fire

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:44:04 -0700 (PDT), Peppe wrote:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/giuseppeb/3979154203/

Originality...........? 1/10
First impression......? 0/10
Composition...........? 0/10
Colors................? 1/10

Examples like this are precisely why base-amateur snapshooters love hosting
sites like Flickr so much. When they can do something as bad as this
matchbox snapshot and get opinion scores of 5 out of 5 or 10 out of 10.
Troll Rita should upload some of her dog-**** photos to Flickr, she easily
could get perpetual 10 out of 10's there.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:10:39 -0500, Ghetta Gryp
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:44:04 -0700 (PDT), Peppe wrote:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/giuseppeb/3979154203/

Originality...........? 1/10
First impression......? 0/10
Composition...........? 0/10
Colors................? 1/10

Examples like this are precisely why base-amateur snapshooters love hosting
sites like Flickr so much. When they can do something as bad as this
matchbox snapshot and get opinion scores of 5 out of 5 or 10 out of 10.
Troll Rita should upload some of her dog-**** photos to Flickr, she easily
could get perpetual 10 out of 10's there.

Complete nonsense. There are some very good, very original, shots in
that photostream. Those that can, do. Those that can't, denigrate
everyone else.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Ghetta Gryp wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:44:04 -0700 (PDT), Peppe wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/giuseppeb/3979154203/

Originality Snipped bits out


Peppe-

There are a few dismally unhappy people who love to posts insults.
Please disregard, but also please say what your purpose in posting is-
comments?

--
john mcwilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...

There are a few dismally unhappy people who love to posts insults. Please
disregard, but also please say what your purpose in posting is- comments?

John, I basically agree with your response, but I might disagree with your
secondary message.

1. CHARTER OF REC.PHOTO.DIGITAL

"This group is for the discussion of all aspects of digital photography,
including digital cameras, scanners, image manipulation software,
printers, and CD-ROM technology."

'All aspects', to me, includes samples taken by digital cameras. Why?
because samples can lead to illuminating discussions about the technologies
and the applications of those that we are primarily interested in.

Worst case: Suppose the OP was merely looking for slaps on the back. So
what! Could still be a seed that germinates into a productive discussion
(not about the art of photography, or politics) about the applications of
the technology we all love and enjoy.

If I misjudged your message, I apologize up front. I generally like the
examples posted here. They should make a "point" technically speaking, but
if they don't then others can step in and add technical illumination.

Charles wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
There are a few dismally unhappy people who love to posts insults. Please
disregard, but also please say what your purpose in posting is- comments?

John, I basically agree with your response, but I might disagree with your
secondary message.

1. CHARTER OF REC.PHOTO.DIGITAL

"This group is for the discussion of all aspects of digital photography,
including digital cameras, scanners, image manipulation software,
printers, and CD-ROM technology."

'All aspects', to me, includes samples taken by digital cameras. Why?
because samples can lead to illuminating discussions about the technologies
and the applications of those that we are primarily interested in.

Worst case: Suppose the OP was merely looking for slaps on the back. So
what! Could still be a seed that germinates into a productive discussion
(not about the art of photography, or politics) about the applications of
the technology we all love and enjoy.

If I misjudged your message, I apologize up front. I generally like the
examples posted here. They should make a "point" technically speaking, but
if they don't then others can step in and add technical illumination.

I do find it is helpful to know what posters look for when a link shows
up with no "how doya do" at all, from a nym I don't recall. Not
necessary, but helpful.

--
john mcwilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Charles wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
There are a few dismally unhappy people who love to posts insults.
Please disregard, but also please say what your purpose in posting is-
comments?

John, I basically agree with your response, but I might disagree with
your secondary message.

1. CHARTER OF REC.PHOTO.DIGITAL

"This group is for the discussion of all aspects of digital
photography,
including digital cameras, scanners, image manipulation software,
printers, and CD-ROM technology."

'All aspects', to me, includes samples taken by digital cameras. Why?
because samples can lead to illuminating discussions about the
technologies and the applications of those that we are primarily
interested in.

Worst case: Suppose the OP was merely looking for slaps on the back. So
what! Could still be a seed that germinates into a productive discussion
(not about the art of photography, or politics) about the applications of
the technology we all love and enjoy.

If I misjudged your message, I apologize up front. I generally like the
examples posted here. They should make a "point" technically speaking,
but if they don't then others can step in and add technical illumination.

I do find it is helpful to know what posters look for when a link shows up
with no "how doya do" at all, from a nym I don't recall. Not necessary,
but helpful.

--
john mcwilliams

Without that accompanying text, I don't even click on offered links. A
little "What do you think?" or "Is this overexposed?" would help. Otherwise,
my assumption is that it's spam, or worse.

dwight

dwight wrote:

"John McWilliams" wrote in message

I do find it is helpful to know what posters look for when a link
shows up with no "how doya do" at all, from a nym I don't recall. Not
necessary, but helpful.

Without that accompanying text, I don't even click on offered links. A
little "What do you think?" or "Is this overexposed?" would help.
Otherwise, my assumption is that it's spam, or worse.

Quite right. A certain poster, well known to this group, at least once
posted a photo of dog ****, so I don't go to his photos without
extraordinary cause. But kudos to him for not having done it for years
now.....


--
john mcwilliams

Ghetta Gryp wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:44:04 -0700 (PDT), Peppe wrote:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/giuseppeb/3979154203/

Originality...........? 1/10
First impression......? 0/10
Composition...........? 0/10
Colors................? 1/10

It's not that bad. It's not very original and it's missing an idea
but the colors and composition are okay.

--
Ray Fischer

So sad that someone like him has no friends, so he has to broadcast his
angst by such postings here.

I bet his mother hates him .....

Nice picture BTW.