dougbrill

<p>Josh, again this is IE8. Thanks for trying. It is somewhat annoying. Maybe it's time to move to firefox.</p>

<p>Josh, This is where I can get this to occur consistently. I'm on IE8 BTW<br>

Go to the Critique forum. Select an image. From the image screen click on the folder that the image resides in. This is a series of links above the image starting with Gallery>Photographers name>Folder.<br>

Then click on the back button and for me it does not work. I have to click on it twice.<br>

I'd be interested to know if you or anyone else can reproduce this consistently.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So now the problem is on at least two browsers. IE8 and Safari. I hope Mendel is wrong about the administrators...</p>

<p>Charles, I am using XP SP3 and IE8. Thanks for the suggestions. I reboot often, clear my cache clear my temp files etc. etc. (I work in IT). This has somthing to do with the code. I'll try firefox and see if I get the same problem.</p>

<p>Lately I have noticed that the back button does not consistently work. Sometimes I have to click it twice to get the page to go back.<br>

I have also noticed that if I use the recent pages drop down in my browser (next to the back and forward buttons) and I select a page, it goes to the page +1 meaning, it goes to the page I viewed after the page I selected from the drop down.<br>

This does not occur with any other sites that I visit.</p>

I traveled in the Himalaya with film gear years ago. From my experiences in Nepal I would also try to travel light. If you are planning on leaving things in Kathmandu, make sure that it is at a very reputable place. I would suggest a backup camera and I would also suggest that if the porters are carrying anything for you that it be in pro gear cases or packs.

As far as lenses, I would go with the 12-24, the 35 and get the 70-300. you want to be sure you have good gear because these trips are usually once in a lifetime.

I am very envious.

Josh I have a question about the programming. Is it truly random or is there some mechanism to ensure that each photo actually does get displayed and further, that images are displayed a similar number of times? I have been going to the critique forum and have been seeing the same photos over and over and since random is, well, random there is the possibility that images will not be selected for display at all in a 24 hour period.

I think this is an improvement. Now I don't need to try to figure out if many people are on the site and what is a good time to submit, it's only a matter of the day of the week now!

I kinda agree with Kathy. It my not be perfect, and I'm sure with all the great minds here on PN it probably can be improved but for now, it works. If you force posters to add a comment, they will just stop giving bad ratings. Let's be honest, not all images on PN are good (just check out my portfolio :-)) and some of us thrive negative an hopefully constructive feedback. If it is only negative feedback, I still know that I did something that is not pleasing to some viewers. Absolutely acceptable.

 

One comment about the current system; we have a rating for aesthetics and another for Originality. Aside form a very few really original pictures, pretty much everything has been done so how are we really supposed to use the rating for originality?

I understand why good photographers do not like digital. Because of the low cost or no cost in digital exposures a

bad or a mediocre photographer can get good shots simply by taking lots of pictures, maybe hundreds of pictures, of

a subject and maybe one will come out good. With film, most of us would not be able to afford shooting like that so

you need to think about each and every exposure.<br>

 

The digital instant feedback works the same way. In digital, you can immediately see if you got the picture you

wanted and if not, shoot again. With film, if you didn't get it the first time, you don't get a second chance.

<br>

For this reason, I can see why software that would make digital look like film would be desirable.

This is just stating the obvious. <br>

I used to shoot a lot of film but now with a digital I find myself guilty of becoming a digital shooter and not a

photographer. I need to stop myself from being shutter happy and think about the image I want to take, that's when

photography becomes fun again.<br>

Thank you all for your responses. <br>

<b>Michael,</b> I think your response answers my question. Thanks. I did not know you could filter the Rate Photos area. In this way it would obviously be available for anonymous ratings even after a few days.

<br><br>

FYI the image that I posted is <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7636355"> Cave son</a>.

Hey Bob, How about answering the initial question here about anonymous ratings. Know anything about this?

I did not know that the site does not show rating below 3. Is this new? If this is true, how does that impact the

averages for Top Rated Photos?

 

In this case one of my images is actually ranking (uncharacteristically :) ) high. I noticed that I was getting more

anonymous ratings and was just curious how this can be done.

