 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / December 2005Awesome New Website!
Are you a digital photography buff? Post your pictures and ask opinions. Rate other peoples photos. Ask all photography related questions and much more! Check out www.photochimper.com That's a cool site. I'll have to play with it some more. You should check out shutterxtreme.com as well. I just joined it a couple weeks ago. I like the name, as you can tell. They're new as well. photo contests, reviews, forum, chat, and online photo albums. Pretty darn cool. :-) > That's a cool site. I'll have to play with it some more. You should > check out shutterxtreme.com as well. I just joined it a couple weeks > ago. I like the name, as you can tell. They're new as well. photo > contests, reviews, forum, chat, and online photo albums. Pretty darn > cool. I really like the site its new and always up for new Ideas and the people on the board is also great! Nothing to look at here... Very shallow website... > That's a cool site. I'll have to play with it some more. You should > check out shutterxtreme.com as well. I just joined it a couple weeks > ago. I like the name, as you can tell. They're new as well. photo > contests, reviews, forum, chat, and online photo albums. Pretty darn > cool. :-) Why do you say that? Only could get to a few photos. look like you want my money before anything else... Sites like usefilm and photo.net at least give you some privileges without having to cough up the dough.... > Why do you say that? I see what your saying. Good point. The difference is there is NO advertising what so ever. You pay for the privilege, and don't have to get hammered by advertisements. Memberships pay for contests. The more memberships there are, the more contests there will be. For instance, Dec contest is $25 1st, $15 2nd, and $10 3rd. Jan starts the Photographer of the year competition. 1st receives a Digital SLR camera & package valued at $1000, 2nd get $750 cash, 3rd, gets $500 cash, 4th gets $250 cash, and 5th gets $100 cash. From 6 through 100 there will be some prizes as well. As membership grows there will be other contest. Quarterly, monthly, and weekend assignments all with real prizes. No Advertisement prizes. Unless it's a magazine subscription, but who wouldn't want a years subscription to Pop Photo or ShutterBug. If you have suggestion I would like to know. How do we offer free stuff and still keep it advertisement free? Thank you for your input, I will pass this through the chains, and any more info you would like to share. >I see what your saying. Good point. The difference is there is NO > advertising what so ever. You pay for the privilege, and don't have to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Thank you for your input, I will pass this through the chains, and any > more info you would like to share. Well, In all honestly, up front it looks like a scam. Why don't you limit image size to say 400X300 for non memebers and 800X600 for members only. Give one upload/day to non members and 3/day to members. As it is now, I don't think it is going to be very successful for you. I think you need to get the horse back in front of the cart... Happy hollidays... Got to say my experience of Usefilm has been anything but positive. Recently there has been some sctivity by UseFilm to 'remove' members. Basically it seems that anyone who dissents in the forums with the view held by the site administrators (even where the difference of opinion is well founded and based on good reasoned arguments) has their account terminated. This happened to me for posting the following on a forum in support of another member who was also complaining of heavy handedness of the forum police on the UF forum. Another 20 or more paid up members have also had their accounts terminated for daring to disagree with the site admins. These were all users who had paid their $25 'donor' fees. There was even a comment made by a site admin (incorrectly following some research) that any photos uploaded were the copyright of the site and not of the original poster!!! Also recently the site has spent days at a time down while the databases are 're-indexed' following an upgrade which has introduced a huge number of bugs. I would strongly advise anyone looking at Usefilm NOT to donate to the site without a lot of careful consideration. As a disgruntled UF user I have now moved to photopoints (along with around 50 other UF members) - altogether a much better prospect!!! Here is the post that resulted in my being barred..... you decide what it was that merited barring.... Sorry but I have to agree with the OP. If Usefilm want to charge for their serices as a professional and commercial organisation then they are bound to behave as one. That means they need to have clearly defined rules and Terms of Service in place not like the vague ones on the home page - I mean what constitutes supporting Usefilm and what doesn't? Is daring to contradict the views of the site admins 'unsupportive' of Usefilm? Or is support only a financial contribution? Or something somewhere in the middle? If the Admins cannot or do not specify guidelines then how are people supposed to interpret them? I have been a huge fan of UF for some time but have lately seen many people leave - predominently for the same reason - heavy handed forum policing. I know policing of the forums is necessary for legal reasons (I am an IT professional advising busnesses on their IT infrastructure including the legal implications of the way they use their systems). But for the life of me I fail to understand why a dissenting voice is tagged as a legal threat to Usefilm. By accepting cash payments Usefilm are obliged to provide a service in return for that cash. As the cash payment is for a 12 month period any early termination of membership privileges or failure to provide a service should be recompensed. This is certainly true in most western countries. If legality is such a concern then the way some of the members have had their rights removed must surely be open to scrutiny. I appreciate the Admins are having a hard time at the moment getting the site fully operational but this problem has existed before the upgrades started. It seems to be worse now than before - perhaps due to increased sensitivity and workload of the Site Administrators or perhaps due to the increased dissatisfaction of more