unangelino

<p>I thought I could tolerate all oddities of Flickr's new interface. Now I'm not so sure.</p>

<p>I was searching for images taken by an older Sigma (DP2, DP2S, DPsX) cameras and used Flickr's Camera Finder.<br>

Camera Finder seems dandy, for a while. The first issue was pretty minor. Let's say I have scrolled way down a page and then clicked on a photo I want to invite to a group. When I go back to the search results I'm nowhere near where I left off and have to re-scroll (<em>lots</em>) to finally get back to where I was. <br /><br />Eventually, I found a method of getting back <em>close</em> to the same spot in the original page, at least for a while. What I did was force Chrome to open the new image as a tab. Anyway, one of my other goals was to view the oldest photos first. Oddly, Flickr offers only the following choices: <em>relevant</em>, <em>interesting</em> and <em>recent </em>(relevant to what; interesting to whom?). Mind you, Flickr doesn't define any of those words (they sound self-explanatory until you stop to think about them) nor will they allow a search that would be the opposite of recent. Curious.</p>

<p>In the end, it's the endless page thing that is most maddening: I scrolled down, off and on, over the course of a few hours while doing the Command/Shift deal to open images in a new tab. But, what I found is that I could still never get to the <em>bottom</em> of the page. The closer I got to it, the more time Flickr took to load more photos. It was as if the all those photos had added a kind of mass to the page that made it ever more cumbersome to scroll through. If Flickr gets this bogged down by a camera search for Sigma I can only imagine how bad it would be searching for a specific Canon or Nikon.<br /><br />In the end, I got Chrome's "Kill page or wait?" notification a few times and then the page finally crashed. <br>

Very odd. I cannot imagine a single purpose served by Flickr's endless page.</p>

<p>Lance</p>

<p>If you're not already you may want to join Flickr and make a post to one of the (I'm sure) many groups devoted to Tulsa and Oklahoma.</p>

<p>You'll find a much bigger community there and much better odds of finding someone who can help.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p><em>"At present some of us are still in awe at what we and others are capturing with our phones."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I wouldn't call it awe, but I certainly respect what a good photographer can get out of a phone or any modest camera. At the same time, I see Jeff's point that in the end it's often the camera that's the subject of the discussion rather than the quality of the image.</p>

<p>Many people are threatened by modest cameras (and modest photographers). You can see this in the reaction of established wedding shooters to Craigslist shooters doing weddings for $250. The pros invariably go after the modest gear (and also the shooter's skill and lack of experience, of course).</p>

<p>But, if the couple is OK with having their wedding photographed by a kid with a Nikon D40 and a kit lens who is being harmed?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I guess everything has it's uses and I wouldn't have a negative view of mirrorless if it wasn't for all the hype..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I'm with you about the hype, any hype for that matter. At the same time, I enjoy the ambition or maybe more the potential of mirrorless. A while back many said a crop sensor wouldn't fit in a P&S body but now we have cameras like the Ricoh GR and the Nikon A.<br>

They are niche products today, but that niche is likely to get larger.</p>

<p>Sing it, brother. I don't get it either. Whenever I see a Sony Nex, even with a kit lens let alone something larger, I do a little head shake.<br /> Bulk is pretty much the same as weight for me.<br /> On the other hand, I really like the idea of m4/3 and other mirrorless gear when they go small, like a Panasonic GX1 with the 20mm pancake. I even tried a Canon EOS M with the 22mm f/2. It fit into the very same belt pouch as I've carried various P&S but it packs a bigger sensor. That is very cool even if the camera didn't quite do it for me.<br /> The promise of leaving my DSLR at home is always attractive but mirrorless or m4/3 haven't delivered. Yet.</p>

<p>In my experience (mostly at train stations) guards have no idea of the facility's policy let alone any laws respective to photography. My play has always been to be polite to the badge wearer but follow up with a letter asking for a copy of the policy. Once I have the policy in hand it's been easy to show it to badge wearers I've come across later who really could not possibly care less and always let me keep shooting.<br>

More often than not, I find badge wearers are predisposed to react without knowing.<br>

I try not to so the same.</p>

<p><strong>@ Larry West</strong></p>

<p>I was expecting the new Flickr to feel as if it were <em>made</em> for the iPad. Then I found out it was kludgy and slow as you say.<br>

Quite surprising from a company that's so obviously itself toward the mobile user.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I think a lot of folks are jealous of Ken because they didn't think of it first. :)</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

Nor did those folks have enough on the ball to pull it off the way Rockwell has. His is an amazing, started from nothing, business model. It's truly one the little guy web successes stories worth admiring, agree with him or not, value his opinions or not.

