A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Annika 1980



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old August 25th 11, 06:42 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Annika 1980

On 2011-08-24 22:20:18 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-24 20:40:15 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Paul Furman wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-24 18:48:05 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-17 08:55:00 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2011-08-17 11:44 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-17 08:17:41 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

You (and Tony and Bret and whoever else) up for a Google+ account?

Point being it's not a wide open space like facebook, but closed
'circles' around activities or people or such. More 'confined'
than
facebook.

I would like to actually examine the concept before I commit
myself. I
need to educate myself a bit first. So I will get back to you on
that
idea.

I sent you an invite (I think).

Premise is you decide who are in your various circles. Less x-ing of
information. (eg: avoids a lot of the Facebook info sharing
that's out
of your control).

I'm not sold on it yet, but anything that challenges Facebook to
a mud
fight has got to be doing something right.

I have been looking at how G+ might work for an SI type forum/circle,
and the main con I can see is the closed aspect. Even now with the
dearth of active SI contributors, we still get the occasional casual
lurker making an entry. Since there is the potential to have some of
the
current contributors not join G+, I have a feeling the G+ photo
circle
would have fewer participants than those we are able to draw from
rpe35mm, rpd, rpdslr-e, and ap.

While G+ has an ability to isolate the various circles from each
other,
and to only share an album, or stream/discussion with a specific
circle
it is going to be a awkward, regardless of any improvement over FB.
With
G+ it is going to be a by-invitation only, closed club with very
little
opportunity to grow. Also unless all participants in a circle have
the
ability to add to an album, for each SI type challenge/mandate there
will be a separate album for each entrants 3 shots rather than
grouping
each mandate in a single album.
So I have a feeling G+ would be a little messy for an SI type forum,
but
for a group of like interest folks it would be a pretty be good
way to
come together.

The way it would work is you create a circle called photo, then filter
for activity in that group to see them, and when posting, make only
pics available to your photo circle, not all your other stuff you
might post. I don't think there's a way to do that last part from the
receiving end though, so if someone decided to share all their other
non-photo related stuff with the photo circle, we'd all end up with
that to sort through. Or if you are also friends with a member or
share another interest...

Alan & I tried a test setup. I created a circle called "Photogeeks" and

The problem is we can't see what you call your circle and can't see
which people you are connected to might be in that circle so yes it's
hard to build the group. I'm connected to a bunch of people with
little interest in photography that you wouldn't want to put in your
photo circle and there are some who might be interested but I don't
know how to tell them about this venture.


OK, the way to tell them about this photo critique group is once you
jump in, I think you will see people responding with critiques and if
that looks like someone with photo crit value, you add them to your
photo circle. If they annoy you, then block them.

The subtle part is, you might add someone... then they start sharing
all kinds of crap with you about their grandma and things you aren't
interested in. The only way to tone them down would be to block them or
*tell* them to back off and keep it to photo crit stuff, otherwise
their irrelevant stuff is going to clog your photo-filtered view. I
think I've got that right? I suppose they would have to actually click
their photo crit circle when sharing or maybe not if it's just comments
on their 'wall' (wall = facebook terminology). I'm not too sure now...
I'm no facebook expert either, just exploring this.


I'm not even a Facebook player.
I can only see this as working by having a limited album, mine is
limited to sharing with members of my "Photogeeks" circle. You have
made yours part of your public share.

So It seems each forum participant not wanting to share the gruesome
details private and family life will need to learn the skillful
tailoring of his individual circles, by setting up a dedicated "Photo
Forum" circle. There is still the issue of drawing new blood to this
type of forum, I just don't know how to be open enough to freely invite
the World and then police it. That seems like more trouble than it is
worth.



Yup! all you can see is the album I have shared with that circle.and
comments you make to that album.


just put a two shot album which is shared only in it. The big
problem is
still going to be the issue that this would be a closed, by-invitation
only circle, there is going to be little opportunity for new blood.
Then
there is the issue of multiple albums for an SI type mandate, it
will be
a mess.

I will add you to that circle of two bringing the huge number up to
three. We can only see how it might develop.

I uploaded 3 photos... took a bunch but hate having to choose which is
best... it depends! :-)

OK, fumbling around, I re-did that as an album with 6 shots (sorry,
too many, I know) and made a few comments on others pics, maybe not
welcome, I don't know if this will show up as some prick making picky
comments :-) so I prefaced them as part of 'the photo critique
experiment'.


