On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 23:24:53 +0100, Jon Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2005, at 3:22 PM, frank theriault wrote: > > LOL! I need to try my hand at this! I bet I can get lower scores! No, > seeing your work, I _know_ I will earn lower scores....
Well, the thing about some or maybe even most of my photos, is that they often polarize viewers. As you probably know, photo.net is basically from 2 to 7. It's not unusual for me to get 3's and 6's for the same photo. I used to think that those that posted low scores "didn't get it", but now I just think that there's not much to get, and either people like, or they don't. You don't have to (and maybe can't) explain what you like and what you don't like. > Have you looked into WebAperture? Yes, you have to put up with gushy > comments, and such, but at least it's free, and you get plenty of space > to put things. I thought I could ignore the comments at first, but I > couldn't, and then I find myself making corny comments also, so > warning, you may find yourself in a corn field real quick.... it's > addictive. I could get used to gushy comments <LOL>. But, the problem with Web Aperture is that on my computer (or my browser or whatever) it opens to a small window, that I have to maximize. It doesn't bother me, but I know from reading some other comments that it bothers others. I want to have people look at my photos in as painless and convenient a manner as possible. After all, bad enough they have to eventually see the actual photo... <vbg> I'll stick with photo.net for now. Despite "threats" to do so, they haven't actually deleted anything yet. I do appreciate your advice, though. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
