jessica_ulm3
-
Posts
70 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by jessica_ulm3
-
-
Steve,
My guesses aren't any better than yours. System glitch, offline reader on the fritz, link form ridiculously high traffic site (and I mean RIDICULOUSLY), someone's running a very silly macro.
But it is something they need to look at with the recent (possibly deliberate, possibly not) stress put on the server that handles the interesting people list.
I have to say, I cannot understand the rather random nastiness that comes out whenever anyone brings anything to the attention of the site admininstrators round here. The comments always tend on the 'don't be a crybaby' side when they are just trying to help or alert the site admin of things of possible importance. Chill.
-
Why not upload some then, Richard?
-
I don't think it was a complaint about the presence of eBay related ads, just confusion as to whether or not they were actually allowed now - and if so, why continue to block the actual word 'eBay'?
-
Ray,<br><br><br>
I'm sorry if that was more abrasive than I meant it to be and I did not mean to imply that <i>you</i> had some sort of ulterior motive. But people who have contributed to pnet for years wouldn't be able to get any sort of project promotion because there are way too many of them. People are asking Bob (or Brian) to do things all the time that only have one purpose - to promote something they think is a good idea but other people may not. But they work hard to keep from showing favor to any member or idea. It's kept the site rather unbiased IMHO, but that's another discussion all together.
-
I have never known pnet to endorse or promote any individual, camera, or type of photo. If they were in the habit of promoting a competition administered by a member and of very limited depth, than everyone who wanted more visits to their portfolio would think up a competition they wanted pnet to promote. I'm sure there are plenty of things he can do, but I don't think he will because he is not at your beck and call. There are a very small handful of people who run this site and they have their hands full without trying to promote the ideas of someone who has not subscribed, contributed much to the site in photos, rates, or posts, and has not been a member long.
I am also a bit confuse as to why Bob's name is in quotes.
-
Welcome to pnet! It is technically not possible. I am not sure if or how people manage to cheat the system, but when you see that please e-mail abuse@photo.net The admin are working ahrd to clean up abusive behavior.
Also, and you very likely already know this, but subscribers are given 4 shots.
You may also be seeing people who have not requested critiques or ratings, but gotten them from their buddies without asking. There is a lot of this on the Top Rated Photo page.
-
Never complain that your significant other doesn't share your
interests - or they just might start! kind of. :-/<div>
</div> -
I have read everything and I just wanted to try to ass my 2 cents without repeating what's already been gone over. Children or no, there are a lot lof places that nudes can get you into a lot of trouble. Computer go down and you're stuck using one at the library? No more pnet for you. Want to take in some pnet over your sack lunch at your desk on your lunch hour? Cringe everytime you think of one of those nude thumbnails (forget 'rate recent') come across the server because you know 'adult content' is a firable offense. College computer labs and such.
I'm not saying that they need to be locked away in the basement. They are just as much a part of this site as street shooting and nature, but their appearance on the front of certain sections without a way of avoiding them deprives anyone not viewing on their own computer at home the joy of pnet.
I understand that is a huge amount of work and this issue has been weighed again and again. Just one little opinion.
Bob, I know that the nude section of 'learning' has been registered with some sort of filtering software. Sorry I can't remember specifics but I'm at work and don't really want those images in the server log. Is there a way that you can, instead of having to filter through the site, have a tag on those to let things like NetNanny know what they are.
As I don't have kids and could hand Hustlers on my fridge door if I wanted, I don't know the specifics of that (how hard, how much work, how effective, ...)
-
I have sumbitted the same photo twice before, I resubmitted and actually has to delete my original "please critique" comment from the first time. It did not appear on the list to submit for critique for a couple of weeks after the first sumbission, but it did reappear without rename or reload. I had not gotten much feedback and wanted to see if I had more luck on the next round.
-
This may belong more in the film and processing board, but I figured
that you folks would have a lot of experience with less than state of
the art light meters. Several of you may feel the need to laugh at me
for thinking a photographer needs such silly accessories. ("Light
meters? We don't need no stinkin' light meters!") That's cool, go
ahead.
<br><br>
But, I just purchased an old Canonet 17. The type with the old
photovoltaic meter around the lens. It is possibly the sexiest thing
I've ever seen in my relatively short life, but that is completely
beside the point. I bought it as my street shooting / candid shots
camera. A geek's point and shoot if you will. (yes, I know, it's a
rangefinder. Not <i>quite</i> that lost.) The problem is that I would
love to be able to drop a roll of 400, 1600, or even 3200 speed b&w
white to make it usable indoors.
<br><br>
Of course, because of it's age, the ISO dial only goes to 200.
Sooo... *drum roll* my question is: is there any easy way to do a
<i>rough</i> conversion? 400 shouldn't be that far off, but should I
just forget about converting to 1600 or 3200 off a meter reading for
200?