donors as a result of the unforeseen glitches. I suspect this post will be removed as not being 'Supportive of Usefilm' although if you look I have said nothing that is not either good sound advice from a specialist in IT or plain common sense. Regards to all (especially the hard working Admin team) > Only could get to a few photos. look like you want my money before > anything else... Sites like usefilm and photo.net at least give you some > privileges without having to cough up the dough.... > >> Why do you say that? I supose they should open a fourum thread called bitch and whine..... The site is about photography. not politics. Cry-babies are welcome to leave... Leave bitch and whine for the news groups. The TOS is keep it positive or get the hell out... No trolls, in other words....... > Got to say my experience of Usefilm has been anything but positive. > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >> >>> Why do you say that? Ok so to let others know of problems on sites that have been recommended is not ok? Especially when such sites charge for a service and then rescind the service for trivial (or in one case fon no) reason at all? This was not a political post at all. It was a heads up to ther members of the community to warn of activities at a site which could result in them losing money. You have money to spare for sites which close accounts at whim but others may not. I will not leave as I am not a 'cry-baby'. And since when were you appointed the global censor on free speech anyway? I am stating an opinion on an events which have happened to numerous members of the photographic community regarding a website they trusted and subscribed to. There is an issue with copyright which also needs to be dealt with as one member cannot gain access to the site to delete his pictures and yet they are still displayed on the site even though he has requested by near daily emails that they be removed. Surely that alone is worthy of mention as I am sure very few members of the photographic community would wish copyright violation of their images to occur. Incidentally, you never responded at all to my post but merely launched into a personal attack. If you are looking for Trolls, look no further than your bathroom mirror I think. A. >I supose they should open a fourum thread called bitch and whine..... > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] >>> >>>> Why do you say that? Your reading comprehension is horrible. <I will not leave as I am not a 'cry-baby'. And since when were you appointed <the global censor on free speech anyway? I said, leave the whining and bitching to the news groups. I never asked you to leave. you are free to say what ever you please, here in this news group. But on a site where, "I Pay", I would just as soon keep the discussion about photography. That is what I paid for. Bitchers and whiners are welcome to leave. To me, The UF rules of service are sweet and simple, "Talk about photography" If you deviate from that then you will probably be censured. With out that rule the site would soon be as cluttered with noise as this news group. UF is not a platform for free speech. AN analogy, if you come into my business and start complaining, outloud, about how I run it, I then have every right to throw you out on your ear. Go ahead, take me to court because I violated you right to free speech. See how far that gets you.. The simple fact is, Usefilm.com is a great place to learn about photography. If you want to enter into a discussion with professional photographers about how to do this or how to do that, you can. You can compare your work against more accomplished artists and be motivated to become better. The down side is getting caught up in the numbers. There are many members on UF who are average shooters but get huge numbers via a.s kissing and building enormous friends lists instead of looking for quality critiques. The other dimension to the down side is that some people take a little too much ownership in the site because they spent $25.00 and think that gives them every right to re-write the rules and say whatever they want whether it is on topic or not.... As for you sir. My comments where not personal, they where my onions about the subject you brought up, however off topic in this thread, and yet you dare to call me a troll. A little touchy are we? I think you need a little sensitivity training.... > Ok so to let others know of problems on sites that have been recommended > is not ok? Especially when such sites charge for a service and then [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] >>>> >>>>> Why do you say that? Good sir. I seem to gather from your post that you may have some vested interest in UseFilm (although perhaps a more suitable title given the recent events would be 'AbuseFilm'). It does certainly seem so as you are exhibiting the same reactions to criticism of the site that has led to many members leaving either voluntarily or involuntarily. You personally may not have asked me to leave - although if you are part of the Site Admins you could equally be the person who deleted my account. In fact no one asked me or any of the other 20 or more users to leave. We were not given the choice. On a site where I pay for a service I and many others expect to receive a level of service that is reasonable. If I do not receive that level of service then I am free to ask why I that is. That is my right as a paying subscriber. Please tell me what is reasonable about cancelling a paying members login, leaving their images on the site in clear violation of copyright, without even any explanation, justification or discussion. In my particular case I had already chosen to leave and had painstakingly removed the majority of my images, one at a time as that is the only way to do so. Incidentally, any request to the site admins to remove images en masse meets with a stony silence as has been seen by others in the past (curiously most are now blocked from the site). If you read what was written it was a reminder to the Site Admins of the LEGAL rights of the subscribers to UseFilm. The issue of legality was first brought up in the thread by the Site Admins (unfortunately the entire thread is now deleted). If you look I had been until recently a supporter of UF however the censorship that takes place on the site is draconian to say the least. It is impossible