ned1

Where do they show up?

A lot of my old photos existed only on PN. Now I can't download them anymore! HELP!!!

 

Can we PLEASE add the ability to download your own photos!!!!

The main use of photo.net for me has been to store images. I can't figure out how to download them in the new version. Anyone have a clue?

<p>Since I had no problems with the site I might as well fill you in on my platform so you know where it does work: Android 5.0, Asus Zenfone 2, Chrome</p>

<p>Excuse me, you do not have to click through a dozen images, you have to click past the first 26 images to find out the winner. You do understand that that is not very intuitive....</p>

<p>I see, after clicking through about a dozen images it give you the winner. Can we simply put the winner someplace prominent, like a "Winners" link?</p>

<p>That link lists the highlights but not the winners. IS anyone actually winning the contests?</p>

<p>I can't find the winners for the portrait or macro contests. Have they been announced? If so, where are they listed?</p>

<div></div>

<p>Any chance we can upload a full image in, say AdobeRGB? You could convert to sRGB when you downsize for display. I spend a lot of attention to colors and don't want them lost in a print.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17655560</p>

So how come a bunch of my pics that were rated low suddenly have high ratings? I have one that a week ago had six ratings with a 3.5 average

and now has eight ratings with a 4.88. That isnt even mathematically possible. I've noticed this happening with a bunch of my images. What

gives? And why is it that the ratings in the detail screen are always lower than the ones reported in the portfolio screen (and the number of raters reported is larger than the number of names listed?) This is nuts!

<p>It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Skyrocketing film prices means that young photographers can't afford the acquire the skills to use it, so as the older generation dies out so will film.</p>

<p>OK, there's what appears to be a tick crawling around the focusing screen of my D700. How did I get rid of it before it wanders across the sensor?</p>

<p>vibrance is not colorfulness.</p>

<p>I believe the explanation is that saturation bumps up colors relative to their current luminosity. Colorfulness (according to the wikipedia entry if you believe it) bumps up colors relative to grey. Thus bumping up saturation may bump up different colors by a different relative amount, but colorfulness should bump them all up in tandem relative to a common grey.

 

No the subject did not have a red nose.

<p>Oh, the camera was a D700</p>

<p>Conclusion: Bumping up colorfulness in RT gives me more realistic skin tones than increasing saturation in Photoshop. I find the results I'm getting from RT to be not that far off of what I get with a high sat chrome film (like the old Astia)</p>

<p>And finally, here's the original RT image, opened in PS (as 16bit tiff), then given a saturation bump. In PS, as saturation increases the relative differences between the various reds also increases. In RT their relationship remains pretty consistant even if I do a big bump</p><div></div>

<p>Personally I detect a distinct difference between the two</p>

<p>Now RT with colorfulness bumped up</p><div></div>

<p>OK, now PS Camera Raw with a bump in saturation:</p><div></div>

<p>OOP, sorry, both of the above images were 4750K</p>

<p>Next the Raw Therapee output, 4500K, neutral setting except bump in exposure</p><div></div>

<p>I thought I would post some variation on a Raw file processed in RT and PS. Each started with a neutral setting, color temperature set to 4750, with a bump up in exposure compensation.</p>

<p>I'll start with the Camera Raw output:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>