alexguerra

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. After much browsing and demos trying I've decided to start learning Dreamweaver as none of the options I've found had all the features I needed at a reasonable price. I may still end up buying a template though if I can't get a good grip with Dreamweaver.

Hi, I'm looking for a good template to create my own photography website with

some commercial purposes. I need something cheap but still reasonably stylish or

at the very least functional and easy to revise regularly by myself. I've found

a huge variety of prices and different styles, so I really have no idea where to

start.

 

Some features I'm looking for are the possibility of setting up a bilingual site

and a hosting service included with the template. Does anyone know or had an

experience with using such templates?

 

I've found these which look ok but they all lack some features I'm interested in

having:

 

www.photium.com,

www.clikpic.com,

www.ifp3.com

Some people like blue while others don't. Maybe there's just too much blue in that photo.

Thanks a lot for your answers. After much thinking and reading very favorable reviews I've decided to get the Tamron 18-250mm after all. Hope I won't regret! After some experimentation I should then get a fast prime like the Canon 50/1.8 for indoor shooting and the occasional portrait.

So I finally decided to invest in a DSLR system and after some consideration

I've chosen the 400D body. The real trouble came when I started looking for the

lenses. I wanted something with a long zoom and wide end and so the Sigma 18-200

f/3,5-6,3 seemed like the perfect option until I started reading mixed reviews

about it, some being rather bad.

 

I'm now leaning towards to getting the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro + Tamron

55-200mm f/4,0-5,6 DI II. They have some good reviews and are within my budget.

Does anyone have practical experience with any of these lenses? (I did a search

in old posts but didn't find anything helpful)

 

Any other suggestion regarding lenses with these features, mostly for street

photography and all around usage, until about 300 Eur would be greatly

appreciated. Thank you!

Just checked TRP's first page; must be some kind of new milestone - 8 nudes out of 10 photos. The scenario continues in the following pages. A good reminder of why I visit it so rarely, but gotta admit I don't remember seeing such poor TRP's over the last 2 or 3 years.

Dean, what kind of sources are you basing on to state such thing? Eastern Europe is composed of many different countries, each one with its own particularities. Saying that Eastern Europe as whole is a source of fraud without providing any backup data is a kind of void and preconceived idea.

I'm into buying a TFT monitor for photo editing purposes. I will have to work

with this monitor connected to my laptop. My doubt is since the graphic card of

my laptop is kind of crappy (Intel on-board 128mb shared memory) and allows a

max resolution of only 1024x768, if the resolution in the monitor won't lose

much quality as monitors' typical native resolutions are much higher. Is it

worthy to get a TFT to work with the laptop? I really need a monitor to replace

my terrible laptop screen, but I'm not planning to get a desktop computer in the

near future.

 

BTW, on a budget of 200-300Eur which would you say is the best pick in the

market right now for a 19 or 20 inches? The LG L1919S-SF is claimed to have

1400:1 contrast, which sounds very good, but somehow I don't fully trust this

brand when compared with Samsung or even HP (though in the same price range they

only display about 600:1). What do you reckon? Thanks a lot for any help!

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/87/244516288_0cc4ab90ec.jpg"

width="500" height="391" alt="Story Teller" /></a>

If this selection is based solely on the average ratings (as it seems), then I'm afraid it may well be another nasty contribution for the return in force of the mate-rating activities. I like a lot this idea too, but perhaps by choosing the rate recent average or the number of comments or even a mix of different ratings sorting and photo categories/genres, wouldn't incentivate so much all the silly ratings competition we see.

Hi Giuseppe and everyone, I think that's a very good and valuable idea in the same line as the great Ben's Five which was a really successful one. Count me in please, but I also can't promise much more than one or two portfolio critiques per month as nowadays I don't have that much time on my hands.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Answering to the original question: Yes, I'm unhappy with the rating system as it is since the 1s and 2s were amputated. Even this fact and it's maintenance proves that the rating system is fine; the problem is always the people. Another thing that could be improved in the rating system would be to make direct ratings anonymous as well.

Walter Tatulinski said: "Meanwhile, we have this little gem with considerably higher ratings(...)".

 

That photo IS a gem when compared to the example you brought out. While that waterfall photo is unarguably very good technically, it also is boring as hell, done and overdone at least a zillion times and to be honest I can't help myself of envisioning it hanging in a wall as one of those kitsch Chinese glass frames in motion. Since the rating parameter is called "aesthetics" and not "technic", I find perfectly normal that someone would give it a 3. As for "originality", a 2 would be even kind of flattering for many raters.

 

Anyway, making such a comparison of a vagina shot with a waterfall to make a point about the rating system sounds rather like an out of place prudish intervention.

Looking at Demosthenes page and statements, looks like mate rating is having a new revival. This means bad news, but since he is new on the site I hope he can still turn himself to the Light Side of the Force.

Reading threads about the rating system accounts some 20% of the whole photo.net fun for me =)

Kevin O'Connell said: "I asked almost the same question a few days ago called The Lame Rating System."

 

Two days ago I gave a direct rating of 4/4 to a photo with an awfully PS'ed blurred background which was sitting on the first page of TRP to discover very soon after to have been retributed myself, with the same rating by that same photographer of the blurred background photo, in the first photo displayed in my member's page.

 

I have been rewarded in this same way quite often in the past when I was naif enough not to know that there are no photos on photo.net worth a 2, a 3, or even a 4.

 

This is NOT a complaint about that retribution, which I'm always expecting anyway and couldn't care less, but just to remind people who keep complaining about the anonymous rating system, one of the main reasons why it exists.

 

The rating system is fine, it's the "Lame" people who misuse it.

If you want people to stop by your photos and tell you what's wrong or right with them, then you should at least try to do the same yourself to others. With 8 comments left in photos other than yours during over a year participating in the site, what would one expect?... As for giving that much importance to (only low) ratings to the point of leaving the site...well, sorry but that just sounds sad.

Right John, as a matter of fact I was going to write Human-Highlyselective-Bot, but somehow I get the feeling that the Machiavellian Martian bots are better believable around here...

'<a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=1830725&period=2000">You can browse some of the photos rated highest by this BOT.'</a>

Ken Andrews: "Must every person who posts about low ratings be accused of whining or suffer other sorts of name-calling?"

 

Well, it IS a direct invitation.

Julie, I was having that same problem some time ago. You may check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DrlJ"> <i>this thread</i></a>. Only Firefox solved my problem and generally it has also improved my browsing experience with most websites. Today I can say that Firefox is a lot much better than IE in just about everything. No need to continue using a notoriously worse product just because it comes along with Windows...

<div></div>