I do not use the email for much.  It basically serves its purpose to sign up for promotions, or if I need it to purchase something it is my go-to email.  It is not something that I use for correspondence with friends or clients.  However, I do use it for chatting on Windows Live Messenger.  So on the relative importance of it, the email address is something I use, but not essential to my day-to-day operations.

When I tried to log-on yesterday afternoon to chat with some friends I was perplexed that I couldn’t sign in.  I was given some error code — 800488fb — which I had to scour the Internet to find the meaning.  Evidently, it means that your account has been blocked by the powers that be at Windows Live Messenger.  On one forum thread I found it appeared many people were blocked because spam was apparently coming from their account.

Now, I have seen some spammy messages on my MSN email address.  It was those messages, “sender unknown” messages that get bounced back to you.  I did not send those messages, and I figured someone was spoofing my email and sending them out pretending to be me.  I am sure it happens all the time, no big deal I thought.  Well evidently, Microsoft thought it was a big enough issue to block my account.  There is a way to get it unblocked.  One must be able to verify through receiving a text message on a cell phone, and the placing that code back into the computer that one is a real person.  After trying it several times over the course of ten minutes I gave up.

This frustrated me!  Microsoft took the lazy way out of this.  Instead of investigating and doing a little cyber forensics to track down who is really spamming out of these emails (if they checked the IP addresses they could easily verify it was not me, but tracking down the real culprit could be much, much more difficult) they just find an easy scape goat.

I ended up deciding to just forget about that email address and creating a new throw-away email used solely for instant messenger because that is what I was worried about the most.  I will not be able to stop it again if anyone hijacks my email account again and decides to spam others from it, but I will be aware that Microsoft does not want to fix the problem, only merely appear like they are taking some action.

Now I haven’t been on this website for several months.  Since it is a relatively new website it has a growing user base, and oftentimes the discussion in the forums can stagnate.  Dofollow links allow people to network by exchanging their website information while at the same time giving users incentive to post, so that they will get link juice to their website. However, when I went back to post at this social networking site I found that the links are now nofollow.

The choice of whether these links are nofollow or dofollow is up to the owner of the site, naturally.  My beef is not with the site owners, it is with the people who created the rule for nofollow on the internet.  Nofollow was initially created to reduce spam on blogs, like what you are reading right now.  When social networking sites like Facebook, Myspace, and lesser known ones like the one I used today have their entire site as nofollow I think that starts to go against the nature of it.

If I create a Facebook fanpage of my photography and put a link to my photography then why shouldn’t I be rewarded with link juice?  I think the system is starting to be abused now by web owners and site administrators because the Internet is built upon links and certain types of links are losing much of their value with the nofollow attribute applied to them.

Please don’t get me wrong.  For blogs, and other websites I think the nofollow attribute provides a powerful source in order to control the links on one’s website.  However, I think that social networking sites should not be allowed to use them.  It goes against the networking part of them.

Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc have the power to change this, and I hope they do what is right and override the nofollow attribute on social networking sites.

However, I had my photography on the website Smugmug.com.  It was a great site, but it didn’t offer the options of WordPress since I had to work within their template, and could not choose my own theme like I can on any of my WordPress sites.  So I switched it back over to WordPress.  During my search for a good photography theme I decided to look at some premium theme providers.  I finally settled on Infocus (link at the bottom of the post).  It had everything that I wanted.  It had a rotating splash page, and all different sorts of customizations, but the thing is when I started to set up the theme I was confused at stages.  Each of these themes come with instructions for set up and use, however with all my technical prowess I still couldn’t figure out how to get some images working.

This is the difference between themes that you must pay for and free themes.  I used the contact form provided by Themeforest and I received a reply within a day with how to get the theme working. That is the kind of support that one does not get with free themes.  If one can’t figure out how to use the theme, or it isn’t compatible with a new version of WordPress then the user might be out of luck.   The paid themes I have bought have all been upgraded to work with the new releases of WordPress, and also the author offers support for basic setup – not customizations.

