davidbrown

Could anyone advise on setting the monitor gamma in windows vista with a Compaq

LCD display? On my old PC the video card installed some colour management

adjustments into "display properties" that allowed me to set the gamma. Setting

to R 1.7, G 1.55 and B 1.55 plus the correct ICC profile is just right for photo

processing on this display. This isn't available in the new PC - the NVidea

control panel doesn't have these controls. The vista colour management tab only

allows changing of ICC profiles (doesn't it?)

I have found that QuickGamma allows me to set the display correctly. But, it

doesn't seem to be 100% vista compatable as Windows Vista doesn't run the

QuickGamma loader from the startup folder, although I can double click a

shortcut to this program after Vista has started to set the monitor gamma up. I

think the inability to run the loader from the startup folder is a UAC issue.

Is there a way to get the QuickGammaLoader running automatically on startup? Is

there any other software (free or low registration fee) that is Vista compatable?

David

It's fine now! - All the pictures were coming up wrong and seeing it now, I see that I was being linked to the group of photos that are available now (ie seeing the old photo thumbnails on the home page but linking to the next group of photos)

David

The title says it all. All the links from the front page gallery are to the

wrong photo today, (8am UK, Firefox v2).

David

At risk of being a hypocrite if I don't, I guess I'd better feedback to some of the above responses ;-)

John - what do you call the little buttons that allow you to select more than one? Perhaps your comment about new members/inexperienced raters could be countered by the statistics of the ratings being presented in 3 columns as overall ratings, guest member's ratings and subscriber's ratings. Up to the photographer how they interpret the differences they find. Yes, I miss the ability to go back to the rater's portfolio and posts to see what interests/bias they may have.

Ben - I'm also suggesting a box (just as there is now) for other comments. A balance would have to be found where there are enough possible selections, but not so many that it is overwhelming.

No system will be perfect for all people, all the time. I was just trying to think of a way of quickly and easily getting a bit more out of our present quick rating system than

1 You photo is ****

2 Your photo is rubbish

3 Your photo is poor

4 Your photo is average

5 Your photo is pretty good

6 Your phoito is very good

7 Your photo is excellent

If someone thinks it's poor I would like to know why, even if it's a simple case of "I don't think much of any PS's photos" or "I don't think much of nudes" - still annonymously. I suppose that's where the old non-annonymous system was so helpful, you could often work this out for yourself.

Despite all this, I still think photo.net is the most useful and inspiring photography site I visit.

David

After a break of four years, I recently posted a photo for review, mostly in the

hope of receiving some of the constructive comments I received in the past. I

got some ratings which are quite informitive but crucially, NO COMMENTS at all.

In particular the two who rated the photo low haven't said why. This got me

thinking and I would like to suggest a solution to this problem of no comments.

It wouldn't be hard to suggest a reasonably long list of possible negative or

positive comments that may apply whne rating photos such as; Underexposed,

Overexposed, camera shake, it's been PS'd, too much grain, over saturated, lacks

interest, well framed, pin-sharp, effective use of grain etc etc....there are

many many more.

Keep the rating system as it is, but IF the person rates a 1/2/3 or conversely a

6/7, before moving on to the next photo, they should be presented with a new

screen with the two lists (negative and positive) presented side by side with

radio buttons by each item, plus a free form box for "other comments". The rater

would then HAVE to select all those that they feel apply to each photo. This

will allow (perhaps FORCE) anyone to quickly pass comments on particularly good

or poor images, which would be a lot more useful than an anonymous 3 or 7. ie If

you want to give a 3 or a 7 there MUST BE A REASON WHY therefore let us know. It

could all stay anonymous and removes the need to think of something to say.

Incidentally, it's probably the 1,2,3s that need comment on the most. If a photo

is good enough for a 7, the photographer probably already knew whithout posting.

David B