Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Robert DeCandido PhD on February 09, 2017, 11:46:33 am
-
Despite protests from anyone who saw the first re-design of photo.net, the administrators there decided to plow ahead and try again. They did and the new site is almost as bad iteration #2. It is slow (very) to load and looks "cutesy." I am just hoping they come to their senses and revert...again. And leave it alone.
-
Despite protests from anyone who saw the first re-design of photo.net, the administrators there decided to plow ahead and try again. They did and the new site is almost as bad iteration #2. It is slow (very) to load and looks "cutesy." I am just hoping they come to their senses and revert...again. And leave it alone.
How about they do everyone a favor and just shut it down.
Photo.net had too many 'entrenched' members for my taste and I left years ago.
-
How about they do everyone a favor and just shut it down.
Photo.net had too many 'entrenched' members for my taste and I left years ago.
I left years ago, but not because of entrenched members. I left when I came over here, and to me it seems the collective wisdom of the members here is a little better.
-
...
Photo.net had too many 'entrenched' members for my taste and I left years ago.
And this (LuLa) does not? :)
-
And this (LuLa) does not? :)
Not like the ignorant a******s that posited their selves as 'experts' who made shitty photos.
-
I haven't been to photo.net since like 2007. :)
-
Sometimes I stumble on photo.net threads when doing Google searches, but there is never what I'm looking for. Maybe someone starts talking about specific qualities of a lens for a bit, before going off on a tangent about other gear they have or how awesome some pictures (I can't even see because the thread is from 10 years ago) are.
-
I honestly didn't think anyone was still using that. I only seem to remember that the only thing from that site that ever popped up in google was always from about 2003 or sooner and it was full of answer to questions like - I don't own that camera and never will but you should try ___x___ instead. Completely irrelevant and non sensical at times.
-
I don't own that camera and never will but you should try ___x___ instead. Completely irrelevant and non sensical at times.
Pretty much. Though you can find something from 2008 too! :P
-
I honestly didn't think anyone was still using that.
Same here. Didn't even know if was still limping along. Quit the site something like 20 years ago and this is the first time I've heard it mentioned in any context. I don't know how anything could be less relevant to my world. Well....maybe Farcebook or Twitville. ;D
-
My photo galleries are missing today...as well as the photos within. The site continues to load more slowly than the original site. I was calling this iteration Failure #2...I'll re-name it to Massive Failure #2.
-
Not like the ignorant a******s that posited their selves as 'experts' who made shitty photos.
LuLa definitely has it's share of those...
-
It was quite the site in the film days in the late 90s, early 2000s. Is Phillip Greenspun still running it?
-
It is a constant stream of disappointments.