anthony farr

There are enough rules in the world already, so I think it would be a shame if people had to be forced to comply with the site-owners requests.

Something I enjoy about photo.net is the passion with which some photographers strive for ratings. The competition definitely does improve their skills, and I'm certain they value the time in the spotlight that success brings. It must be tough for them to resist pushing, even breaking through, the envelope with regard to size limits on submissions, especially when their perceived rivals have submissions in the critique system that are oversized and could be getting a few tenths of points better ratings than they would get at the 'legal' size.

What to do? I don't know except for what I've already done, which is to raise the matter here and appeal to members to not dishonour photo.net's generosity in giving us this venue, by ignoring their very reasonable request/requirement to limit our submission sizes.

regards, Anthony

Bob, I almost fully agree with your first paragraph except that, if a picture is at the upper width limit it is definitely not too small! It is, in fact, the right size even if its length exceeds the guidelines. This point is discussed in the guidelines with panoramas in mind, with the warning that the excess length would force scrolling and may annoy some viewers.

And I still have not suggested any change to the guidelines that would allow patrons to upload bigger pictures at any price, this idea started with you and I wish you would stop presenting it as my concept. I would be happy if the rules stayed the same and if members and patrons alike bothered to honour the rules.

You might notice that I already reliquished the thought of giving 1/1 ratings to any OS shot I encounter, and you shouldn't worry as I've seen nothing at all of your's that deserves low ratings in any department.

regards, Anthony

"In most cases, oversized photos are usually from new posters that are not familiar with resizing for web use".

Well, A.J. you're not not new and you're certainly not unfamiliar with resizing for the web, so how do you justify the dimensions of the very first picture on your bio page (caption: 2160568). I reckon that you'd be wiser to leave this topic alone. But you didn't, so.... did you ever read the guidelines I referenced? Do you believe you're entitled to a bigger share of server space per photo than anyone else. I'd be more interested to know why you think your submissions should exceed photo.net's requested dimensions, than how much you dislike my comments (based as they were upon the real, actual, published PN guidelines). But if you're worried that I'll give you 1/1 ratings, don't fret I was only thinking "aloud". Still, rules are for one and all, and knowingly ignoring them has a name..... That said, I really do admire the photos of yours that I've seen, however I won't be rating them while they retain an unfair advantage.

Bob, I'm certain I made no suggestion that paying members should be permitted larger image file submissions. AFAIK photo.net patrons are expected to conform to the same submission guidelines as free members, but are allowed a bigger portfolio and more frequent critique requests. You argue that smaller photos won't be rated "significantly lower" than oversized ones, but that just reinforces my case. A few tenths here and there is a big issue in the top photos list, and that means a lot to the competitive natured photographers here.

To both Bob and A.J., no I won't spend my time commenting to photographers about oversized submissions. I'm not PN's policeman, or anyone's mother to nag them for their errors. I opened this thread to air my feelings in one place, instead of in fits and starts all over photo.net.

I would like to think that we are 'grown-ups' who can read the rules of a contest and follow them in a spirit of fair and equal competition.

regards, Anthony

The very first thing on the "Add Photos" page, after the title

itself, is a link to <http://www.photo.net/photo-posting-guidelines>,

outlining the requested maximum dimensions of a picture submission.

It's understandable that a newcomer might overlook these guidelines.

For this reason, and because critique requests are in a semi-blind

format where previous ratings and technical details are concealed, my

until-now silent protest has been to pass over that photo thus

withholding a potentially good rating. These big pictures are

frequently good and otherwise deserving of high scores, and the

ratings I see when the next page loads are often quite high.

But really, it's cheating isn't it? Bigger picture files look

better, there's no denying it. I've seen shots that simply can't

deliver the goods at 600 x 800 pixels and 100kb, but at 200% to 300%

larger look stunning.

It takes skill to squeeze some shots into the guideline size. If I

was pursuing ratings (I'm not) I'd be disgruntled about the unfair

quality comparisons. Perhaps the next time I see an oversize shot

collecting high ratings I'll give it a 1/1 and point the author to

the "Guidelines on Allowed Number and Size of Photos" link.

regards, Anthony

Perhaps somebody out there can help me identify a problem with my

Bronica ETRs (that's ETR x 2, not ETRS x 1). They've both developed

intermittent shutter failure with their magazines on. When I test

them without mags they fire every time, with every lens. But with

mags fitted (and still in multi-exposure mode) the shutters fire

sometimes OK, sometimes with noticeable lag and sometimes not at

all. Strangely, the problem appears to have arisen simultaneously

with both cameras.

Has anyone else experienced this? Is the problem likely to be the

camera bodies (the spring driving the communicating pin between body

and mag becoming fatigued and not firing strongly enough)? Or are

the magazines the likely offenders (the mechanism behind that pin

developing too much resistance due to breakdown of lubricant or gunk

build-up)?

I believe that the lenses are "innocent" because the shutter

actuating levers (inside the bodies' lens-mounts) are sluggish over

the last few degrees of their travel (which is when the shutter would

be tripped if a lens was on) with a magazine fitted. However,

without mags the actuating levers seem strong and fast.

Any suggestions would be welcomed, please!