v.anisimov

Looks like our calls for help are falling on deaf ears. I can only guess that PN's code is too old, needs to be rewritten from scratch and they don't have a budget for it. Their advice to "get firefox" is nothing but a desperate attempt to divert attention.

 

No matter how I dislike dpreview.com, it looks more and more like a viable membership option in the long term... What a pity

Looks like our calls for help are falling on deaf ears. I can only guess that PN's code is too old, needs to be rewritten from scratch and they don't have a budget for it. Their advice to "get firefox" is nothing but a desperate attempt to divert attention.

Carl - let's call it a day. You lost, I won. No need to "demonstrate" to you "that it is easier to learn to push a button, than to draw a few lines or spell a few words". It should be obvious to anyone with a drop of intelligence. What a boondooggle of thread

"...All three are very easy..."

 

Absolute nonsense.

 

Writing requires at least some knowledge of the language and cohesive thoughts. You can't just go "tree I hey yellow arghh!"

 

Drawing requires at least some physical coordination and preferrably some spacial thinking.

 

Photography - at its basics - requires none of the above. You don't need a language, motor/physical skills or clear head to point a cemara somewhere and push the button. There are blind photographers taking pictures by sound.

 

NB: elephants and monkeys don't draw, they get set up by their handlers to do so. Give them a boxy camera with a big button - FAR OUT - they'll take some great pictures particularly if rewarded. Push the button - get a banana. MUCH easier than "take this brush, put in paint and touch this canvas".

Don't confuse baby oil with babe oil. Baby oil is made of petroleum (pure savagery to put this stuff of babies!)

 

Previuos advice to use olive oil is sound, make sure you use the extra virgin variety. I know how it sounds but extra virgin olive oil is way better. Cooking, hair grooming, etc. Will smells better on babes too.

Smart:)

 

The guy is still shooting 300D, invested in L boots instead of upgrading

"...standard print sizes (5x7, 8x10, 11x14 etc)..."

 

These are not necessarily "standard" sizes. Why print a perfectly fine 8x12" image at 8x10"? Cutting off part of your image?

 

Although I see lots of 8x10" frames in the shops, but who uses 5x7? All of my albums are 4x6" - standard.

John MacPherson - please explain your "load of complete and utter bollocks".

 

I stand by my original statement. It is more difficult to write or draw than take pictures with a camera. That's why you and I are taking taking pictures, not drawing them like Van Gogh, for example.

Sheryl - this is a very common question. Short answer - ignore the ppi/dpi setting in your camera as it's utterly meaningless. Your camera doesn't have a ppi/dpi resolution as such, it's only interested in the pixel size of your images. Do not "resize" your images just to change the ppi/dpi value.

<p>

Read this excellent article by Bob Atkins and it will explain it all: <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/learn/resize/"> "Display, Printing, DPI and PPI" </A>

sorry, I meant to say that a rubber hood attached to the rotating part of the lens will transmit energy directly to the fragile plastic gears of the 50/1.8.

"...rubber hood is flexible and does not transmit forces to the barrel..."

 

I thought the rubber screw-on hood transmits forces directly to the focusing gears as it sits on top of it.

Thank God Brian is not running other sites, we'd all have to use Opera on Macs, all vegetarian and recycled

"...Strange that it should affect some but not others..."

 

The problem appears to be intermittent. It's a PN problem, not IE. Paying members don't have to chnage to Mozilla/Firefox just because someone can't fix the problem.

Andreas - you don't have to change. There's nothing wrong with IE, it works fine with millions of commercial sites. Firefox as an excuse to avoid fixing the problems with PN is pathetic

Puppy - good advice, however "good multi-coated" ones cost more than a 50/1.8 or 18-55. Pointless really

"...I'm running FireFox and it's deadly slow..."

 

Hialrious. Brian's theory of Mozilla's supremacy out the window

<div></div>

Try this thread, I think the ball is in PN's court:-> <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GPP4"> Getting IE Error on Photo.Net </A>

What others said.

 

You don't really need a hood nor a UV filter for the 50 1.8. The front glass element is receded deep enough to form a natural "hood". That'll change if you want a UV filter on it though.

 

I only use UV filters on one lens - the 28-105 3.5/4.5 as its front element sticks far and can be scratched when putting the cap on - with its hood on.

 

UV filters create a lot of reflections so I always take them off shooting at night.

I've just wasted 15 seconds of my life reading your selfish post. Search!

Canon, not Cannon

Brian - I've just spoken with our programmers. They confirm the IE 6 doesn't comply with the "standards" as rigorously as Firefox, however:

</p>

 

- Given the size of PN's IE-based customer base, your programmers should test for both IE and Firefox.</br>

- There are millions of commercial sites optimised for both IE and Firefox. Most don't have the "clear your cache" problem.</br>

- The upcoming IE 7 is reportedly more versatile when it comes to "standards". Have you tested PN with IE 7 yet?</br>

- PN users don't have to provide you with a full list of "aborted" PN threads. The original poster provided you with a sample of a thread (with its URL). It happens intermittently (my favorite type of errors!), all you have to do to replicate is to use what 95% of Internet users have - IE.</br>

- Repeting the "flakey IE! flakey IE!" mantra doesn't alter the overwhelming evidence of faults in the PN system that should be easy to fix. </br>

Brian - I'm involved in the development of e-commerce applications and I can relate to what you're saying.

 

<<...."standards compliant" browsers such as Firefox, plus IE version 6, which is not "standards compliant"...>>

 

Sorry, what standards? Like I said, there are two flavours - one from Microsoft (used by 95% of my corporate customers) and Mozilla (5%). Nonetheless, our applications are written for BOTH Mozilla/Firefox and IE.

 

You can't walk away from this site's recent bugs by telling customers to "get Firefox". Even if I do, I still have to use IE during the day.

 

Fix the problem with the PN site. The problems are easy to replicate. Use a properly configured IE machine and you will see the pop up message.

 

I hope the fashinable dislike of MS/IE won't interfere with professional judgment.

Bran - there are sites wtitten for the IE version of HTML and there are sites written for the Netscape/Mozzilla one. Which one is PN?

Nice shots, however I find the "dynamic" presentation (zoom in, zoom out) annoying and destracting. Also, she's always looking into the camera, even when she's not looking...