| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2011 11:04:41 PM · #2276 |
Originally posted by marnet:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I think April Fool's Day is a US convention. |
April Fool's originated in England, known in 14th century France, and known all over Europe ever since.
|
Ah! Learn something new every day! And here I thought the rest of the world just a tad saner.... |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 12:02:51 AM · #2277 |
No dice. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 10:56:21 AM · #2278 |
Spent some time on the new site. I like it. Faster, actually works quickly on my iPhone, and laid out cleaner. My only dislike is the white. It's clearly geared to selling prints now if you have a look at the membership options. I suppose this is why they changed from "published" to "selected" for the galleries. Gotta love the off white polaroid border when you click on a selected image (one of mine), again I think geared to selling images. Joe asked about the stats...down the right side of the screen. Overall it's a fresh look, makes it exciting and new, at least for a honeymoon period... Langdon?
Message edited by author 2011-04-02 10:56:48. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 11:38:15 AM · #2279 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Spent some time on the new site. I like it. Faster, actually works quickly on my iPhone, and laid out cleaner. My only dislike is the white. It's clearly geared to selling prints now if you have a look at the membership options. I suppose this is why they changed from "published" to "selected" for the galleries. Gotta love the off white polaroid border when you click on a selected image (one of mine), again I think geared to selling images. Joe asked about the stats...down the right side of the screen. Overall it's a fresh look, makes it exciting and new, at least for a honeymoon period... Langdon? |
When I click on your link I get to see a loading screen but it never shows image. Not sure what the problem is.
Also, I cannot see how many upload slots I have left? There seems to be no limit on the uploads at the moment. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 04:04:32 PM · #2280 |
| I just realized that the most significant change for "free members" is that they only can upload 10 photos, total, published or rejected. After that they can only sit back and watch... or upgrade :). For those of us who already hs more that 10 photos uploaded, they are giving 5 additional slots, and that's it. Basically, it has become a paid site if you want to continue submitting. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 04:43:39 PM · #2281 |
Originally posted by LevT:
I just realized that the most significant change for "free members" is that they only can upload 10 photos, total, published or rejected. After that they can only sit back and watch... or upgrade :). For those of us who already hs more that 10 photos uploaded, they are giving 5 additional slots, and that's it. Basically, it has become a paid site if you want to continue submitting. |
Right, I just figured that out. End of the line, for the likes of me. I can't imagine paying them to be continually rejected.
R. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 04:50:27 PM · #2282 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Faster, actually works quickly on my iPhone, and laid out cleaner. |
Well at least I now know the platform they are optimized for, because on my home DSL it is quite painfully slow to load now, and the layout has some of the WalMartish look of Facebook, in place of the fairly standard grey serious stuff look of every photographers web site. It stands out, but that isn't always a good thing. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 05:06:56 PM · #2283 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by LevT:
I just realized that the most significant change for "free members" is that they only can upload 10 photos, total, published or rejected. After that they can only sit back and watch... or upgrade :). For those of us who already hs more that 10 photos uploaded, they are giving 5 additional slots, and that's it. Basically, it has become a paid site if you want to continue submitting. |
Right, I just figured that out. End of the line, for the likes of me. I can't imagine paying them to be continually rejected.
R. |
For the likes of me, that'd be six to one and half a dozen to the other betwixt this site and that. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 06:57:05 PM · #2284 |
Originally posted by LevT:
I just realized that the most significant change for "free members" is that they only can upload 10 photos, total, published or rejected. After that they can only sit back and watch... or upgrade :). For those of us who already hs more that 10 photos uploaded, they are giving 5 additional slots, and that's it. Basically, it has become a paid site if you want to continue submitting. |
I guess that's the end of the site for me, there's no way I'm paying to be rejected, I get enough of that here for free :)
But seriously, I see this as being the downfall of 1x, the now layout is too commercial, new users will get discouraged by the 10 limit before they get anything published, and existing free members will probably wader off to another site that isn't making participation a paid only feature. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 09:05:44 PM · #2285 |
I'm no 1x super star or apologist, and I'm not crazy about some of their policies either. However, the site is not ad supported. And from what I can tell the only revenue they get is from the members.
The basic membership is $49 per year, or a little over $4 per month.
I realize that $49 is not insignificant for a lot of people, especially these days. But, if you like the quality of the work there and the exposure your images get when you do get published, then I recommend financially supporting the site.
If you don't like it or see no value in what they offer, then I wouldn't recommend participating, even for free.
