Does anyone here not edit their images?

[littlegal]

Hmmm, you changed your post.

Do you want to go by Websters, or do you want to know what works?

We can talk symantics all day long. The question is, do you want to get by or do you want to be the best you can be?

And I'm getting really tired of talking to you about this, becuase you have no clue what you are talking about, and anyone who does sees this whole thing as ridiculous.

I'll leave you to learn this on your own as your choose not to listen.

Best of Luck.

[kgphoto]

Communication is only important to those who care. Not to those who posture. Not sure what you are referencing by "you changed your post", but you are clearly being judgmental and insulting about stuff you admitted you know nothing about in your post above. And your "best of luck" is as full of sincerity and your knowledge base is "full."

[loeee]

Originally Posted by kgphoto

No one is saying frame a piece of film, although it was done often with transparencies. The image SOC is not a piece of film, IF it is run through the camera processor. I don't know why you seem to have a hard time getting that distinction.

If the "film" is a RAW file then my original quip stands.

If it's a JPG, it's been post processed; just by the camera rather than the photographer.

[littlegal]

Hey KG,

You know why a lot of the helpers here left? People like you.

At one time there were lots of successful business people on here just trying to help people get a leg up. Now most of them are gone. And it is because of people like you.

You don't want to have a discussion. You want to attack. Yet from what I have seen, you know about nada.

But until this I didn't say so. I just let you ramble. Believe me, people can see when someone knows nothing about what they are talking about, so ramble on.

I also was not the one who made me post my publications. That was you. You made me justify my work.

So far on this board, we have lost a lot of people who had successful businesses, that were only here to help others. We weren't selling seminars. We weren't selling DVDs. We just wanted to help people.

Benji and Mark McCall are the only ones left, and I bet when enough people like kgphoto attacks, they too are going to say, "what is the point. Let them find out on their own".

You will be out of business soon KG, if you even have one. I doublt you do. But feel free to tell everyone else how to do it because I, Dratom, and Ed are not going to be here anymore. You can all run your businesses into the ground for all I care. In fact, better for me.

[littlegal]

Originally Posted by loeee

If the "film" is a RAW file then my original quip stands.

If it's a JPG, it's been post processed; just by the camera rather than the photographer.

Loeee, she/he has no idea what they are talking about. Put on ignore. But I'm sure you know that already.

[littlegal]

I'm joing Ed in the land of "I don't care about half ass photogs who think they know it all".

I deter my advice to KG. I bet they have a ton. Enjoy.

It's up to you now KG. Tell us all how it's done. Spend your days doing videos on how to post process. Oh yeah, you don't. You shoot and burn.

Tell us how to get into the mags. Oh yeah, you don't.

Tell us how to sell bookings two years in advance. Um, no you can't do that either.

Well you better learn fast because you are in charge now.

Thanks in advance.

[kgphoto]

Originally Posted by loeee

If the "film" is a RAW file then my original quip stands.

If it's a JPG, it's been post processed; just by the camera rather than the photographer.

No argument there, other than the photographer chooses which setting to use based on practical experience and empirical study. Just using a different tool (camera vs computer) to do the work. So both are processed by the photographer.

[kgphoto]

See Littlegal,

I guess the little is really descriptive. You are the only one here posting attacks. (OK I just did a little jab) I think it is because you are using your own meaning of words rather then the ones that are the actual meanings. I NEVER asked you to justify YOUR work, nor post your publications. I asked what was your definition of "publish".

You seem to feel the need to insult those who don't agree with you. That was my only point. If you actually read and thought about the posts in this thread, and looked up the words you don't know ( 2nd jab) then maybe you would understand and not go flying off the handle.

I think it is people like you who belittle those you don't even know that chase people away.

Feel free to look up my posts and you will see I do know what I am talking about. A good one is the 1/500 @ f:8 argument that when challenged by other "know it alls" was supported by other participants. It was very similar to this thread. Arguing and mis-stating and not just listening and understand the specific points that were raised.

You are entitled to your own opinion. Big deal. So is everyone else here. All I asked is why did you feel the need to insult the participants.

[Steven G Webb]

In my own defense, In one instance the images were in a nationally distributed magazine not some basement printed hometown newsletter. They were images from a prestgious competition of int'l proportion.

I'm not one to accept broad statements like, "I'll never happen, ever and that's a fact". Fact is anything that can happen will happen and sometimes something that can't.

Steve

[peterst6906]

Originally Posted by littlegal

You know why a lot of the helpers here left? People like you.

Perhaps these types of posts are just as bad in terms of driving people away from the site.

Any message, even ones that come from opposing views can be delivered in a way that keeps the discussion friendly, or they can be delivered in a way that entices further argument.

Best to argue points, but not people.

It would be great if we could all just keep the discussion friendly, even if we don't agree on things.

Just my 0.02c.

Regards,

Peter