Version 1.1: the updated look and navigation peek

Bill Boehme wrote in post #17363993
The thing that makes POTN what it is comes from sharing of information and ideas along with beautiful photographs. Software that supports and facilitates that is icing on the cake. While I really do like the current clean uncluttered look, white or blue icing is of lesser importance since I am here not to look at the cake, but to partake of it.

Great, now I have a craving for some birthday cake...

From the beginning, the AMASS software has been outstanding.... clean, open, friendly.
Thanks, Pekka!

I found the best date to upload AMASS v.1.1 and not have 2 days with a blank page.
It should start on February 30 and like that it should be finished by February 31


Happy new year every one, and thank Pekka for what you did, do and will do

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17366816
I found the best date to upload AMASS v.1.1 and not have 2 days with a blank page.
It should start on February 30 and like that it should be finished by February 31

Update from 1.0 to 1.1 will take only about 10-20 minutes.

Happy new year every one, and thank Pekka for what you did, do and will do

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17363569
I'll get used to it no doubt, but I'm not a fan of the blue bars. Looks too much like the old vBulletin.

Pekka wrote in post #17363600
I'm not sure if this is known, but guess who made the color scheme for the old POTN? It was not vbulletin that added those colors, it was me So essentially I'm doing a hommage to my old theme.

I like the look of the new design. Especially the organization and readability of the header, and I am looking forward to the implementation, whenever it is ready.

If you don't like the blue bars, Levina, and Pekka really wants to do a homage to the old site, maybe they should be red bars to harken back to the days when this was a "Canon only" forum. (Just kidding, I know it was never truly a "Canon only" forum)

I have a question about the Exif ...
Is it possible to implement them automatically instead to click on the button to retrieve them ?
Why i think it will be better this way ?
1) considering that people are quite lazy with clicks (just by seeing all the complain with AMASS and how people don't like to move their mouse ), a lot of them don't do more click to add them nor to add to the gallery ...
2) Some people (quite a lot in fact) don't even know what Exif are about.
3) I saw some people that they didn't know that they can put exif just by clicking the "modify-add exif" sentence when the picture is uploaded / linked ...
4) i forgot this one, but it was a good one

So IMO (just my opinion) It might be better to retrieve automatically the exif, and, instead, add a button to "Delete the exif" if the owner do not want to show the exif,
no ?

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17369728
I have a question about the Exif ...
Is it possible to implement them automatically instead to click on the button to retrieve them ?

If this is done, another change is needed. Currently, you can add metadata to only one copy of a photo. So if you post a picture first in the thread for images from that camera model and later in Landscapes or anywhere else, the metadata will be only in the camera-model thread. You might want them in Landscapes instead, because other landscape photographers often want to know what lens was used and everything. Automatic metadata provision would have to apply to multiple postings.

I like the blue bar at the top. It takes the forum 1 step further away from the current almost black & white look. It adds a bit of 'punch' to the forum without looking overly saturated. Only thing that looks a bit strange to me is the 'avatar home link' in the top right corner of the blue bar. It looks as if it's floating on top of the blue bar instead of being part of it (almost like adding something to a picture in photoshop and making it very clear that it's photoshopped). Maybe add some shadow to it or place the avatar inside of a home icon? This is of course a very minor remark.

No change needed, Pekka can keep the same script, but instead you don't have the need to click on a button when the page reload after submitting it run "retreive Exif" automatically

But i might misunderstand your comment
You would like that Exifs appears in the same picture but different threads ?
In this case, it can be just some "minor" changes, i mean, instead to have the sentence "you already posted/modified the exifs of this pictures ... i don't recall the exact sentence" just make them appear without the possibility to change them, but i might going to far now

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17369802
But i might misunderstand your comment
You would like that Exifs appears in the same picture but different threads ?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17369728
I have a question about the Exif ...
Is it possible to implement them automatically instead to click on the button to retrieve them ?
Why i think it will be better this way ?
1) considering that people are quite lazy with clicks (just by seeing all the complain with AMASS and how people don't like to move their mouse ), a lot of them don't do more click to add them nor to add to the gallery ...
2) Some people (quite a lot in fact) don't even know what Exif are about.
3) I saw some people that they didn't know that they can put exif just by clicking the "modify-add exif" sentence when the picture is uploaded / linked ...
4) i forgot this one, but it was a good one

So IMO (just my opinion) It might be better to retrieve automatically the exif, and, instead, add a button to "Delete the exif" if the owner do not want to show the exif,
no ?

It isn't like the EXIF data is something that the software has to search to find. After all, as you know, EXIF and other metadata are already available as part of the image file. Some images (especially those that have been "saved for the web" have part or all of the EXIF data as well as other metadata stripped by either image editing software or sometimes by certain hosting services whose names have been mentioned numerous times with regard to this subject. The matter of displaying the camera and shooting data actually pertains to whether you choose to have it displayed above the image which in many cases requires that you must manually fill in data that is missing because it was either stripped or never was present in the first place. As you may know if you have been following threads in this forum, Pekka has detailed the changes related to EXIF data that will be in the next version.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #17370008
It isn't like the EXIF data is something that the software has to search to find. After all, as you know, EXIF and other metadata are already available as part of the image file. Some images (especially those that have been "saved for the web" have part or all of the EXIF data as well as other metadata stripped by either image editing software or sometimes by certain hosting services whose names have been mentioned numerous times with regard to this subject. The matter of displaying the camera and shooting data actually pertains to whether you choose to have it displayed above the image which in many cases requires that you must manually fill in data that is missing because it was either stripped or never was present in the first place. As you may know if you have been following threads in this forum, Pekka has detailed the changes related to EXIF data that will be in the next version.

Not always true. HDR and composites, for instance, generally don't have EXIF readily available.

T.D. wrote in post #17370014
Not always true. HDR and composites, for instance, generally don't have EXIF readily available.

Not to mention scans of old prints.

T.D. wrote in post #17370014

Bill Boehme wrote in post #17370008
It isn't like the EXIF data is something that the software has to search to find. After all, as you know, EXIF and other metadata are already available as part of the image file. Some images (especially those that have been "saved for the web" have part or all of the EXIF data as well as other metadata stripped by either image editing software or sometimes by certain hosting services whose names have been mentioned numerous times with regard to this subject. The matter of displaying the camera and shooting data actually pertains to whether you choose to have it displayed above the image which in many cases requires that you must manually fill in data that is missing because it was either stripped or never was present in the first place. As you may know if you have been following threads in this forum, Pekka has detailed the changes related to EXIF data that will be in the next version.

Not always true. HDR and composites, for instance, generally don't have EXIF readily available.

I mistakenly assumed that some things are obvious enough to not need mentioning. Some shooting data loses relevance for processed images. An astrophotograph may consist of hundreds of darks, flats, and lights to create an image. A macro photograph may have been created by focus stacking of many images. Layering and masks using multiple images can be creatively combined in all sorts of ways to create an image. None of these "processed" images are from a single exposure -- not even the in-camera HDR images. So, we can give some information that is common to all exposures like equipment used, perhaps ISO and aperture, and possibly shutter speed. But, there are other EXIF data -- filename, time, date, and file size unique to each exposure. A frame from a video won't have EXIF data.

OhLook wrote in post #17370027

T.D. wrote in post #17370014
Not always true. HDR and composites, for instance, generally don't have EXIF readily available.

Not to mention scans of old prints.

And, they never did have EXIF data, unfortunately. I certainly could have used it when researching historical photo records for our city.

I don't see a "Mark All Read" button yet. Is it coming in 1.1?