While paid themes are not for everyone they do fill a specific niche, and very nicely.  And if your website ever needs one please consider one of the friendly paid theme developers out there.

Infocus WordPress Theme

Shiny WordPress Theme

For a full disclosure I want to point out in this review that I was a beta tester of this site, and I have met the site owners and creators a couple of times over the years.  And so while writing this review I am not as completely detached or impartial as I would like to be.  I really wanted this website to succeed because I had/have a connection to it.

Currently, I feel this website is the worst out of the free fashion/glamour networking sites that I have used and would recommend to spend your time elsewhere.

With new money pouring in from investors the site was redone in early 2010 and my review will focus on the site after the changes were made.

First off, when viewing the site one sees the sleek design with the color black playing a prominent role in the color pallet.  It is a good thing that it is very easy to look at because it is terribly difficult to find anything.  The site structure is very poor and even though I was very familiar with the old layout, the new layout was even more confusing and irritating to try to navigate.

The creators of the site often said that it would never be a pay service, and they would make their money through advertisements on the site.  Well that changed a 180 degrees because it seems now as if most of the options on the site are to collect some sort of revenue.  For instance, the portfolio section, like shown in the second picture on this page there is an option to create a portfolio website through Bemodel.  Excuse me?  Users already get to post a few images for free anyway, similar to modelmayhem, so why would there even be a thought to bring a registered domain to bemodel?  That is just one example, there are all sorts of add-on possibilities it can be dizzying.  And honestly, most of these options aren’t even good options.

To complicate matters even further the site can’t even retain members any longer.  And how is one supposed to network if members don’t stay around?  To evidence this all one has to do is to check out the forums.  At one point there was a picture of the day contest, and people were posting with questions or problems they had and others were sharing knowledge they have accrued.  Not anymore.  The forums are barren with posts still remaining from the previous version of Bemodel.  There doesn’t seem to be any new posts since the layout change.

I had high hopes for Bemodel since I had a hometown connection to the site.  Now I just use it as a link for my website, and a business card for my photography.  I would recommend skipping this site and using others where it is easier to use, and the owners don’t alienate their users.

The website claims there are more than 400,000 thousand users signed up, so there are lots of chances to meet and network with others.

But they just don’t give everyone admission to the site. One must submit sample photos to see if his or her work is good enough in their chosen field. Then the ‘gatekeepers’ decide if your submission is up to snuff in order to gain entry.

During the summer of 2009 the owners of the site created a tiered pricing plan. For those who created accounts before that time were given legacy accounts that equates to a membership level between basic and premium. The basic option offers a scant chance to show your work with only 10 photos allowed in a portfolio. Then the premium (or the middle option) allows for more pictures and private messages. While the VIP option allows 100 photos, 100 private messages a day and other perks. The higher the level of package, the higher the cost to the user. A premium package costs $60 a year, while the VIP costs $100.
The dashboard to Modelmayhem looks like this.  And to my taste it is one of the more straight forward and intuitive layouts of any of the major fashion/glamour networking sites out there.  All of the controls are located in the dashboard once one is signed in.  This is the place where one can edit a profile, check friends, or write or receive a private message. Modelmayhem doesn’t have the some of the bells and whistles of other sites, but it has the basics presented in an easy to use manner.

Overall it is clear that Modelmayhem provides a lot of benefits to its users.  With a large and knowledgeable user base it is a fertile ground for networking and taking one’s skills to the next level.  However, the ownership has shown over the last couple of years that it has little interest in putting any more money into the site.  The search function is notoriously poor, and when searching for things or people on the site users tend to use a site search on Google, rather than using its own internal search tool.  Also, the server that Modelmayhem uses goes down from time to time, which can be especially frustrating if you are paying for the service. It is a good service in general, but it does come with its shortfalls.

Next, I will review another one of the fashion/glamour networking services.

