color

<p>Thanks</p>

<p> When I put an image in my Photo.net collection it is usually with the intention that I will immediately ask for ratings/critiques. I image that that is what most of us members do most of the time. The current system seems to be pretty clunky and overly time consuming for that process. I would like to be able to upload a photo, add a name, select the category, add tech info about the image, AND ask for a critique and/or rating without having to upload my image and then go back to my portfolio, find the folder I put the image in, select the image, and then ask for critiques/ratings.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John,<br>

If a signed-in member rates from the critique forum the rating is attributed to that member. If a signed-in member rates from the rate photos forum the rating is anonymous. From what I've read this is an attempt to balance encouraging people to rate and keeping people from retaliating against people who've rated their photos low.<br>

BTW The ratings from the critique forum are generally higher. Amost all of the 3/3s are from the rate photos forum. Don't take the 3/3s too seriously. Everyone has different tastes.</p>

<p>Thanks Mikael. Notebook is functional enough for the purpose.</p>

<p>Pnina,<br>

I understand your frustration, but if I were you I wouldn't think that will change.</p>

<p>Here's a workaround idea: You could write your text in a text editor, MS Word for instance, and proof read it. Once you like what you have copy and paste it into the forum. That gives you a chance to spot potential errors without having a 10 minute deadline to keep track of.</p>

<p>Garrison, that's something useful, not what I had in mind, but useful. Thanks.</p>

<p>Garrison,<br />I am not a PC builder and don't want to be, but I would like to get up to speed on what's available, what works together, what works well, etc enough to make informed choices about a new computer. You have not suggested anything specific and/or useful.</p>

<p>I guess I need a lesson in cat herding.</p>

<p>I want to buy a new computer for my photo processing. My old one is slow and boring to use. There are many people with opinions and of course, those seldom match. What I'd like is to find is an article written by a single person in 2010 that gives a good, fairly comprehensive overview of what a good package is for photo processing (PS CS5, LR3), what factors I should look for and what to avoid. I don't expect perfection, but what I've run across does not seem coherent inside my little head. This is an important issue for lots of people, so it seems like there's a need. Is there such an article?<br>

BTW, I'm in the market for a PC, not a Mac. Maybe next time.</p>

<p>If you should decide on having an Iphone app, please allow members to opt out of having their images available through it. I do not want people looking at 2 inch tall versions of my work.</p>

<p>I understand your point, but there is a problem with the idea. The problem is that size matters. A smaller version of an image changes it's impact and it's appeal. I wish we could post Larger images and have people see them at the posted size, not smaller where detail and subtlies of tone and color are lost. So, on that basis I don't like the idea of an Iphone app for Photo.net. It's like posting a condensed version of a novel, like shrinking Tolstoy's "War And Peace" to 500 words or less.<br>

Of course some images could be turned into the photographic equivalent of shrunken heads and still look good, but would you do that with a beautiful woman so you could carry her head in your pocket?</p>

<p>Aspiring photographers can now get gene therapy. DNA samples from some of your favorite dead photographers or other artists are injected into the right side of the brain. Tests have shown this treatment to be especially effective for increasing one's talent. Pricing is based on how successful the artist was in making money during their lifetime. Unfortunately many of the subjects in clinical trials have developed a liking of watching reruns of "Lost" backwards and pondering the meaning of empty Gatorade bottles.</p>

<p>I have been on Photo.net for a few years and the color of my images is pretty much the same as on my monitor. If your images look more colorful on another site it might be that they automatically pump up the color saturation of people's photos, either by a certain amount or to a certain level.</p>

<p>As far as whether or not you should convert your images from Raw before you post them, well I think you must be converting them without realizing it. I don't think it's possible to upload Raw files to Photo.net. I think it's either got to be a jpg (or maybe a tiff).</p>

<p>The best way to reduce noise is shoot at lower ISOs or get a camera that handles low light better. You can process your images in a number of programs to reduce the noise of what you shoot too.</p>

