I like PhotoNet as well. I find it well worth the $25. I pay $350 a year for portfolios.com, and it's not much better. If you direct potential clients to your "Photos" page, it can pass as a portfolio. And, as with any web page, you can assign your own url.
> And I was just thinking how uch I now like photo-net :) but then I forked > over the > $25 a year. for 100 megs of space. > > The way they put it to new members was 3 megs free. I'm really watching > pennies, too > but the pics are easy to load, they look pretty presentable in thumbnail > form and there > don't seem to be a lot of ads flashing. > > However, I thought Amita's diplay (and LArry's) looked nice on smugmug. > but they are > paying. > > The only thing that pissed me off at photo.net is the way they said they > probably wouldn't answer > your mail if you asked for help! > > ann > > frank theriault wrote: > > > Again, Photo.net pisses me off. > > > > Under the "old" rules, a non-member (in other words, someone who > > doesn't want to pay an annual fee, like me), one could post up to 99 > > photos in their gallery. If one went over that amount, the post would > > still go through, but any of your photos could be arbitrarily deleted > > without notice, to get your number down to 99. > > > > Fair enough. > > > > Yesterday, when I posted my most recent PAW (which only Cotty liked > > <g>), a big red notice is on my screen that I'm over my limit of ~47~ > > photos. > > > > Huh? > > > > Well, it seems that "guests" (which is what they now call me, since I > > won't pay) now have a limit of 5 photos, plus "extras". The number of > > extras one is allowed is determined by some arcane and undisclosed > > formula that has to do with how many viewings one's photos have had, > > along with how many photos one has posted. The number of extras can > > fluctuate without notice. > > > > Okay, I know, I know, I'm a cheapskate looking for freebies, and I > > have no right to complain, right? > > > > Wrong! > > > > Seems to me that changing the rules mid-stream, without notice, is > > entirely unfair. At least they could have a Sunset or Grandfather > > Clause (or whatever they call them) wherein the new rules only apply > > to new members (sorry, "guests"), and anyone who's been around for a > > while still has the same old guidelines applied to them. > > > > So, again, I'm looking for a new place to put photos. My searches in > > the past didn't prove fruitful, because anyone who wanted to view at > > those places had to sign in (don't like that). I see Boris is using > > Web Aperture, but folks don't like the resized window. > > > > Who's Amita with? Mug-something-or-other? Anyone have any thoughts > > on that place? Is it free? I really don't want to have to pay for > > this - having to put up with ads, and having my name and info go into > > a databank to be used for who knows what is about all I'm the payment > > I'm willing to make. > > > > Thanks in advance for your thoughts. > > > > cheers, > > frank > > -- > > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson >
