unangelino

@ ellis

And by the way how do you like shooting weddings for minimum wage or less? Is that working out for you?

how helpful of you to impose your uninvited judgment regarding what the op charged for her services. kicking a person when they're down must be quite empowering to you.

 

MODERATOR WARNING:

Ellis asked the OP a specific question as to whether or not the second shooter had been paid. It is obvious the answer to that question would provide information apropos leverage that the OP might or might not have.<br>

Notably that question remains unanswered by the OP.

Ellis's comment about 'minimum wage' was a BTW comment - he was neither being pedantic nor was Ellis kicking someone when they were down - so we shall refrain from that type of critique of other members' comments - continue the discussion of pricing - but do not ere into the arena of personal comments.

Thank you.

William Michael

<p>It's not scary. Just take your time...you're not going to delete your original library until you <em>know</em> its been copied.<br>

Just remember that once you've copied the library to its new location, move the original library to the trash but <strong>don't</strong> empty it.<br>

Then, open the new library directly from the iPhoto icon a few times and make sure everything's there (and opens/exports reliably).<br>

I left my original library in the trash for well over a month or so before I finally deleted it.<br>

Are you trying to save hard drive space?</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

...please identify the location.<div></div>

<p>@ Harry</p>

<p>I was especially taken by this: </p>

<p><em>Some days I drive around in my car for hours and hours looking for something to photograph, but I just can't find it, so I go home disappointed. Maybe I lost the initial purpose why I got into photography in the first place, whatever that is ?</em><br /><br /><em>I surely did not get in it to it to take the classical Photographer pictures which I mentioned and which saturate the web. I'm starting to wonder what makes a good a photographer, one that is remembered and if somehow I missed the mark.</em></p>

<p>I can (and often do) the very same thing when it comes to writing.</p>

<p>Every story line has been done before, in every sequence imaginable. I drive around inside my head searching for something to write about (or more likely a <em>way</em> to write about it) on my own quest to hit my mark. I usually fail, but not always. The lesson for me has been to value the search for the message nearly as much as the message. Steven Pressfield calls this being a pro, though it has nothing whatsoever to do with being a professional. Being a pro to Pressfield means putting the duty to work first. So, get back into your literal or figurative car and drive around some more. The devotion to the work itself will bring your inspiration.</p>

<p>@ Jeff</p>

<p>You didn't answer whether good forums and profitability were mutally exclusive. If they are, why would this be true?</p>

<p>I'm trying to understand your vehemence against forums since, after all, this discussion is taking place in one. I'm also trying to understand the tone of your repeated statement that the preferences expressed by certain posters here are <em>irrelevant</em>. You don't say whether you mean they are irrelevant respective to the question of web profitability or whether they are irrelevant to this conversation. The tone of your writing suggests the latter. </p>

<p>Throughout this thread you've been quick to suggest that expecting PNET to be responsive to what subscribers want is dubious. On more than one occasion you've dropped the <em>irrelevance</em> word to make your point. This leaves me unclear on why this thread is even of interest to you. You don't believe forums are viable and you don't think PNET should (or will?) be responsive to its subscribers' vision for the site. Your contributions, then, make me wonder if the real reason for your participation is to remind us all that you work in the web. If that's the case, at least you've made that point clearly.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@ Jeff Spirer</p>

<p>Did I miss someone present the idea that <em>better</em> forums were somehow crucial to PNET's profitability? I'm trying to understand your contention about forums dying. Surely you're not saying that forums are mutually exclusive to profitable websites. And, if you're not, it again becomes hard for me to understand the emphasis you're placing on their vitality and PNET's future. Would you include in the realm of dying forums Twitter and Facebook and every other social media site? Each, in essence, is a kind of forum.<br>

By the way, I'm fine with the PNET forums as they are. What some may find badly dated, I see as oddly elegant in an anachronistic kind of way. My wishes (ones that I have noted here previously) for PNET would be for an <em>ignore user</em> option, a <em>dedicated macro group,</em> <em>better image uploading</em> and <em>display</em> options.</p>

<p><strong>@ martin h</strong></p>

<p>Flickr <em><strong>is</strong></em> big and initially imposing to use. But, after a while there's a happy tendency to gravitate toward a niche or community. I used it for over a year before I uploaded many of my images and started to follow other users. Eventually, I started my own group (<a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/grandvistas/">Grand Vistas</a>) and regularly contribute to at least a dozen others. Interplay between users is generally casual (as in <em>brief</em>) but I have also gotten some very thoughtful insight to a number of my photos. Better still, it's easy for me to follow the new work of other Flickr photographers whom I admire.</p>

<p>First, there is my eye's ability to gather light and my brain's ability to interpret it. Second, there's my camera's lesser ability to manage the same light. Third, there's my idea of the correct exposure for any given scene or image. Just as the definition of a <em>weed</em> is a plant I don't want growing somewhere so a <em>bad</em> exposure is one that is different from the exposure I wanted to see.</p>

<p>The question of whether forums are in decline is not a terribly intriguing question to me. Right now, I'm able to enjoy web conversations on the subjects that interest me. Perhaps I'm foolishly optimistic but I doubt that will change in the foreseeable future.</p>

