giovannis

<div></div>

<div></div>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-recent-requests?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&subscriber_p=1&critique_p=1

 

BTW, today it seems to be working - thanx

This was the link:

 

<br>

- Link to the Critique Only forum:

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-recent-requests?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&subscriber_p=1&critique_p=1" >Here</a>

After you created the new All "no nudes" category, I can no longer view my

main page correctly. It had a link to the critique only forum and I suppose

this is the culprit.

Do I have to delete the link or can it be fixed?

 

The error:

- Link to the Critique Only forum: Here HTTP/1.0 500 Internal Server Error MIME-

Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:04:53 GMT Server: AOLserver/4.0 Content-

Type: text/html Content-Length: 540 Connection: close

 

Server Error

The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server.

 

Thanx for viewing

Sorry, can't edit the post. It was a "quote" "unquote" between Bob's post and my personal views

Bob,

 

"Remember a 3 isn't "bad", it's just "below average".!

It's the lowest visible rating. Below average photos appear exactly the same as others really 1/1

 

Also, if people are sick of a particular subject (like cats or babies), they tend to score lower than they might with a subject they like.

 

I thought ratings were directed toward a "single" photo, not toward "categories"

 

I was wrong, apparently

From "my (your) workspace" page:

 

Photo Ratings

You have rated ... photos on this site, with average ratings of ... for originality and ... for aesthetics. You can view your ratings.

Please correct me if I'm wrong:

A photo to be counted as "viewed" should be clicked twice: first to enlarge it, then "larger".

 

So, if a photo is small enough that doesn't need to be enlarged twice could get more "views" or not? (there is only one option to enlarge it, no "larger"). Thanx

As far as I know, now views are only counted if someone opens the photo directly (not just the page where the thumbnail is).

I am very, very satisfied with this lens. Great perspective and sharp. It may be slow, but I don't notice it in relation to the kind of photos I take (attached: an old roman bridge).

The Canon software I use with my XTi 400D is Digital photo professional that was included (but also dowloadable on thier site). RAW files can also be read by: Capture One, ACDSee, and of course, Photoshop CS2.

Hi, thanx for your prompt reply. In fact, come to think of it, I did many shots at 1600 ISO and the selector has remained there. Now, if I set to 100 ISO, the number jumps up! - Didn't know that, thanks a lot :-)

I noticed that every time I reformat a Compact flash card in my camera (canon

400d), the number of available photos decreases (2GB - from 202 photos to 190

as of yet). This is something I haven't previously noticed. Do I have to

expect a constant reduction of photos I can take over time? Thanx to all

I've recently purchased a Canon 400D and started shooting RAW (at last). After

trying the bundled Digital Photo Professional, I got the impression that after

converting the images to TIFF or JPG, much of the sharpness visible in RAW got

lost. I'm now trying Capture ONE and ACDSee, and they seem much better in this

respect. It also seems that they can manage colours and contrast with more

efficacy. I'm really a newbie here, so: 1) Am I doing something wrong with

DPP? - 2) Between the other two, which would you suggest and why? Thanx for

your time

Thankx MM,

I've got it and put the link in my page. It's a pain though clicking on each line to see the photos :-( I'm also wondering why this has happened. Cheers

I've recently tried to get to the critique only forum, but I couldn't find the

link any more. Is it still alive? How can I get there? - thanx

I also have this camera and I've also noticed the noise. I don't care about it, since I can easily remove it with Paint Shop Pro (despeckle). If you shoot raw+jpg, you'll notice that the corresponding jpg doesn't show that noise

I've also purchased recently a 400D, and I still have to test it. I also think it underexpose somewhat, but I don't think it's a bug. In my opinion, it's the way the exposure behaves, being prone to preserve the highlight, which is much better than burn them.

 

So, to cut a story short, this is my experience:

1) sun behind, average lighting: exposure correct.

2) sun behind, scene with snow: little underexposure (correct, IMHO)

3) sun in front: overexposure, you have to set -1

4) flash: not underexposure. simply, the flash is too weak (!). If the subject is close enough, the exposure is correct.

 

Overall, not bad. I still need to test it further, though

Just like almost any other member submitting photos for critique. You will always come across someone who doesn't like your work. Accept it. Personally, I don't mind bad anonimous ratings, but I regret that explanations are never given. These also should be anonimous, IMHO. If you add a comment, it won't be anonimous anymore, and you are exposed to immediate vengeance ... Your link points to a beautiful image, though

Same here, I'm wondering what's happening.

Same problem here right now

Provided you get enough ratings (at least 5), you have to post AND ask for ratings within the same amount of time (24 hours, you see your photo there; a week, you see your photo ONLY there).

No ads in your personal portfolio, but from now on you'll see ads in the public pages. Maybe less ads than non subscribers, though (I suppose). Quite disturbing, anyway

<div></div>