Naah! I saw the comment and that was just fine. I just put another two
shots up so that there were more that the original two.


We'll see how it handles full size

Seems to have a nice big screen view but no more. My uploads are 12
MP. It picked up my exif caption but the way I set them up for flickr
uploads, the 'Caption' is secondary to the 'Title' and it didn't pick
up the titles. I plug those in with lightroom and I think one might be
EXIF, the other IPTC?


I like the screen and the simplicity of posting to albums. I think it is
a reasonable way to share with friends & family, but I don't believe it
is going to do well as an SI type forum.


Probably, but there may be potential.


and if comments are useful or easy to follow...

Post a recent photo that you'd like comments on...

I sent Pete A an invite to G+ a month or so ago but maybe didn't get it,
just cause he had a gmail account which we'd communicated through
before...



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #42  
Old August 25th 11, 07:42 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Annika 1980

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-24 22:20:18 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-24 20:40:15 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Paul Furman wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-24 18:48:05 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-17 08:55:00 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2011-08-17 11:44 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-17 08:17:41 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

You (and Tony and Bret and whoever else) up for a Google+
account?

Point being it's not a wide open space like facebook, but closed
'circles' around activities or people or such. More 'confined'
than
facebook.

I would like to actually examine the concept before I commit
myself. I
need to educate myself a bit first. So I will get back to you on
that
idea.

I sent you an invite (I think).

Premise is you decide who are in your various circles. Less
x-ing of
information. (eg: avoids a lot of the Facebook info sharing
that's out
of your control).

I'm not sold on it yet, but anything that challenges Facebook to
a mud
fight has got to be doing something right.

I have been looking at how G+ might work for an SI type
forum/circle,
and the main con I can see is the closed aspect. Even now with the
dearth of active SI contributors, we still get the occasional
casual
lurker making an entry. Since there is the potential to have
some of
the
current contributors not join G+, I have a feeling the G+ photo
circle
would have fewer participants than those we are able to draw from
rpe35mm, rpd, rpdslr-e, and ap.

While G+ has an ability to isolate the various circles from each
other,
and to only share an album, or stream/discussion with a specific
circle
it is going to be a awkward, regardless of any improvement over FB.
With
G+ it is going to be a by-invitation only, closed club with very
little
opportunity to grow. Also unless all participants in a circle have
the
ability to add to an album, for each SI type challenge/mandate
there
will be a separate album for each entrants 3 shots rather than
grouping
each mandate in a single album.
So I have a feeling G+ would be a little messy for an SI type
forum,
but
for a group of like interest folks it would be a pretty be good
way to
come together.

The way it would work is you create a circle called photo, then
filter
for activity in that group to see them, and when posting, make only
pics available to your photo circle, not all your other stuff you
might post. I don't think there's a way to do that last part from
the
receiving end though, so if someone decided to share all their other
non-photo related stuff with the photo circle, we'd all end up with
that to sort through. Or if you are also friends with a member or
share another interest...

Alan & I tried a test setup. I created a circle called
"Photogeeks" and

The problem is we can't see what you call your circle and can't see
which people you are connected to might be in that circle so yes it's
hard to build the group. I'm connected to a bunch of people with
little interest in photography that you wouldn't want to put in your
photo circle and there are some who might be interested but I don't
know how to tell them about this venture.


OK, the way to tell them about this photo critique group is once you
jump in, I think you will see people responding with critiques and if
that looks like someone with photo crit value, you add them to your
photo circle. If they annoy you, then block them.

The subtle part is, you might add someone... then they start sharing
all kinds of crap with you about their grandma and things you aren't
interested in. The only way to tone them down would be to block them
or *tell* them to back off and keep it to photo crit stuff, otherwise
their irrelevant stuff is going to clog your photo-filtered view. I
think I've got that right? I suppose they would have to actually click
their photo crit circle when sharing or maybe not if it's just
comments on their 'wall' (wall = facebook terminology). I'm not too
sure now... I'm no facebook expert either, just exploring this.


I'm not even a Facebook player.


I only use it for work under a pseudonym, mostly appearing as the
company for an identity. I'm just not up for maintaining myself in that
realm but yeah I've got a limited amount of experience there though I
don't follow it apart from the work stuff, which is fun.


I can only see this as working by having a limited album, mine is
limited to sharing with members of my "Photogeeks" circle. You have made
yours part of your public share.