If the people that are participating only because it's free all leave, I don't see it as the downfall of 1x. It wasn't like they were contributing to the upkeep and maintenance of the site anyway. If anything, it will reduce the number of "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" entries anyway.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2011 10:57:19 PM · #2286 |
David, I see your point but I don't completely agree. I certainly can afford the membership fee and I may fork it out eventually, but for a lot of people, especially from poor countries (and there are a lot of talented photographers from Indonesia, Serbia, Romania, and the like on the front page every day), it may be out of reach. It would be a shame to leave them out completely. Yes, it may reduce the number of weak entries as you say, but also good entries, and I am not sure the percentage of good vs bad will become higher. Maybe the opposite, non-paying members have very few slots (1-2 per week), and they can't afford to waste them on dross, whereas paying members have 5-10, and they certainly can... and will :).
Also, I don't view photographers-site relationship as a one-way street, i.e. as the site providing a valuable service for photographers (presumably for free). The benefits are mutual, without great photos 1x would be nothing, no traffic, no paying members, no book sales, no potential print sales. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 11:48:44 PM · #2287 |
Originally posted by LevT:
David, I see your point but I don't completely agree. I certainly can afford the membership fee and I may fork it out eventually, but for a lot of people, especially from poor countries (and there are a lot of talented photographers from Indonesia, Serbia, Romania, and the like on the front page every day), it may be out of reach. It would be a shame to leave them out completely. Yes, it may reduce the number of weak entries as you say, but also good entries, and I am not sure the percentage of good vs bad will become higher. Maybe the opposite, non-paying members have very few slots (1-2 per week), and they can't afford to waste them on dross, whereas paying members have 5-10, and they certainly can... and will :).
Also, I don't view photographers-site relationship as a one-way street, i.e. as the site providing a valuable service for photographers (presumably for free). The benefits are mutual, without great photos 1x would be nothing, no traffic, no paying members, no book sales, no potential print sales. |
I never looked at 1x before and just read here a few postings. A site were you have to pay a fee (and moreover be rejected) is pretty much like a "vanity art gallery". And no serious artist will ever pay a gallery to have his work exhibited (they might do a lot of crap to get to a major gallery though, but outside the general knowledge).
There are a lot of great free art sites which include photography, mostly European. |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 01:18:18 AM · #2288 |
| To me the new 1X looks absolutely beautiful. It is not only light, but also elegant. I love all the white! Anyway ... just another POV. |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 02:38:45 AM · #2289 |
I thought the 10 slots had been in place for a while and wasn't a direct consequence of the wider changes.
I'm a paying member, have been for a couple of years, I paid up because I wanted to support the site. I drew a lot of value from it so I was happy to drop some money; a bit like donating to Wikipedia or paying for freeware...
I can see Lev's point though. |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 07:22:18 AM · #2290 |
I don't have a problem paying for membership. I paid it at DPC, why not at 1x? You also get your Web page with it where you can put any photos you want, not just the published/selected ones.
Having looked through the latest "selected" photos in All Categories I started to wonder if there is a bias developing towards photos that would make good wall prints in the modern interior architecture? After all this is the new commercial model for 1x - sell prints.
PS I had to use Adblock in Firefox on their ad. I don't like the provocative nature of the 1st image. |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 07:59:59 AM · #2291 |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 10:04:57 AM · #2292 |
Originally posted by marnet:
PS I had to use Adblock in Firefox on their ad. I don't like the provocative nature of the 1st image. |
The chick with moths on her face? That's provocative? |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 10:07:06 AM · #2293 |
| Hey, why has 1x turned into Facebook? A "Wall"? |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 11:01:52 AM · #2294 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Hey, why has 1x turned into Facebook? A "Wall"? |
I know i hate it like that... |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 12:26:57 PM · #2295 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Hey, why has 1x turned into Facebook? A "Wall"? |
Yeah, I don't get that. |
|
|
|
04/04/2011 03:15:01 PM · #2296 |
| Well it's gone from something I had enjoyed visiting as a photographer to something I'd likely only visit if I wanted to buy a print. It's got an e-commerce interface. I see enough of that. 1x used to be a departure. |
|
|
|
04/04/2011 06:37:59 PM · #2297 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by marnet:
PS I had to use Adblock in Firefox on their ad. I don't like the provocative nature of the 1st image. |
The chick with moths on her face? That's provocative? |
Blood dripping of her mouth. Provocative has 2 meanings - my meaning was disturbing and annoying. |
|
|
|
04/04/2011 08:44:34 PM · #2298 |
| Did I see where I'd have to "friend" someone before I could comment on their picture?? |
|
|
|
04/04/2011 08:48:37 PM · #2299 |
Yes, I am trying again, because they have changed that ugly look, and site acts faster now...
...other stuff i will put aside.
Rejected photo here |
|
|
|
04/04/2011 08:50:27 PM · #2300 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Did I see where I'd have to "friend" someone before I could comment on their picture?? |
No. You don't have to "friend" someone to comment on their picture. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/17/2025 12:41:49 PM EDT.