<p>I'm also not terribly interested whether PNET is on the upswing or the downswing. No one who visits here off and on, or is a paying member, is likely to give up on photography if PNET were to vanish beneath the waves.</p>

<p>That said, I am interested in the fact that improvements to the site have been said to be in the offing for well over a year. I'm also interested in the fact that I've gotten two messages from someone at PNET telling me that changes were coming, yet there have been none to date. I think all paying PNET members have the right to question this process. By process I mean the ongoing tacit suggestion and direct statements that changes are coming, yet they never do.</p>

<p>I visit Fred Miranda and dpreview regularly. While FM collects a fee for joining their superb Buy & Sell community, the rest of the site, like dpreview, is free. I'm also a paid subscriber to Flickr. I pay so I don't have to dodge their ads and also I'm simply <em>appreciative</em> of the terabyte of storage and the superb integration of the site's UI with the way I like to use it on all of my devices. Earlier this year, Flickr made some significant changes to the site and not all of them were pleasing to me. But, those changes were expressions of Flickr actively trying to make the site better. As such, I respect those efforts.</p>

<p>Then there's PNET. I must admit that for the past 8 years or so I've contributed to PNET under an internal theory that the site had unrealized promise. Idealistic, I know; I can't help it. Still, at this point I am left with the overwhelming sense that to its owners PNET is something very different than it is to its members. For me, this explains the intensity of the interest expressed by many of the posters to this thread and it also explains PNET's owners apparent lack of interest in the very same subject.</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>Compelling.</p>

<p>I suppose we could all work to prevent that unfortunate possibility by ending any post that could possibly be construed as negative or unduly critical with:</p>

<p><strong>: )</strong></p>

<p>Or, we could just go forward and trust that the essential tone and content of our posts (on this subject) will create a meaningful exchange.</p>

<p>I vote for the second option.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@ Michael</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>...risk becoming interferences to site progress...</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>How could <em>any</em> thread interfere with PNET's website development or design?</p>

<p><strong><em>@ Lex</em></strong></p>

<p>I agree with much of what you say but the question still remains; what (if anything) do the PNET powers that be want to do with the site?</p>

<p>They either have a new site in beta or they don't. That new site may be better or worse (read more or less popular) than the current one. The problem is that those same powers are so reclusive that these sorts of threads do end up approximating voices muttering in the wind. After a while the thread-related interest will fall away. The result is that the PNET powers that be have, yet again, largely wasted an opportunity to learn what at least a segment of their subscribers would like in an improved site. Their willingness to miss such an opportunity eludes me. I would think they would be motivated to get new visitors to subscribe and existing subscribers to continue but I see little evidence of this.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>@ Fred</strong></p>

<p>At Flickr I have a portfolio of 600 images or so and enjoy participating in four or five groups regularly, in addition to the group I started (Grand Vistas).</p>

<p>The thrust of my agreement with the quote I cited was over the lack of a sense of community here at PNET.</p>

<p>I reiterate my sense on this point yet I continue to support PNET with my annual subscription fee. (Hint: It's the unique and wonderful <em>No Words</em> group that keeps me here).</p>

<p>The question for me and others is, for how long?<br>

<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>P.S. <br>

As an aside, PNET's lack of a Macro group after all this time is inexplicable.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Is my use of 'whom' grammatically correct? I never am sure.</em></strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Correct.</p>

<p>Who is a subject pronoun:</p>

<p>He hit me! <em>Who hit you?</em></p>

<p>Whom is an object pronoun:</p>

<p>I hit him! <em>You hit whom?</em></p>

 

 

 

 

 

<p>Back in July, I got a PM from member of pnet's <em>powers that be</em> saying the new site was going into beta in two weeks.</p>

<p>I've seen or heard nothing since then.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>For me, critiques are very important. But posting on Photo.net is like tossing that photo into a big black hole. I'm not very good as a photographer, but I am enthusiastic as a photographer. There is no sense of real community. </em><br /><br /><em>I get far more input from my Flickr account than I ever got here. And what little feedback I would get on Photo.net was the sort of advice along the lines of I should never forget or violate the rule of thirds, or that my photography properly belongs on Deviant Art. Really? Deviant Art? There is a strong feel of a BBS for a 1950's Camera Club on this site, if ever such a thing did or could occur.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This says it all for me...</p>

<p>Still summer in the Eastern Sierra, but just barely; snow flurries forecast for Mammoth Lakes this weekend.<br /> <br /> <a title="Mt Whitney by Unangelino, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3913/14919477568_c47c48c60f_z.jpg" alt="Mt Whitney" width="478" height="640" /></a><br>

Mt Whitney from Lone Pine</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>So, can we summarize by saying it's now well-proven that M4/3 is the way to go, pretty much for everyone and pretty much forever?</p>

<p>I'm glad that's settled.</p>

<p>Q.E.D.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Not really, because digital sensor technology was visibly improving year after year and that happened right until the last 2-3 years. Since the Pentax K-5, there has been no significant improvement in sensor performance for APS-C.</em><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

Assuming you're correct, and I think this is still quite arguable, would you be willing to predict that one or two years from now we won't see visible sensor improvements?</p>

<p>Progress is always relative. This particular blogger thinks gear has now become good enough. By any measure, others will differ.</p>

<p> </p>