On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:24:01 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

I may have misjudged you. Either you're having a really bad day
your you're exceedingly dense.

I'm trying to explain that being critical of someone's effort is of no
value that person unless you offer some suggestion of how to go about
correcting what you see as bad technique or pointing out where and how
they went wrong. If you know enough about technique to criticize
someone else's, then you should know enough to offer some suggestions
that can be used in future.

You've still got it wrong. Several things, actually. I was *not*
critical of the OP's effort. For the pictures he's already taken
the only way to improve perceived defects is to use photo editing
tools (PP), and the suggestions others have been providing can be
helpful. I wasn't saying "No, don't do that!". I was trying to
make him aware that making better use of light *in the future* could
greatly reduce the amount of PP that he'd have to waste time on.

The other thing you *still* don't seem to understand is that my
suggestion to use lighting more effectively somehow translates into
my being a PP "expert" (which I've already denied being) and it's
therefore my responsibility to show him how to use PP to fix his
images. Do you think that it's out of bounds for people that aren't
qualified to be tutors for one technique to suggest alternatives? I
hope not. If you agree, try re-reading the last sentence in the
quote above and you might now see what I'm talking about.


The OP didn't ask about the lighting in general, but if you thought it
was so bad that it detracted from the image, then follow-up your
criticism with something he can use. That adds value.

I did but for some reason you were unwilling or unable to see
them. You even quoted several of the suggestions I offered in one
of your previous replies. If you think that they were of no value
please explain why, and perhaps offer some of your own.