So It seems each forum participant not wanting to share the gruesome
details private and family life will need to learn the skillful
tailoring of his individual circles, by setting up a dedicated "Photo
Forum" circle.


Right, that's *complicated* !!!


There is still the issue of drawing new blood to this
type of forum, I just don't know how to be open enough to freely invite
the World and then police it. That seems like more trouble than it is
worth.


You can just scan discussions and see who is legitimately contributing
comments then add them to that circle but yeah I'm not up to speed on
all the implications.

Twitter uses *hash tags* and I would propose #photocrit for this but I
don't understand the implications or if that would be of any value at
all with google plus. All I can figure is it could be used to informally
notify those in the know to the intent of a post.


Yup! all you can see is the album I have shared with that circle.and
comments you make to that album.


just put a two shot album which is shared only in it. The big
problem is
still going to be the issue that this would be a closed,
by-invitation
only circle, there is going to be little opportunity for new blood.
Then
there is the issue of multiple albums for an SI type mandate, it
will be
a mess.

I will add you to that circle of two bringing the huge number up to
three. We can only see how it might develop.

I uploaded 3 photos... took a bunch but hate having to choose which is
best... it depends! :-)

OK, fumbling around, I re-did that as an album with 6 shots (sorry,
too many, I know) and made a few comments on others pics, maybe not
welcome, I don't know if this will show up as some prick making picky
comments :-) so I prefaced them as part of 'the photo critique
experiment'.

Naah! I saw the comment and that was just fine. I just put another two
shots up so that there were more that the original two.


We'll see how it handles full size

Seems to have a nice big screen view but no more. My uploads are 12
MP. It picked up my exif caption but the way I set them up for flickr
uploads, the 'Caption' is secondary to the 'Title' and it didn't pick
up the titles. I plug those in with lightroom and I think one might be
EXIF, the other IPTC?

I like the screen and the simplicity of posting to albums. I think it is
a reasonable way to share with friends & family, but I don't believe it
is going to do well as an SI type forum.


Probably, but there may be potential.


and if comments are useful or easy to follow...

Post a recent photo that you'd like comments on...

I sent Pete A an invite to G+ a month or so ago but maybe didn't
get it,
just cause he had a gmail account which we'd communicated through
before...




  #43  
Old August 25th 11, 08:20 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Annika 1980

On 2011-08-25 03:33:20 +0100, Paul Furman said:

I sent Pete A an invite to G+ a month or so ago but maybe didn't get
it, just cause he had a gmail account which we'd communicated through
before...


I've never had a gmail account (well, not that I know of). Thanks for
the G+ link, great photos.

  #44  
Old August 25th 11, 09:04 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Annika 1980

On 2011-08-25 02:59:15 +0100, Paul Furman said:

tony cooper wrote:
[...]
The Shoot-In disappoints me in that there is very little in the way of
critiques.


I really don't like to be mean, I comment on what I like but even that,
I feel mean leaving people out. I have done critical comments but end
up feeling like a bore.


Agreed and in my case I have less knowledge and experience than many of
you (as I've mentioned before). I enjoy learning, but remain
uncomfortable writing critiques.

Recently, I've had to accept my inability to learn some aspects of
composition and framing. Instead of giving up, I've decided to progress
my unique (whacky) styles, create a few more, and see where they take
me. As I travel along this path I'll become even less able to give
worthwhile critique to others and vice versa. That may sound arrogant,
but it's probably my best option.


  #45  
Old August 25th 11, 06:59 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Annika 1980

Pete A wrote:
On 2011-08-25 03:33:20 +0100, Paul Furman said:

I sent Pete A an invite to G+ a month or so ago but maybe didn't get
it, just cause he had a gmail account which we'd communicated through
before...


I've never had a gmail account (well, not that I know of). Thanks for
the G+ link, great photos.


Hmm, OK but google knew I knew you when I was setting it up, and I added
you to my photo circle, then when I went to share the album with my
photo circle, it gave the option to email you, since you aren't on
google plus.

Glad you enjoyed :-) Which should I delete?

In fact, I made the album available to the public though I suppose you
can't comment without being on google plus:
https://plus.google.com/photos/11167...87248641?hl=en
Can you see the comments?
  #46  
Old August 25th 11, 08:42 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Annika 1980

On 2011-08-25 18:59:23 +0100, Paul Furman said:

Pete A wrote:
On 2011-08-25 03:33:20 +0100, Paul Furman said:

I sent Pete A an invite to G+ a month or so ago but maybe didn't get
it, just cause he had a gmail account which we'd communicated through
before...


