mhahn

I've pretty much given up on Photo Net. Any negative criticism anyone has of the site, I agree with. And why should you have Karl's support, Glenn, when in his estimation the site he once liked has been ruined? It 's not as though "bug fixes" are likely to restore it to anywhere near what he used to like.

These are pictures which I think are reasonably sharp, and I'm not talking about correcting localized areas. It's just that the 5x7's look a little soft, like they need a little special sauce of sharpening, or a slight boost in contrast, or to be printed on a difference surface. I'm not really sure.

I wonder if using an older film camera lens is contributing to a little softness in some of the pictures I'm working with. Or maybe because I added some (too much?) noise reduction. Or maybe I just need to increase the contrast a little bit. These are pictures that look fine printed in color on 81/2x11 office copy paper, but tend to look a little soft in the Adoramapix 5x7's. I actually tried to download Pixel Genius software yesterday, but for some reason it didn't show up in my Photoshop. And adding 60/4 UM, which looked good on screen . . . I don't think that's the answer.

How would the print quality from the Canon PIXMA PRO-100 compare to the print quality from a decent online printer (Adorama.pix, for instance)? I used to do B&W darkroom printing, but have never done my own printing from a digital camera.

Add an additional 60 (amount) at a radius of 4 looks about right. Takes away the sharpness without adding jaggy edges when looking at images at 50 percent.

Photos I've taken with a Nikon d5200, but mostly with an older E series 100 (105?) mm lens look sharpened to about the right amount on my monitor (it's a pretty ordinary monitor), but most of the 5x7's I've had printed at Adoramapix (on glossy paper) look a little soft. The pictures I like I want enlarge to 8 1/2 by 11 or 11 x 14, in some cases. So I do I need to add more sharpening? Do I add enough so that the photos actually look oversharpened on my monitor? I edit my pictures in Photoshop, which comes with Lightroom, which I never use. Thanks in advance for any advice anyone might offer. Martin

Way too complicated. If people weren't using it enough, it's probably because it wasn't enough fun. This sounds like even less fun (not to knock a very well-thought-out system, but it's just not what I would find appealing).

The PN administration purports to be concerned about the fairness of the ratings system, yet they deleted all of our old ratings without warning? Hey, what if we liked having those ratings?

Can all of the camera setting information be restored? For some pictures, I had put the file number in with that information, and now I can't quickly match some of my pictures in my Photo Net galleries with the pictures in my computer files (which are organized by their file number). I mean, yes, I can match them up if I have to, but for cripe sake, what kind of website deletes your information without giving you some advance warning? Why should I have to be expending any effort on doing this?

Just checked whether the gallery sort had been straightened out. But no . . . every time I clicked on a picture, the rest of the gallery re-sorted. Makes it impossible to search through a big gallery. So, gone are the parts of Photo Net that I found fun and the parts of it that made it a decent organizational tool are still thoroughly messed up.

Why can't you update and reboot but retain the part of Photo Net that I enjoyed: posting pictures for ratings and critique and seeing them (my pictures!) for a few minutes on the Photo Net home page? Unless it's a "me" centered fantasy, I don't really see the point of Photo Net. Advice, reviews, etc., you can get in so many places.

Am I wrong about the picture order changing every time I click on a picture in a gallery?

Just the basic naviagation through a gallery is so dysfunctional . . . . if you click on a picture to take a look at it, the order of the other pictures in the gallery changes . . . after scrolling through a certain number of pictures (not that many), you get a "load more" icon, leaving you with very little idea how many more pictures are in the gallery . . . PhotoNet is just completely dysfunctional at this point.

If the order of the pictures in my galleries can't be restored to how it was before "the change" (and maybe it can be), it should at least be possible to make the order stop changing! I find a picture in one of my galleries that I want to look at it, so I click on it, then when I click on the "back" button to go back to the gallery view and continue searching for other pictures, I find that the order of the rest of the pictures has changed. How can I do an organized search through a gallery when every time I look at one picture the order of the others changes? C'mon!

What happened to the order of the pictures in my galleries? Will that be restored to the way it had been? Also, the order seems to change. I have a couple of galleries with a lot of pictures, and it's so frustrating to find a particular picture now that I just give up, and pretty quickly. It's very frustrating.

That is different. Thanks!

It's so nice to see that page in the Wayback Machine. I don't know how that works. Will it always be there?

Honestly, do I care that much about page views per visit or bounce rate data? No, I don't. What I care about is that a reasonably nicely functioning website that I enjoyed has been almost completely obliterated.

WHy don't you just sell us the old site at a bargain-basement price, since it's so worthless and the new one's so popular?!

And are there any people leaving positive responses to back up the page views per visit and bounce rate data, which you interpret to mean that there's more interest than ever in PN? I can't say that I'm looking very hard, but pretty much all I see is complaints and some comments counseling patience.

I think that many of us are angry and want to strangle Glenn not primarily because of the bugs, but because of the whole approach which you have taken toward the redesign of the site, which we utterly don't care for. And I don't know if you consider it a bug or not, but these little slivers of pictures that are used as thumbnails is something that I find completely annoying. How can you compare or find pictures when you can only see little bits of them?

There's no point in being more patient since the owners/administrators of the site don't seem to realize that the old format worked reasonably well and that the new format is is almost completely dysfunctional and there's no fun in being on the site anymore, except perhaps to complain. For cripes sake, you can't do the most basic things anymore. For instance, I wanted to scroll through all the pictures in some of my galleries to find a few specific pictures, but it's impossible to do because the thumbnails are just these little slivers of the pictures and I can't identify the pictures I'm looking for from the thumbnails. If I do click on a picture to see if it's one of the ones I'm looking for, I don't seem to be able to go back to the gallery view, I have to go back to "my portfolio," which makes the whole thing so time consuming it's almost not worth doing.