andreipfeiffer

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Rejith, yeap ... you are right. I've been checking the links that you provided ... guess he didn't get any responde from the whatsoever.

Yeap Rejith ... I know what you mean. After posting this thread, I also posted an image for critique only ... and guess what ... not only that I haven't received one comment ... but the number of views hasn't increased also.

 

But ... WTH ... I also can't view all the images posted here so ...

On the other hand ... it's difficult with people with large portfolios, in percents you can comment only to a low number of them. And the member could never see your comments whatsoever.

Let's drink to that. So, almoust everybody is complaining about the lack of constructive comments on PNet. Of course, it's not to blame the admins here.

 

As somebody said before ... just keep on commenting on others photos, and hope that you will find somebody that does the same.

In addition ... about the Sigma 24-70 ... you should know that the filter is on 82mm ... not very common, and a bit more expensive. Also, I heard many complaints about the narrow zoom ring ... some say it is not such an ergonomic lens.

 

I personally would go fot the 24-60 instead, filters on 77mm. But still, I'm concearned about the quality, CA and so on. But ... I guess that depends on your luck ... you could get a good lens, or a bad lens. Some nees calibration, others don't.

Question: the Tamrom 28-75 ... does the front element rotates? How is the AF?

 

As for the Sigma 24-60 ... I also wanted to buy this lens ... but found out some catalogs (Photo Magazine) that indicates a low quality at this lens (preaty low resolution).

Michael ... now you are beginning to be more objective. I'm glad this is happening, and we are starting to talk.

 

Patrick ... I am sure the pools are not an easy thing.

 

 

AN IDEA WOULD BE:

- let the subscribers (or the free members aswell) decide weather their image should / should not be able to receive annon ratings. Technically this is not so complicated ... everyone that knows a bit of web programming can confirm on that.

Yeap ... pools could be a good thing. And just to be sure you get everyones attention ... send an email invitation to everyone ... not just posting a pool without any annoucement.

Patrick Hudepohl: you will lose many members.

 

Wade: nicely said, I've seen that.

 

DSC: thanks for the support, but I will just let go of this.

Yeap ... you are right. Another theory of mine was that, if you purchase that subscription ... you won't be worried about the image quota. So ... not being a free member, is also like a quest ... you have to view images, comment on them to get to the "next level" and increase your quota. It's fun actually.

Wade ... why not?

:)) ... this is getting out of hand.

 

Spencer, as I said before, I consider this thread closed, cause now I understand the thing with the annonymous rating system. Didn't know that it was introduced to avoid other past problems. Yeap, I did sweat a bit over this issue, just as you said you did in the past.

 

It's ok now.

 

And ... as I recall ... there was a issue with one of Dave Nitsche's photos ... who got angry cause someone rated his photo with 6, and didn't leave a comment. If you have a different opinion than the others regarding one image ... sustain your point of view.

 

For the record ... I didn't start this thread to complain about a couple of low rates ... I started it because many members figured out there is something wrong with this annonymous rating system. Now that I understood the meaning of this rating system, it's fine by me.

"Elves are usually only about 1 meter tall"

 

In all the fairy tales stuffs with elves ... they were presented as "taller" creatures ... taller than men.

Leslie, Bill ... I feel you. Also a "sorting tool" would come in handy: by date, by rating, etc. ... not only the default firstname.

No ... it is not by far a difficult programming issue to list the number of hits per individual photo.

 

On the other hand ... in my case, it is opposite. I get ratings, but no views (: ... is this cool or what.

 

So ... when you view an image in the annonymous rating module, it doesn't seem to count in the views no.

Jerry ... (: ... only thanks ... for ... everything.

 

Ian ... you are right. If you gave low rates to any of my images, with comments like this ones ... respect.

 

It takes years of practice to get something done so perfect, so that even the most unsatisfy-able persons to appreciate your image.

 

If you consider yourself a good photographer, that 90% of the photos presented here are "deja-vu" for you ... or "nothing special" ... you just give low rates even to the newbies? ... give him low rates, his images are crap ... but give him a piece of advise also, for cryin' out loud. It's a comunity ... teach him what has he done wrong.

 

Respect 4 the people that have more comments on photos than ratings.

@Craig Ferguson - yeap ... I was thinking of the same idea also ... but there is still one problem ... and that is for the newbyes ... they join photo.net ... they have 0 ratings. What ratings ... can they give? ... ok, let's say that the rates that you receive also counts here ... so, you post those 5 photos, and wait for ratings. What if you don't get ratings, cause you are a beginner, and your images sucks? ... so there is a problem here also.

 

@D are - esti superb, pe bune. You are right, a checkbox that reads "annonymous rating" would have been more than enough, instead of creating a new rating module. But regarding the rest that you said ... I really feel you, this is shitty ... but is the best shit we will get. Either way, those "double 3-ers" will find some way to beat the system. There is no such thing as a perfect system.

Ester ... I feel you ... I was a rebel just like you in the beginning. We use PS to make our "moments" more beautifull, right? Of course, there are some that exagerate ... and here is the problem. But honestly ... what great photographer presented his photos just as they came out of the camera? ... maybe Chema Madoz ... I guess he is the only faimous photographer with original photos.

 

If you want your work to be appreciated ... than you must, either make your photo look great ... or make it look smart. But, either way ... if you enhance the basic properties in PS ... the image will look better, and you will be more satisfied.

Yeap ... somebody should teach somebody the difference between nude and porn. Nudity is accepted among the adults. In a company of any kind, legaly only adults work.

 

Anyway ... this blocking software is preaty stupid to me. It's OK to block websites with pornographic content in order to block all the spiders, and worms, and trojans ... but to view nudity, that most of us call "art" ... is a bit sick.

 

They should create some "sperm alarm" that will go on everytime an employee goes for a blowjob in the bathroom.

 

Yeap ... a funny story, but kindda sad, thow.

"But it got ME good answers to many things" ... sorry!