I've never had a gmail account (well, not that I know of). Thanks for
the G+ link, great photos.


Hmm, OK but google knew I knew you when I was setting it up


Knew? Google probably has more data on me than I will ever know about
myself, bless its cotton socks. It has never spoken to me personally so
I doubt it actually understands its data! As someone else pointed out,
if it's free then the users are the commodity.

and I added you to my photo circle, then when I went to share the album
with my photo circle, it gave the option to email you, since you aren't
on google plus.

Glad you enjoyed :-) Which should I delete?

In fact, I made the album available to the public though I suppose you
can't comment without being on google plus:
https://plus.google.com/photos/11167...87248641?hl=en

Can you see the comments?


I saw the comments and, yes, I cannot add comments because I am not a
member - some may disagree with that assertion

For some idiotic reason, G+ forwarded me an https link instead of an
http link to public information, which costs money plus generates
unnecessary CO2 at their end and mine.

The link I received was much longer than the one you gave above. Of
course, how else could I be a Google commodity? Google's only saving
grace was that I didn't need to enable the mind-boggling insecurity of
cookies (unlike myPicturetown and Apple's iDisk public folder sharing,
grrr.)

Which picture(s) should you delete? I'll be brutally honest: 2 and 5
because they do not have the power to enchant the viewer. 1, 3, 4, and
6 _all_ have that power, and equally.

HTH,

Pete

  #47  
Old August 30th 11, 06:16 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Annika 1980

Noons wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

just put a two shot album which is shared only in it. The big problem
is still going to be the issue that this would be a closed,
by-invitation only circle, there is going to be little opportunity for
new blood.


Amazing! It took you both how long to figure that out?


It would be very open to people using G+, you'd just need to make some
formal announcements periodically.


Here is another epiphany for both of you: what you consider "new
blood" has been exclusively the little club you wanks nurture. It
hasn't had any new blood for eons.
Mostly because of the constant deriding, idiotic and childish
bickering that has alienated any smidgeon of credibility any of you
could have.


Thank God for sweethearts like you saving us ;-)


And driven most of the attendants in the Usenet to other forums where
they don't have to listen to seppo idiocy in every single post.
Capice?

Then there is the issue of multiple albums for an SI type
mandate, it will be a mess.


You mean more than it already is?
And yet, the single most blatant and obvious lunacy in all your
arguments is that if you created a simple forum group in pbase, you
would have a much wider audience. But that's too much work for your
single brain cell, ain't it?


Meh, I wouldn't register on pbase for that. G+ might work if just about
everybody joins anyways like facebook (which I don't really use much).

I was just curious how it might work and how G+ works in general with
the circles idea. The problem is, you can control who sees your stuff
but can't filter your contacts' other irrelevant content. It sounds mean
but if you connect with a photog, you automatically get all their
non-photography content. Hmm, well in theory I guess they might not
share their posts with everyone but how do you tell someone to quit
posting stuff? lol

Here's the scenario I faced: I've got a bunch of contacts from another
place with a common thread of computer geek stuff and a few of them, I
added to my photo circle. Now I can filter my view to only people in my
photo group but I can't keep these people's geek talk out of that view.
At least I don't think so. That's not the end of the world but it just
doesn't work that well for a shoot-in type forum - it sucks you into
something much larger.


I will add you to that circle of two bringing the huge number up to
three. We can only see how it might develop.


Do you still develop? Get on with the times, you luddite!


  #48  
Old August 30th 11, 08:59 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default Annika 1980

Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2011 3:16 PM:


It would be very open to people using G+, you'd just need to make some formal
announcements periodically.


Not yet convinced G+ is all it seems. Google was supposed to "take over"
DejaNews and "make it better". Look at the mess they made of the Usenet.
They exhausted my confidence, it won't get back.




Thank God for sweethearts like you saving us ;-)


"saving" is a swear word in my circles...

Meh, I wouldn't register on pbase for that.


Me neither. Nor for anything else, as a MOF.

G+ might work if just about
everybody joins anyways like facebook (which I don't really use much).


It'll take a looooong time, when even the initial stuff is by invitation only.


I was just curious how it might work and how G+ works in general with the
circles idea. The problem is, you can control who sees your stuff but can't
filter your contacts' other irrelevant content.


