ndj

<p>I think you've made an excellent, and positive change, Josh! I'm looking forward to seeing what else you have up your sleeve. From reading through the posts I can see that not all are pleased with the changes, but overall this seems to be an improvement to me. Keep up the great work I say!<br />ps - Go easy on that Scotch guy ;-)<br>

All the best,<br />Neil</p>

<p>I think that <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/alpha-850.shtml">Sony's recent entrance into the Full Frame sensor market</a>, with cameras starting a just over $2000, will have an impact on prices. Canon, and Nikon will have to answer the challenge. If not I for one will be hoping aboard the Sony train. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.<br>

All the best,<br />Neil</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>No, because there's no such thing as an anonymous rater as far as any of the system admins are concerned. All ratings are recorded and we can see exactly who gave who what ratings and if there is a pattern to the ratings (e.g. A and B exchanging all 7s). It's only anonymous to users.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assumed that was the case Bob. I have seen 3/3s disappear from a rated image in the past, and assumed it was the admins/moderators taking action, but there's no way you guys can police all the ratings. That'd be impossible. Seems like a huge waste of manpower, and as Josh pointed out, programmers time. Maybe Alf is correct: Perhaps the ratings system has seen better days, and is more trouble than it's worth.<br>

Could the Random Image Generator become a truly random image generator, and show random new images posted? Maybe base the top images on # of views or something along those lines? I'd be happy with anonymous critiques, as long as you have the ability to delete abusive postings.<br>

Just a few suggestions that may in the end save you a lot of grief. Could cause a revolt to I suppose ;-)<br>

Louis also has a point. There a re very few people critiquing/rating images anymore. Larger #s would give you the ability to throw out x # of low ratings, and x # of high ratings to get a reasonable average, or at least lessen the impact of high/low ratings. Beyond requiring a certain # of critiques/ratings to post an image for critique/rating I'm not sure what can be done there.</p>

<p>I'll weigh in here with my 2 bits worth. I don't think anonymous ratings do much for anyone. Why?</p>

<ol>

<li>It makes it much easier for those wanting to take advantage of the system (cheaters)</li>

<li>It makes it much easier for people with grudges to retaliate against other users (ie film vs digital, B&W vs color, etc)</li>

<li>The anonymous ratings are heavily tied into much of the other functionality of Pnet ( Random Photo Generator, Top Photos, etc)</li>

<li>It tells you nothing about your photo (Somebody thinks it sucks - no idea why so they must be idiots, high ratings might just be after a buddy rating so that's meaningless) </li>

</ol>

<p>I no longer participate in the ratings system, and do not request ratings either. If one chooses to opt out of the anonymous ratings system then you're also out of the Random Photo Generator, and much of the other front page Pnet functionality. That's a problem.<br /> I'd also suggest that stating that no change will be considered is probably not a great approach either. Possibly a thread like suggestions to fix the anonymous ratings system might net you some good ideas. Many heads are better than one. It's like the wise baboon once said: "Ahhh. Change is good"</p>

<p>How about this grain folks?</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks Folks! I appreciate all the respones. I've ordered a Epson 3800, with the i1 display2 monitor calibration software.<br>

Thanks again,<br>

Neil</p>

<p>17" is pretty much the limit of what I'll be printing at this point. As near as I can figure there is no roll paper option for the 3800. That seems to be the main drawback. 24" is just not in the budget at present.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Neil</p>

<p>I'm currently looking at purchasing a large format printer for photography. Volumes produced will be low, and both color, and B&W will be printed. I will also be purchasing a calibration device/software. I'm looking at a budget of $2500 CDN/$2000US. Any recommendations, or products to stay away from would help tremendously. So far I'm leaning towards a Epson 3800, and Datacolor Spyder 3 Elite.<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

Neil</p>

<p>Pretty cool Adam. Thanks for putting the tutorial together. I'll give this a try as soon as I get a chance.<br>

Thanks again,<br>

Neil</p>

In a few recent images I took the skys were quite average, but the subjects, and lighting, were quite good. I

found that replacing the sky made the image considerably more appealing(imho). I'm curious to see what other

photographer's opinions are on the subject of image manipulation. I do not agree with image manipulation in

journalism for example, but I think that in photography, as an art form at least, this is acceptable. Painters,

and other artists have long been improving the scenes they create, so why not photographers? What do you think?

<br>

Best wishes,

<br>

Neil