not someone like you, who sees a problem and thinks it is worth offering up a suggestion. The thing is though, if you trust someone with a vote, you trust them with a vote, even the guy that write in Big Bird for president.

 

I was attacking the whole debate, not the suggestion which, while I'm not excited about, was well meaning and one for the "trying to make the community better for everyone" pile. <b>I am still curious to see what people who weigh in regularly on this little debate and seem to think that they know how people should use the system say the "right" answer to the dilemma above is. </b>

I generally have no interest in the ratings debate, because it seems to be people trying to create a system to perfect human nature and becoming frustrated when they do not get any closer to that goal. By "perfecting" I do not mean to say that I think everyone is trying to find a way to get 7/7s for all of their images, but that people at one time expect everything they do to be rated over 5 because every viewer sees exactly what they see and at the other expect objectivity. They expect everyone to see an image as they do and a ratings systems that will force that to happen. Most people want objectivity - but they want everyone to believe that, objectively, see things as they do - and anyone who doesn't must not be objective and must explain themselves immediately. Maybe people are not seeing what you are because they are baboons who appreciate nothing but pictures of babies at sunrise. Maybe because <i>it is not there</i>. Possibly something in between. Welcome to the world of self expression.

<br><br>

I realized this after my offering of very tactful advice to a photographer with a not-quite-in-focus picture of a child with the very conspicuous horizon line running behind his head was greeted with a very angry "that's is why it is not in the Fine Arts category" with some <b><i>rather</i></b> rude elaboration. Some people do not want advice. They want praise. Some want advice. I grew tired of trying to separate the two.

<br><br>

It is the honest people, not the ignore-it-if-you-don't-like-its, the patronizers, kissups, mate raters, or fishers, that make this site such a valuable resource, yet it is these people are constantly being bitched about, whether that honesty is in the form of a rating or they have the gall to actually tell you what they think - that criticism you all claim to want so badly. Just because a person has rated a photograph poorly and not spent three hours going over every last thing wrong with it, does not mean that they are rating it haphazardly. They may have considered it quite judiciously, but decided that if you do not see what it wrong, they probably lack the time or communication skill to cram a photography book into the comments section.

<br><br>

But on to why I posted. This conversation has raised my curiosity as to how the participants of this little debate react to truly bad work. I do not mean "that is not my taste" work. I mean bad. I mean the fuzzy, badly composed picture of a domestic cat someone mentioned earlier (A hypothetical but sadly common image.) considering all of the points made at various times during the ratings debate:

<br><br>

If you only rate images you like, then you rob yet-to-be-skilled photographers from the ability to learn and the assistance they may require in judging their own work, strengths, and weaknesses. They did submit their work for critique because they do not want opinions and ratings, correct?

<br><br>

If you rate an image lowly (below average or even average by some people's argument) then you owe them some sort of explanation as to what this particular image is missing and what would improve it.

<br><br>

If you rate unreasonably high, then you are not only depriving the photographer (and by photographer, I mean, in this case, "person with use of some sort of means of capturing an image to post" and that is all) of the chance to learn to judge their own work in relation to others and measure their progress, but also all members of the site the benefits of the ratings systems.

<br><br>

So how do you deal with this, given all of the spouted theory, ethics, and the reality that some photos are just bad to the core and some photographers cannot take advice not matter how tactfully given?

Peter, is it still okay to make webpages with Publisher? *snickers*

 

I assume people use Word like I do - for spellcheck. There's nothing worse that leaving a comment with so many errors that it is hard to even make out the meaning. Big problem for a dyslexic like myself.

Bob,

 

I don't. :-/ I feel like such a loser. New, nonpaying, and clogging up the system.

 

How would I go about merging without passwords (if I can at all)? They're all in my real name. For this one I forgot that this site displays the full name and never put my full name on a sign up sheet - except on the others.

 

I don't have anything uploaded, so it may be just a matter of deleting.

This may sound a bit condescending, but are you sure that you did not forget it. You may have had it sent to you and then gone "that's not my password! I always set mine to snoppdog398!" but since they're random, it wouldn't matter what you had set it to.

 

 

Speaking of: Bob, is it possible to have old inactive accounts deleted? Years ago I signed up an account, came back some time later and had forgotten my password, and changed e-mails. Did it again a couple years after that. I know this kind of activity is a plague on pnet. Please don't flog me.

I am so completely bored with the manipulation debate so I'll try to make this as off topic as possible.

 

I generally avoid manipulated photos. I recognize them as art, but they're generally not my taste. If I do not know, then I do not care. Actually, I only really care when they are badly done or very obvious. The obvious ones have their place on pnet (their own catagory even). I just generally skip over them. I also use a Kodak Retina (and a digicam, and Pentaxes of all ages, and, well, you get the point), so I am just an oddball.

 

I also look my meds today, so I can find the 'back' button when I come upon something I, for whatever reason, find distasteful instead of screaming at people for posting their work - work that is allowed and often appreciated as a part of pnet. I'm just special that way. Maybe it's 22 years of being high strung, maybe it's having been on message boards and the like since I was 13, maybe it's the fact that the leading cause of death in my family is stress, but trying to make people think you are right (on the internet, no less) just seems to me an exercise is pointless blood pressure elevation.

 

As for pnet's rules, I find nothing offensive to photography. While pnet balances it's different groups of users very well and serve them all nicely, they do this by not trying to define the terms of the medium. Photography is what the user thinks it is. The purpose of this site is to serve users. So really, it is not up to pnet to define photography, and I think they would have a bit of a headache if they tried.

 

I have often though of suggesting that there be a way to search and find only images checked an unmanipulated - but much like ratings, "unmanipulated" is a term that, while clearly defined by pnet, is subjective to users. It may also draw too much attention to a beaten subject and encourage people to check photos that are over the line as unmanipluted ("well, I took the picture of the birds, and the picture of the sky, and the picture of the ground, so putting them together isn't manipulation - manipulation is that fancy stuff.")

 

I also generally avoid long, boring, reharshments of the same debate that's been done over and over and over - which is why I switched to skipping through to Kathy's comments. Now I have to go home and try to make a UFO.

Tiffany >

At first I thought that would be a really great idea. Yeah, $25 doesn't make your opinion more valuable, but you'd have to be pretty bent to set up multiple accounts if you were paying for them. Problem: photo.net doesn't accepts money from other countries, so as-is it would make the rating system American only.

 

... which reminds me: I need to get off my lazy American butt and write my check.

Even as the owner of a couple of moderately sized CF cards, I didn't even think of that as the main drawback. When I read over the specs the first thing I saw was no mirror lockup. That absolutely made my heart sink. I had a good eye roll at Pentax's apparent obsession with size, but was overall really excited to see an *ist that could kick the Rebel's tail in price. When I showed it to a friend of mine (a proud owner of a Nikon D70) she said it looked like it could hold it's own with the D70 - before she say the estimated price.

 

And well, there's something just a little exciting about a DSRL that can trade lenses (with very limited function and an adapter) with an old student use Honeywell I keep in my glove compartment.