bk1970
Well-known
Well, it just happened to me. I doubt I'll wait for the right time in the afternoon when i can upload the image I was working on now.
Nevermind, life goes on.
Nevermind, life goes on.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm just the messenger 
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Thanks Joe ... good to quantify a complex set of reasons with one simple statement!
Maiku
Maiku
Oh Jeez, I had better hurry before the limit is set. I have 2,229 photos of my family picnic from yesterday to upload.
back alley
IMAGES
Thanks Joe ... good to quantify a complex set of reasons with one simple statement!
...I don't want to look at a page of one person's images when I click on the link...
but the answer is one simple action...that applies to all...
ChrisN
Striving
Hey, there's always Flickr.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Did you read back through what other people offered as a solution and what they thought about the situation ... or is this all about putting me in my place?
Because you know I won't stay there!
barnwulf
Well-known
Thank you Stephen, and my vote is for 5 images a day. Thank you Keith, for bring this up for discussion. I like to participate in the Gallery Picks of the Week and trying to be selective when several people put on 25 or more images a day makes it hard to give serious consideration to such a large number of images. I would prefer that people be more selective in the images that they upload. - jim
ferider
Veteran
Thanks, Stephen.
gb hill
Veteran
5 a day is good but I must say Rob made some good points.
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
Thanks Stephen.
Is 5 a day more what you had in mind when the Gallery thread started up?
And thank you Keith for raising the matter.
jesse
Is 5 a day more what you had in mind when the Gallery thread started up?
And thank you Keith for raising the matter.
jesse
back alley
IMAGES
this limit certainly proves without doubt that we are a gear forum...
Addy101
Well-known
So, the five-a-day people won the vote? Hmmm, doesn't feel right to be honest. I'm with Black Alley on this one and I think a more elegant solution must have been possible. As I don't really use the gallery up to now, I guess I'm not the right person to complain.
And tech people shouldn't be allowed to go on holiday ;-)
And tech people shouldn't be allowed to go on holiday ;-)
back alley
IMAGES
black alley?
that might end up being my new name here!
that might end up being my new name here!
ferider
Veteran
Disappointing comment, Joe, in particular for somebody who doesn't use the gallery (anymore).
Luckily, not every online gallery does have to emulate FB or (the new) flickr. Editing is as important as taking photos. More important than picking the perfect camera, lens or bag in any case. Plus, I thought we agreed that interest in gear and/or photography are complementary.
Richard G
Veteran
Good result. Thanks Keith and everyone else.
back alley
IMAGES
too amny places to post is why i stopped using the gallery here...plus the lack of feedback was a major disappointment for me.
editing is key, yes...but this isn't about editing...or my penchant for bags or your lens tests...gear and photography can be complementary but this action goes against that compliment...
hey, this is only my opinion...but i think it's a mistake, i think it's wrong.
and that's all i will have to say on the matter any more!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
He did ... and further down the track I am completely open to change as long as it's sensible, benificial photographically and approved of generally by the people who actually use the gallery.
Thanks all ... I hope I didn't tread on anyone's toes?
robklurfield
eclipse
Is quality a number? Is there a metric that can quantify it? Can it be measured? Is bigger better? Is less more?
Was there a vote here? Democracy in action? I think not. A few members voiced strong opinions. A few other members voiced less vehment views. But total up the number of participants in this thread and it doesn't add up to a democratic anything. Should this be a democracy? I can't answer that.
Well, a person, one person, owns this -- Stephen -- and I respect him for that. He pays the bills so he does rightfully get to be the final arbiter here. And, the rest of us are able to be here at all only because he does that. I can live with that fact. I can live five posting per day or one per day or 25 per hour.
Does a limit make the gallery better? Who can say? Any of us might come up with better selections when forced to choose. On the other hand, we might also come up with selections that are no better or even worse than before.
Did having a limit so high that, for all practical purposes, there was no limit ruin the quality in the gallery? I don't think so. Will having the limit we used to have ruin the gallery? Of course not. Might some people leave in protest? Sure. But haven't we also had refugees here who fled in fits of outrage? (No names, please.)
Keith, you certainly didn't step on my toes. If one of us is right, is the other wrong? I don't think so.
I mostly agree with Joe "Bag Alley" here.
Stephen runs a nice portal for us. I am glad he does so. If wants to run this as a democracy, he can post a thread with a poll and hope he gets more participants than this thread drew. If wants to make a decision as he has here, consulting a few of us who got a little "vocal" that's his right, too, given that the rest of are not paying the bills.
I think this site is probably many things to many different people -- probably many things at different times to any one of us. Is it a gear site? Sure. Is it an image site? Sure. Can it both? Isn't it already?
Did any of us like everything we saw in the gallery with old limit? No. Did the percentage of images you liked versus the ones you didn't like change when the limit went out the window? Should anyone's personal likes or dislikes influence how many images we ought to be able to post? Do we attract or scare off people by having limits or not having limits?