<p>I'll play:</p>

<p>fredmiranda for all around, photo.net for the occasional off the wall appeal casual conversations and the consistent and ongoing charm of no words and dpreview for its comprehensive gear head based information.</p>

<div></div>

<p>What if she had added this to her response?</p>

<p>"Thank you for submitting the images, Steve. They are technically really good photographs. Do you have any where the subject matter is more unusual or of more artistic shapes and shadows? <strong><em>My taste is more toward the abstract end of the spectrum.</em></strong>"<br>

<br>

Ms. Mayor may know what she likes but not quite how to ask for it.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Funny.</p>

<p>There's very little in the way of electricity in Hemet and Visalia today, let alone in the 40s.</p>

<p>It's not really a drastic change, imo. However, it did seem a tad sluggish which I doubt is attributable to the the new format/look. I use both Flickr and Smugmug but I rather doubt I'll renew my Smugmug account. I've been quite pleased with the sense of community I get from Flickr. Yes, it's a pretty dang <strong><em>big</em></strong> community but it still has a good feel.</p>

<p>Irrespective of his take on digital v. film, his portraits of Hilary Swank and Johnny Depp are superb.</p>

<p>@ Bob<br>

<em>"You have nothing."</em><br>

<em><br /></em>That was sure my first thought, too. Their new model doesn't convey any sustained value. I wonder if the other software companies will fall in line with a similar model or if some upstarts will outflank Adobe by offering real software (that the owner can actually keep) which would be easily perceived as a better value?</p>

<p>@ Michael<br>

I'm with you. I use a 2007 version of Office at home and a 2004 version at work. Never an issue. Now, someday Microsoft may create a docx compatibility issue just to screw me but until then why upgrade?</p>

<div></div>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It didn't necessarily record it wrong. The JPEG processing lost some of what you expected."</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

Irrespective of whether the it was the camera or the JPEG processing the color was apparently wrong to the OP, hence his question.

<div></div>

<p>A great option if you're <em>really</em> serious (or a library):</p>

<p>http://www.lockss.org/</p>

@ john

 

you may not be quite as skilled at ignoring me as you believe.

 

perhaps you really do need a button...

 

@ anders

 

i never intended the ignore question to be a focus of this thread.

 

in the spirit of your well-considered post i will refrain from discussing it here further.

<p><strong>@ JDM</strong><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>"An "ignore" button, if implemented, would make a hash of discussions that depend on what earlier people in the thread have said. Some of us really try to read the other comments (we don't always succeed, as shown above), even when we don't agree with them."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

An ignore function would only appear as you describe to the person who has <em>elected</em> to use it. To everyone else, the threads and posts would appear in their entirety. Further, as the clip I posted earlier shows, one can elect to ignore all posts, threads started or replies by a specific user. </p>

<p>It works very well.</p>

<p>Since Brian M. brought this up, I'm wondering if JDM would be kind enough to say which of the specific recommendations mentioned so far would tend to make PNET like ephotozine.com? I had never visited (or even heard of) the site until JDM mentioned it. It failed to call to me as some other photo sites do.</p>

<p>I identify the following general viewpoints in this thread:</p>

<p><em>I like PNET just like it is; changing anything would be like drawing a mustache on the you-know-what.</em></p>

<p><em>I like PNET and with some changes I'll like it even better. Plus, a better PNET may bring in some new and interesting blood.</em></p>

<p>It's hard for me to understand the idea that any change would be a diminution at least and a dumbing down of PNET at worst.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Anders</p>

<p>With the hope of getting my birthday present in 2014, I've just re-subscribed!</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"As opposed to adding Delete/Ignore/Like features, I propose cultivating a positive, non competitive, non confrontational site culture in which participants will naturally conduct themselves accordingly. In other words, to create a culture that is more "No Words"-like."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Geez, Michael, how come everyone is so down on the humble <strong>ignore</strong> button? <br>

<br>

Folks who are disinclined to use it don't have to. Those preternaturally-skilled in the selective filtering of what they read won't need it. <br>

<br>

Me? I'd love it. If I get an ignore button for my birthday I promise to turn down the volume on my competitive and confrontational rants...a little anyway. <strong>; )</strong></p>