to post anything in a thread or a critique that resembles a URL, even when that URL is a helpful one that informs a member where to obtain an item or piece of software. I suspect even Stalin allowed more free speech than the Site Admins at UseFilm. I encouraged several of my friends to join UseFilm and took part in regular 'UF' meets arranged locally. I became increasingly disturbed by the way the site was being run and along with many other photographers (some of them extremely talented and the recipients of regular UF awards) have now gone elsewhere. I now know of at least 40 photographers who have moved to PhotoPoints (interestingly try typing photopoints into a forum thread or critique - the post won't appear - more censorship even though there may be something of interest photographically to members). If there are no problems at UseFilm and the site is run in a fair and reasonable why have this many photographers all left in the last month, some not even seeing out the term of their membership. Please.... wake up and smell the coffee. Look carefully at what is happening there before recommending the site to others. It used to be great but now? Something at Usefilm smells, and it smells bad.... Its almost as though the site is being run as some kind of scam to encourage memberships which are then terminated when the site overloads. > Your reading comprehension is horrible. > [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] >>>>> >>>>>> Why do you say that? First of all, My only affiliation with UF is as a Donor. And there is the little word in which you are not understanding. You didn't pay for a subscription, You made a, "Donation". As stated in my previous thread, the site is about photography. Nobody want's to hear the complaining and whining. I like UF because it is clean and free of flaming rhetoric such as this thread. As for deleting your images, The moment you post them on any public website, well, it is a little like tacking them to a public bulletin board. You have given away all control over what happens to them. I suppose you could get a lawyer and take UF to court and have them removed.. But what is the point? some twisted sense of revenge? My advice is to chill..... Unhappiness is your right. > Good sir. > [quoted text clipped - 195 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you say that? You are clearly suffering the same problems with comprehension you were accusing me of: My photos were removed by me one by one over a period of several hours. The individual trying to have his photos deleted is not me at all. But what you are saying regarding posting to a 'public' website is specious. To access usefilm you need a username and password - ergo it is not public. It is private and under the control of the site admins. Copyright is still copyright. If the copyright holder requests that his copyrighted material is removed they must legally oblige. And as it happens the individual concerned is looking at a class action suit against UseFilm not only for himself but for others who have been similarly treated. The damages could be substantial given the number of images concerned...... Irrespective of the way you wish to phrase it - a payment for a service is still a payment, and therein lies an implicit contract for provision of that service for the time agreed at the outset of the implied contract. This applies whether it is deemed a donation or a charge. The principle is still the same. It still applies even if the receiver is a registered charity as opposed to an individual or a business. A true donation is a gift with no expectation of any kind of return. Clearly not the case at UF. Does a blood donor expect a return for their blood? How about an organ donor? See the difference? As for being unhappy? No I am not unhappy - I am by nature a very happy individual with a love of life and in that photography. I have moved on. I am happy at Photopoints. I still have access to UF through my partners account although she also has moved on to Photopoints. I still see what is happening there through a donor account. And to be honest I would not go near the site with my photos if they paid me a $25 'donation'. They are just not worth the trouble. All I hope is that anyone else that 'donates' their $25 does so in full knowledge of what has been happening there. > First of all, My only affiliation with UF is as a Donor. > [quoted text clipped - 216 lines] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you say that? UF is public because you do not need to have a username and password access the site. Anyone can post images and comment on them. However, that was not my point. My point was once they are out there, they are out there. If they are of so much value to you or to whomever is pissed because they cannot access them to delete them, then they should have never posted them on a public site. If I had a photo of Hillary Clinton making out will George Bush, I sure wouldn't post it on any, "Publicly viewed" Web site as I would loose control of them and next thing you know, 8X10's would be for sale on Ebay... Copy right is copy right and fidelity is fidelity. Only nieve, (Spl chk), saps will believe that those rights will not be broken or taken advantage of.. As for al the legal crap. BFD. Sue em... Get your Class action put together. I can't wait to read about it in the News Paper... Sorry you had a bad experience.... Glad you moved on. I looked at Photopoints. Didn't look like anything I wanted to be a part of. The interface is not near as nice or intuitive... But, that is only my opinion. Like I said and will keep saying, I like UF because it is clean and free of flaming rhetoric such as this thread. I will continue to applaud them for denying access to those who deviate from the discussion of photography. And have absolutely no problem with them controlling thing such as the posting of outside URL's. BTW do·na·tion (do-na'sh?n)n. 1.. The act of giving to a fund or cause. 2.. A gift or grant. So, If your church kicked you because you preached the ways of Satan in their lobby, Do you think you could get your weekly, DONATIONs, back? > You are clearly suffering the same problems with comprehension you were > accusing me of: [quoted text clipped - 255 lines] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why do you say that? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.