How would you propose to define "irrelevant" content to a filter?

It sounds mean but if you
connect with a photog, you automatically get all their non-photography content.
Hmm, well in theory I guess they might not share their posts with everyone but
how do you tell someone to quit posting stuff? lol


FB has one endearing feature to me: the little "x" on the top right of every
post sent to me. Gets too stupid for my nerves to carry? I just silence it,
right there. Everything else stays the same, it's just posts like that one that
go. Dunno how to do that in G+. Yet.


Here's the scenario I faced: I've got a bunch of contacts from another place
with a common thread of computer geek stuff and a few of them, I added to my
photo circle. Now I can filter my view to only people in my photo group but I
can't keep these people's geek talk out of that view. At least I don't think so.


I think you can. I've got at least three circles active at the mo and I only
see the banter of each when in each circle.


  #49  
Old August 30th 11, 06:22 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Annika 1980

Noons wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

It would be very open to people using G+, you'd just need to make some
formal announcements periodically.


Not yet convinced G+ is all it seems. Google was supposed to "take over"
DejaNews and "make it better". Look at the mess they made of the Usenet.


Yeah, though it did expand the audience, in an 'eternal September' kinda
way.

They exhausted my confidence, it won't get back.

Thank God for sweethearts like you saving us ;-)


"saving" is a swear word in my circles...

Meh, I wouldn't register on pbase for that.


Me neither. Nor for anything else, as a MOF.

G+ might work if just about
everybody joins anyways like facebook (which I don't really use much).


It'll take a looooong time, when even the initial stuff is by invitation
only.


It's invite only because it's still beta, I think. One thing I noticed
though is people who are big facebook users have zero interest in G+.


I was just curious how it might work and how G+ works in general with the
circles idea. The problem is, you can control who sees your stuff but
can't
filter your contacts' other irrelevant content.


How would you propose to define "irrelevant" content to a filter?

It sounds mean but if you
connect with a photog, you automatically get all their non-photography
content.
Hmm, well in theory I guess they might not share their posts with
everyone but
how do you tell someone to quit posting stuff? lol


FB has one endearing feature to me: the little "x" on the top right of
every post sent to me. Gets too stupid for my nerves to carry? I just
silence it, right there. Everything else stays the same, it's just posts
like that one that go. Dunno how to do that in G+. Yet.


Little down arrow upper-right of post mute post.


Here's the scenario I faced: I've got a bunch of contacts from another
place
with a common thread of computer geek stuff and a few of them, I added
to my
photo circle. Now I can filter my view to only people in my photo
group but I
can't keep these people's geek talk out of that view. At least I don't
think so.


I think you can. I've got at least three circles active at the mo and I
only see the banter of each when in each circle.


Anyone want to test this with me? lol, it just seems rude to ask my
contacts for help with strategies for blocking their irrelevant crap.
It's not completely crap, I might want to read that stuff, just trying
to sort it. I don't think it'll work but maybe they are just not using
the selective circle thing and posting everything to everyone. When I
comment on something, I don't see the option to choose who sees my
comments to other folks' posts, only when I start a post. So if someone
has me in their photo circle and I comment on something irrelevant, they
will have my comment in their photo circle filtered stream.
  #50  
Old August 30th 11, 07:07 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Annika 1980

Paul Furman wrote:
Noons wrote:
I was just curious how it might work and how G+ works in general with the
circles idea. The problem is, you can control who sees your stuff but
can't filter your contacts' other irrelevant content.


How would you propose to define "irrelevant" content to a filter?


If someone in my photo circle, who is also in my geek circle, posts
something geeky and non-photo related, then I filter my stream to photo
contacts only, I still get their geek post because I'm not allowed to
see how they are categorizing me in their circles. Then if they comment
on some stranger's silly TV show fan club post, I see that too... I
think? Maybe the latter only if I click on their name to see everything
they're up to? What if they commented on somebody's transgender topic
that they didn't intend everyone to see? I don't see how to narrow
distribution of replies - only initial posts. lol, I don't really know
how facebook works either - or face to face in real life socializing for
that matter ;-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Annika 1980 Savageduck[_3_] 35mm Photo Equipment 2 July 16th 11 05:37 AM
Have we seen the last of Annika? Jufí Digital Photography 6 May 14th 08 12:47 PM
The Real Annika? Anonymous 35mm Photo Equipment 1 March 21st 07 06:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.