-
Richard - here's a ready made aneurism - <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/nw-fetch-msg?msg_id=009kNr" target="_blank">http://www.photo.net/bboard/nw-fetch-msg?msg_id=009kNr</a>
<br><br>
Don't take life so seriously. Nobody gets out alive, anyway. The point of those threads is to build community, not display works of art. In fact, it even says on the W/NW discription that it is not a place to show off. They're not good, they're interesting (if done right). I mean, my 'Jim Bob's Chicken Fingers" photo in the above threat is of terrible quality, taken with, I believe, my 2nd roll of film (excluding my $20 p'n's from elementary school). But unless you have been to Opelika Alabama, I think it's kind of interesting. Shared experiences come up in those threads, like the fact that Beau Hooker has a photo from ever single alt-landmark on Route 11 in Virginia between my house and my parents'.
<br><br>
Dan, if the majority of the folks at pnet minded mediocre images, I would?ve been booted my first day. Ignore the masses, love the friends.
<br><br>I would love to see one, though all of the cameras I have a glut of pictures from are of the 1970s Japanese and modern digicam variety, not classic. Wait until I run a few more rolls through the Retina and Canonet.
-
Can't please all of the people all of the the time, Brian? Okay, make that 'can't please all of the people ever' and it will inch a little closer to the truth. I am in the same situation as Kurt Yang - wanting to subscribe but just not knowing what things will be like in a few months. I use to come here all of the time and be blown out of the water by the TRP, but now you have to really, really dig for good photos. The good news is, they are still here. As I've pointed out before, when my photos are getting 7s (one or two for each, usually) then I know there's something seriously wrong. It will be so nice not to see 7's from two particular people and "Good job! Congrats!" as the comment. Being patronized annoys me. Being given an honest opinion (even without comment) is why I am here. I think what you've done will help an awful lot and it's good to see that you aren't just concerned with the people who whine over a 3, but the overall health of the site as a relatively objective community forum. Thanks! Maybe now if I make it onto the TRP one day (just add decent camera, lens, and talent) I can actually take it to mean something.
-
He posts regularly in the 'no words' forums.
-
He also has a photograph of every place I've ever been. I'm convinced that he lives in my backyard. I don't think that ups his worth to the general community, but it's hero worthy in my book.
-
opps. guess forgetfulness runs in the pnet family.
-
Can I complain about Bill not closing his italics tag? Thanks. Your opinion on this complaint is appriciated.
-
Oh that is an great idea. But then everyone will go around rating all of their friends' complaints higher, then the people with good complaints but no friends would scream, then people would rate other people's complaints higher in the hopes of getting better ratings for their own complaints since more people will view their complaints and be so flattered than someone with decent complaints gave their sucky complaints such high marks, then - well, *sigh*. I've gotten a healthy handful of 7s since I arrived less than a month ago and since I have two eyes and a pair of quality glasses with which to view my own work, I know <i>something</i> has got to be wrong. Then again, I am only here for the Monty Python jokes, so what does it matter?
-
I think that the K1000 isn't pre-1970 and thus, not a classic camera. *wink and grin* Forgive me, I could not help myself. I also think that if you are going old Pentax, the LX looks absolutely delicious (as well it should for 5x the price of the K1000). Things like mirror lockup, low light (i.e. night photography) metering, and a 50mm 1.4 lens make me drool. And hey, if I can't buy one, someone should!
-
I would love a rating system like you suggestion, but unfortunately we cannot get people to use the one we have properly. With ratings as squewed and inflated as they are, it's obvious that people would do what they alway seem to - make their own definitions for each that are completely subjective and without uniformity and, therefore, meaningless to anyone trying to get a fair judge of their work. The more we make people think, the less they do. And what about "emotion impact"? But alas, then we'll get 7/7/7/7 for every photo that a rated looks at and says "ooooooh purdy" regardless of both technical qualities and quality as visual art.
-
This posting just reminded me of a week or so ago when, after leaving a lengthy comment on a picture that was out of focus, grainy, and badly composed but looked like it was at least trying, I was responded to by the 'photographer' with 'That's why it's not in the Fine Art section!" Oh my. Some people are too clueless to see this as an exhibition site where education and community is the focus - they see it as a place to put their stuff and send their friends. Of course, that is a waste of pnet resources, but bad art is still art, else I would not be allowed to hang around. I mean, this is a community site.
-
-
-
...maybe I should give up while I'm behind.<div></div>
-
I will refrain myself from posting my baby pictures with the 'house'
in the background. <br><br> <img
src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image? bboard_upload_id=20012484">
<br><br> <i>Posted once before, but fit too well to leave out <br>
Looking out the window of Honda Suzuki of Opelika</i>
Limiting ratings?
in PhotoNet Site Help
Posted