dragoslav

Due to illness I have not visited Photo.com since November 2016, to my great disappointment, when I logged in yesterday, I noticed that Photo.net has become Fotki.com, or photo-bucket, or Picasa; a place to dump mediocre photographs of grand kids, pets, unidentified friends, with out regard for quality. Some photographs are several iterations of the same mundane subject (something Fotki.com is known for), a few were posted sideways. If you do not have the time to 'right up' a picture you should not be on Photo.net. If you are too lazy to come up with a caption (other than unknown) you do not need to be on Photo.net. Posting 14,147 pictures for 'critique' is ridiculous, especially if they are multiple iterations of your kid on a swing. I am not saying that there is NO quality; some of the posted pictures are very good, BUT a lot more of mundane "Fotkified" crap has been posted.

When my subscription expires I will not renew it.

Does any one know of an alternate web-site for serious photographers who wish to improve their technique?

 

Dragoslav T. "Mike" Marcovich

Of the five or six 'requests for critique' two were very constructive and useful and the rest were ignored.

<p>I would give it to Photo.net so that they would bring back "Off-Topic" forum; I miss the anger, the angst, the cripto-trolls...................</p>

 

I have only one comment: Having been "affiliated" with e-Bay through my ex-wife (honey, could you take a picture of this fuse-box I want to post on e-Bay !) I have read many, many, nonsensical ads in that site. My guess is that some were written in a native language and then "translated" with Google-translate. We get our humor from what ever source we can.

Much depends on the camera that you have; with out knowing that, it is hard to diagnose the problem. I am assuming this is a digital camera and that there is no cost incurred with film and developing. Go outside to a well lit (sunny) location and find something that is in three or four 'planes' away from you (a fence, trees, bushes, stones, etc.) and take a picture. Look at the screen and determine if all (or how many) of the items seem in focus. Now go indoors to a less well lit place and repeat (chairs, furniture, people in a mall) and see if there is 'blurring'. The less light the higher chance of a blurred 'plane'. It is good to have a tripod but one can not use it all the time; BUT try to brace your body and/or your camera to a wall, post, etc. and see if that helps. I have a Kodak digital that will "refocus" on the nearest item to the lens and ALL faces come out blurred.

Dear Doug; I am sure that all the above respondents have answered your question in part; I look at it this way: if I am going to "print" the picture in a 14" x 16" format (or larger) I want the 14 MP. If I am going to post the picture on Facebook (or Photo.net's "No Words" forum) or print it as a 8" x 11" I would go with 8 MP. To me 2MP is only of use when I an going to e-mail a picture to one of my elderly relatives that has a slow computer.

A snow lepard in the Pamir Mountains

<div></div>

<div></div>

Central Ave., Albuquerque, NM 1979<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Bamboo Willies Bath Tub Races<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>