Nocojoe on Modelmayhem

Aroot Photography on Modelmayhem

Recondity on Modelmayhem

What is ModelMayhem?  It is a networking site for photographers, models, makeup artists, and hair stylists.  It is free to join, however one must submit sample work first and it must be approved by administrators on the site before you can join.  I will write a full review of the site in a little bit on here.

I read some reviews online and one of the better ones reviewed was Justhost.  So, I decided to purchase a plan with them.  I know that I get what I pay for with them.  The customer service is next to nothing.  Everything is an add-on, which raises the bare bones prices you pay quickly.  And since I am on a shared hosting package there aren’t many resources allocated to my site like I had thought there would be with the unlimited marketing pitch (my fault for not understanding better what it was about).

Today I check on one of my websites and it was down.  Okay, well I try to log-on to the Justhost system to write them an email about it to see what we can come up with.  To my surprise when I try to log onto their site, the Justhost.com website, it can’t take me past the point where I enter my log-on information.   The screen just freezes.  Oh Justhost, did all of your servers go down?  That is what it appears to me.  And granted I know next to nothing about these sort of things, but I can’t think of any other explanation for it.

My site has gone down from time-to-time.  That is to be expected, especially with shared hosting.  The problem is I have always been able to at least communicate with my web host except one other time.  In the maybe 15 months where I have had shared hosting from Justhost this has happened once before.  I couldn’t even log onto the site.

I am not sure what the problem is, and I should probably be the last person to be asked about these sort of things.  But there is one thing I do know: if there is anything more frustrating than your site going down, it is your webhost’s site going down with it.

***Update.  The Justhost backend is back up and running.  It took about an hour to restore the backend and my website went back up with it.

First, there is a fun article on some of the places that you can use to photograph while in the city of Boulder.  There are options for both photographing people and places.

Next, hate shooting in two dimensions?  Find that your pictures are a little flat?  Well, it seems the fine people at Fuji Film have you covered with a new consumer grade 3-D camera.  You still need the special 3-D glasses to view the pictures, but for those of you whose photography has become stale this might be an option.

This is one of my all-time favorite photography sites on the Internet: Photoshop Disasters!  This site pays homage to the awful, dreadful, eye-hurting photoshop that ends up in advertisements and in major magazines.  If you have ever felt bad about your own photoshop inadequacies from time to time, check it out.  It is likely to lift your spirits.

If Canon had spent $5 on market research, they would have discovered there is a massive market for a low megapixel/high iso performance professional hybrid DSLR. — Canonrumors.com

As I mentioned in my post pixel peeping I am a sucker for photo rumors about the latest and greatest gadgetry.   It doesn’t even have to be about the brand of camera that I am using, it can be about anything remotely pertaining to photography.  It is no secret that I am not alone.  There are numerous websites such as canonrumors.com, nikonrumors.com, photorumors.com that detail all of the rumors and conjectures and possible next steps for the camera manufacturers.  And then in the comments users weigh in on these speculative features.

My point is that even one without any photography knowledge at all can look at the feedback in these forums and other places online start to get a feeling for what the market is looking for.  This is what the quotation at the start of this post means.  Perhaps this is best illustrated by an example.

In the Canon camp for years there has been rumored that Canon was secretly developing a full frame camera named the 3d.  This camera according to the rumors a relatively low megapixel camera that will allow it to achieve a high frames per second, or how many pictures it is capable of taking in the time period of a second.  The higher the frames per second is allows it to capture fast moving objects better.   This rumor has a mythical kind of status in the annals of Canon rumors.  People have gone so far as to digitally create a 3d camera, or photoshop one, in order to push the rumor even further.  Every year or so this rumor resurfaces with some kind of adaption to blend into the current atmosphere.  To the extent this rumor has been perpetuated over the years there have been numerous hoping that one day the rumor will be true.