I am curious. Images appear on the "Rate Photos" screen in a time line that is very near to the time that the image

was posted for Critique and Ratings. As far as I know, the only way to give an anonymous rating is to scroll through

images on this screen.

 

So how can an image receive new anonymous ratings days after the image was posted for critique?

 

Anyone know?

Congratulations! Children are just amazing. I have two and I am a better person because of them. Cherish the moment. Photo.net will still be here when you are ready. Peace, Health and Happiness to you and your family.

Howard, Thanks for the explanation and I can completely see how that would affect ratings.<br><br>

I do try to enter all of my equipment used on my images. Some of my older film stuff I may have forgotten what lens I used. But I see this site as a place to learn, one aspect of that is equipment, like knowing that a certain perspective was achieved by using a 12mm lens.<br><br>

I looked at your portfolio and your images, and really, your composition is outstanding. Equipment will have no impact on that aspect of photography but I think you would agree with me that it does have an impact on technical quality.<br><br>

I also do not have a budget for expensive equipment. I'll steal a sentence from you "To risk going long here"; When I decided to move to digital the Nikon D80 had just come onto the market at somewhere around $800 for the body. A fellow photographer asked me if I would have been happy with a D50 when it was new on the market and my answer was "of course". Then why would I not be happy with it now. So I bought a used D50 for $300 and am very happy with it.<br>

My point is, if I am going to spend some money on equipment I would really like to see the results that other photographers are getting with the same setup. I know Nikon is going to get great shots for their adds even with their worst equipment.

Howard, I'd like to know why yo think this would have any impact on ratings?<br><br>

Bob, I tend to disagree about the image quality. This image, though most likely taken by a good photographer also most likely is taken with a good lens, one that I would not hesitate to buy (if I used canon) after seeing this image.<A href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6915346"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6915346-md.jpg"></a>

That sounds great so just to see if I understand; if EXIF data is available it will read from there, if not available it will look into the members equipment input. Something like that?

Josh, It is true that many photographers do not add the equipment data to thier images, but many do.

EXIF reading has it's own limitations, like film...

In any case, is this something that is planned for the future?

I, as I'm sure other photographers, am constantly thinking about the next lens

or piece of equipment that I will buy. I would like to see a search by

equipment to see photos taken with specific equipment.

But getting back to the point, having an easy way to determine if a member is active or not would be more efficient, it would mean that if we wanted to know if a member comments on others photos we would not have to go to their community member page and posting history.

So I like David's suggestion.<BR><BR>

Fred and Pnina, I agree with you too in that looking at others comments and following links is a great way to find active members, but I like to scan through the Critique Forum and having an icon that indicates how active a member is right there would be a plus.

1 word, 15 words, I don't see how it makes a difference. Someone that wants to "play" the system will always find a way (copy/pastes comes to mind). Just the fact that a member will go to look for images they like and write a few words is better than nothing.<BR>

JMHO<BR><BR>Doug

I really like the "Interesting people" feature. What I think would make it

better is to be able to add my own comment next to the persons link so I can

easily find a specific person I am looking for. E.g. John Peri I could add a

comment "Artistic nudes" or Tamara Loncar-Agoli Photography "Amazing self

portraits.

I have the D50. I love wide angle photography. The widest I had for my film camera (FM2) was an 24mm f2.0 AIS. I did go out and buy the Tokina 12-24 ATX-Pro and I love it. The 36mm that became of the 24 just was not wide enough.

It all depends on what type of photography you do. If you like wide angle, you will want a new lens. As you already have lenses from 28 onwards I would recommend something like the 12-24 range so as not to duplicate focal lengths in your lenses.

Use a tripod, set focus to manual focus, sit where you will be for the picture, focus on the tripod head, put the camera on the tripod, sit back down, shoot away!

Hey, If you are not going to sell the film camera why do you take the time to describe them, just to make us drool? I too will not sell my mint black FN2.   ;)<br>

Good information. I just moved to digital a few months back so I will remove the battery from the FN2 and store it in a better place.