<p>On Photo.net there are default sizes that the thumbnails are not displayed larger than: For instance the maximum width of an thumbnail in your gallery is around 700 pixels. The maximum height is also around 700 pixels. So, if you post an image larger than those dimensions it is automatically resized down to those limits. I believe the thumbnails in the photo rating and critique forums are smaller, still within standard size limits, but smaller. There is more to photo sizes in Photo.net, but that covers most of it.</p>

<p>To manipulate your images I recommend getting Photoshop and learning how to use it. There are other programs you can use, but it is the most capable as far as I know. You can shoot with various filters, pick times of the day to shoot, etc.. and there's nothing wrong with that, but almost nothing cannot be improved with Photoshop.</p>

<p>I like your portfolio by the way.</p>

<p>Hi Martin,<br>

<br />I agree that that sentence <strong>is not</strong> actually informative.<br /><br />My understanding is this: At least three anonymous ratings are required to place images in the top photos galleries. Direct (non anonymous) ratings are not used to calculate "top photos" ratings, period. I have not yet seen anything that said how high those anonymous ratings need to be. My guess is 5/5 or higher.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Edward. I'll check with Gitzo for new tips.</p>

<p>Hi Vick,<br>

Thanks for your feedback, but my plan is to use siliconized rubber caulk. It's very tough and a good adhesive. It will need to be cut off, but that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make for security: I'm planning on going overseas for a vacation this summer and I don't want to be in village in a foreign country and discover that my tripod has lost a leg tip.</p>

<p>Update: I just got back from my local hardware store and bought three of these for less than $3. They are identical to the ones still on my tripod.</p>

<p>I realized recently that one of the rubber legs tips of my Gitzo tripod was missing. In looking for replacement tips I did some research online, called B&H camera (who didn't have them), and finally found what looks like exact replacements. I found them online on the site of a hardware company ( hardwarestore...). There's a photo on their webpage showing them and they appear to be identical to mine. The sizes look like they match up to the diameter of the leg section that they go on. The cost for a set of four 5/8" tips, including shipping to my house in the US southwest is a little over $8. They have a variety of sizes and quantities in stock, so this might be a good source for you even if your tripod has larger diameter bottom tubes than mine. I'm going to attach a photo I took this morning of my 2 remaining leg tips. I found that the leg tips I have left pull off very easily. They don't seem to have a shape that's made to stay on the legs securely. I was surprized that an $800 tripod would have such a poorly chosen part on what is otherwise a very nice piece of equipment.<br>

My plan is to glue on the replacement tip when I get it and the other two remaining ones and keep the rest for spares. I recommend that you consider doing the same thing if you have a Gitzo tripod.</p><div></div>

<p>Just in case, well I hope someone replies!, I found a photo of a p-mirror. I think it screws into the filter thread on the front of a lens.</p><div></div>

<p>I ran across a device that lets you take a panorama photo in one shot. It's basically an oddly shaped mirror, convex shape, that you take a photo of and then process the image in software that comes with the device. They're on the European market and run around $300. Anyway, has anyone here used the P-Mirror? I'm sure it's not a good tool for making panos that you'd be able print larger than 18 x 24, but still it's intrigueing.</p>

<p>Has double blind rating been tried and if so, why was it abandoned?</p>

<p>The percentage of P'netters who are cheaters must be small. And my support for the idea of double blind rating is not to avoid malcontents, as if that were possible, but to yield more spontaneous, less prejudiced ratings.</p>

<p>Cheaters?</p>

<p><strong>There</strong> is no such thing as a perfect system of doing anything anywhere in life, so even though a double blind system for rating images would not be perfect I would like to see it happen, at least for a few months. The fact that several Photo.net members have distinctive styles doesn't mean that those familiar with their style would identify their work from looking at their images in the critique or rate ques. Even if they did, so what? That would probably be only a very small minority of postings and a small breach of double blindedness in ratings.</p>

<p>I, moi', would like to see <em>not only </em>ratings continue to be anonymous, but the photos themselves. That is while photos are in the ratings and critiques ques that they would be unnamed there except for category and unattributed to any specific photographer. </p>