One question that never got asked here -- and it's kind of none of our business, but very much Stephen's business -- is: did the cost of storage for this data get better with the new implementation of the gallery? Is it right for us to expect unlimited storage for free from Stephen? Has new cheaper storage technology made this tenable for him? He is certainly very generous to us all. I assume that he does reap some business benefits from this largess but I can't imagine that this generosity could or should be a bottomless pit. (I have spent money with his other business, having purchased at least one lens that I remember, largely, because I read about it here on the site. I've done the same with several other sponsors. We all should patronize their businesses whenever we can because of their support for the site and also because they're all good guys.)
Could we prosper with an honor system in the gallery, self-limiting ourselves? Are we mature enough? How many people ever posted 25 images in a day? How many did that with regularity? Were the images bad? Did anyone ever bump into the 25 per hour limit?
Anyway, here's my hope: that everyone who has been posting images in the gallery continues to do so and that new people continue to join us. If this change encourages that, I'm all for it. If it doesn't, I hope see the difference and manage to persuade each other and Stephen to adapt if we got it wrong this time around. In the end, I have to say that I come to the gallery whenever time permits to be and feel surprised, inspired, moved, tickled, tormented, envious, generous, glad, thankful, etc, etc. There's an awful lot of great work in there. If some of is sometime trifling or even bad, that's only an opinion.
IF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT THE GALLERY, TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO COMMENT ON THE WORK OF SOMEONE YOU'VE JUST DISCOVERED. It's really easy to fall into the trap of exchanging compliments with or focusing on our friends. The encouragement you give to someone you don't know might make a huge impact and make you a new friend.
Was there a vote here? Democracy in action? I think not. A few members voiced strong opinions. A few other members voiced less vehment views. But total up the number of participants in this thread and it doesn't add up to a democratic anything. Should this be a democracy? I can't answer that.
Well, a person, one person, owns this -- Stephen -- and I respect him for that. He pays the bills so he does rightfully get to be the final arbiter here. And, the rest of us are able to be here at all only because he does that. I can live with that fact. I can live five posting per day or one per day or 25 per hour.
Does a limit make the gallery better? Who can say? Any of us might come up with better selections when forced to choose. On the other hand, we might also come up with selections that are no better or even worse than before.
Did having a limit so high that, for all practical purposes, there was no limit ruin the quality in the gallery? I don't think so. Will having the limit we used to have ruin the gallery? Of course not. Might some people leave in protest? Sure. But haven't we also had refugees here who fled in fits of outrage? (No names, please.)
Keith, you certainly didn't step on my toes. If one of us is right, is the other wrong? I don't think so.
I mostly agree with Joe "Bag Alley" here.
Stephen runs a nice portal for us. I am glad he does so. If wants to run this as a democracy, he can post a thread with a poll and hope he gets more participants than this thread drew. If wants to make a decision as he has here, consulting a few of us who got a little "vocal" that's his right, too, given that the rest of are not paying the bills.
I think this site is probably many things to many different people -- probably many things at different times to any one of us. Is it a gear site? Sure. Is it an image site? Sure. Can it both? Isn't it already?
Did any of us like everything we saw in the gallery with old limit? No. Did the percentage of images you liked versus the ones you didn't like change when the limit went out the window? Should anyone's personal likes or dislikes influence how many images we ought to be able to post? Do we attract or scare off people by having limits or not having limits?
One question that never got asked here -- and it's kind of none of our business, but very much Stephen's business -- is: did the cost of storage for this data get better with the new implementation of the gallery? Is it right for us to expect unlimited storage for free from Stephen? Has new cheaper storage technology made this tenable for him? He is certainly very generous to us all. I assume that he does reap some business benefits from this largess but I can't imagine that this generosity could or should be a bottomless pit. (I have spent money with his other business, having purchased at least one lens that I remember, largely, because I read about it here on the site. I've done the same with several other sponsors. We all should patronize their businesses whenever we can because of their support for the site and also because they're all good guys.)
Could we prosper with an honor system in the gallery, self-limiting ourselves? Are we mature enough? How many people ever posted 25 images in a day? How many did that with regularity? Were the images bad? Did anyone ever bump into the 25 per hour limit?
Anyway, here's my hope: that everyone who has been posting images in the gallery continues to do so and that new people continue to join us. If this change encourages that, I'm all for it. If it doesn't, I hope see the difference and manage to persuade each other and Stephen to adapt if we got it wrong this time around. In the end, I have to say that I come to the gallery whenever time permits to be and feel surprised, inspired, moved, tickled, tormented, envious, generous, glad, thankful, etc, etc. There's an awful lot of great work in there. If some of is sometime trifling or even bad, that's only an opinion.
IF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT THE GALLERY, TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO COMMENT ON THE WORK OF SOMEONE YOU'VE JUST DISCOVERED. It's really easy to fall into the trap of exchanging compliments with or focusing on our friends. The encouragement you give to someone you don't know might make a huge impact and make you a new friend.