This sort of technology isn’t out of the realm possibility.  In fact, I would argue that Canon has made two cameras in the past two years with high frames per second that are technologically harder to make.  BUT both of these cameras are not full-frame cameras.  Both are crop sensor cameras, which means it has to fit the information through a much smaller pipline inside of the camera.  Full frames are great for wide angle shots, bokeh, and it also lessens the opportunity for lens diffraction.

So why hasn’t Canon made a camera made a camera with low megapixels, high dynamic range, and can handle high frames per second since it has the technology?  Your guess is as good as mine.  It could be that since Canon is a Japanese company and I am using English speaking points of contact (websites, people, stores) to talk to and get my information then Canon Japan may not receive the message.  This may be unlikely because as most multinationals Canon has regional headquarters all over the world including one in New York City.  Surely they could relay what is being said in the English speaking world back to Canon central.  Perhaps it is the cycles.  Camera manufacturers have a lot of research and development wrapped up in one particular area and it would waste time, money and resources to change that at any point.  But even though it may take a couple of years to create a camera they have to start again on the next camera at some point.  From what I can tell this 3d rumor has been around for more than five years at this point, which is more than enough time to plug it into one of the previous cycles for cameras and have it on the shelves by now.  Like I said, the technology is already there. Or it could be that it might disrupt their current line of cameras.  See, Canon develops lines of cameras kind of like car companies develop types of cars.  Honda just doesn’t make one car, it has several lines.  And every year each line of cars gets updated.  Camera companies work in a similar manner although the time tables for updates are a little different.  So even though a new concept camera might be very popular it might detract from the current lines of cameras that have years of research, development and marketing behind them.  This is the most plausible explanation in my opininion.

If camera companies don’t listen to their customers because they have so much time and money wrapped up in their current ways then that put them in a tough place.  It is tough to gauge if the interest in the prospective camera is more than in the current lineup, and that is what it may come down to for the camera manufacturers.   For the consumer it looks like a frustrating situation.  The feeling of not being listened to may resonate with some prospective camera buyers.

At least this is one possible reason why camera manufacturers don’t listen to us.

Generally people watermark their images for two different reasons.  The first being legal protection in case their photo is stolen.  There  is a watermark, so they might be able to get some sort of compensatory damages from it.  However, I am not a lawyer, so I am not going to weigh in on if it offers any legal protection to the photographer or not.  There are others who are plenty more qualified to answer that question than to me. The other prevalent reason for watermarking a photo is for branding a photographer in public.

In this piece I am going to be focusing on the branding aspect of watermarks, and avoid the sticky issue of if watermarks provide any legal support for photographers.

Branding is important to any photographer hoping to sell photos not just online, but in general. It helps distinguish one’s product from another.   The brand can be anything such as a product, service or business that contributes to an identity. One of the most visible ways of creating an identity in photography, especially online, is your photographs.  There are many different ways to brand a photograph.

It can be done with the subject of the photo.  Some people shoot one type of image in a particular like John Fielder who gained his fame by photographing Colorado’s landscapes, and gain a reputation in that regard.  Others it is the style of processing they use like Trey Ratcliff who has won all sorts of praise for his HDR (high dynamic range) photography.  This is just one way brand one’s photography through the photograph itself.

While others turn to watermarks to make a more bold statement in terms of branding.  Typically a symbol, the name of the photography company, or the photographer’s url is used in the watermark to create a clear link between the photo and the photographer.

Let’s be honest, unless a photographer is very well known it would be very difficult to know his style as his calling card. However, a watermark can be deciphered fairly quickly in comparison.

Insofar as my images, I don’t watermark very many of my images at all.  I try to take creative photos that will hopefully stand apart from the crowd.  In other words what I try to do is brand my images with my style rather than a watermark.  Watermarks can be removed with some work in photoshop.  And photos can and most likely will be duplicated or stolen.  And for the most part I find watermarks to be intrusive and cumbersome inside of photos that distracts me from looking at what I really want to see in the first place, the work of art.

To watermark or not to watermark that is a difficult question.  Branding photos with watermarks can be effective, but isn’t my cup of tea at this point.