What do you charge?

[RanzB]

As memory serves, I wasn't 'ranting' when I started, you're the one that started being snide and trolling.

What's that about misinterpreting people's beliefs (or in this case, behaviour)?

I didn't say you started off ranting. But you did start ranting.

 

[nanonyous]

Ranting, no. Listing more examples to prove a point, yes. It became a rant when you became petty, because I find people like you insufferable. If you'd have taken the time to read what I was saying (and maybe read my name and spell it properly, as I've been doing for you), you'd realise what it was I was talking about, and not have jumped to the conclusion that I was saying people should get snap-happy and not give a crap about what's in their viewfinder at the time of taking a photo.

What I'd like to know is why people like you and Greybush will sooner devolve your posts into being childish as opposed to addressing arguments and, instead of telling people that they're completely missing the point or that something is "going over their head", explain why you believe that to be the case.

How in the hell do you expect someone to ever understand your (supposed) point if all you can do to 'explain' it or 'back it up' is say "lolololol over ur hed kbai thnx 4 plyin"?

 

[DylanS]

Does anyone even read his posts?

Nope I don't, I felt that recently (last few months) he has tried to domineer just about all the Threads in this section bar a few.
There is no need to go to such lengths to prove a point (unless of course there is an inferiority complex involved).

 

[Azbubu]

Like this

I would have removed the fly from that bat

From a mag scanned it in

Using the same software they use to add flies on images of African children?

 

[GreyBush]

Nope I don't, I felt that recently (last few months) he has tried to domineer just about all the Threads in this section bar a few.
There is no need to go to such lengths to prove a point (unless of course there is an inferiority complex involved).

Ever since that "win a camera" competition.

 

[nanonyous]

And to think this could all be avoided if people could just learn to read.

[video=youtube;sglZGSwK6ow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sglZGSwK6ow[/video]

The humancentipad is the troupe of kids on this board that are quicker to crap out their regurgitated 'opinions' to sign posts with than they are to read anything.

 

[bwana]

Play nicely everyone.

 

[RanzB]

Nope I don't, I felt that recently (last few months) he has tried to domineer just about all the Threads in this section bar a few.
There is no need to go to such lengths to prove a point (unless of course there is an inferiority complex involved).

Ah, that was him? Didn't realise.

 

[bwana]

Looks like what amounts to a personal photo, and a fly is a fly - there's no stopping them from entering scenes at the worst possible times, and it doesn't directly influence what the photo is about other than being unsightly. It might be considered tabboo by some, but it lends nothing to the photo other than being distracting - I'd remove it also.

*edit* Unless of course the magazine article read

"Today marked the 200th test match of Graeme Smith as Captain. Here's a photo of a fly sitting on a cricket-themed cake."

Truth often being stranger than fiction I'm being accused of editing something [very small] out of an image that was published. Of course I didn't, and I can prove it but this sort of thing is potentially career threatening and also a waste of my time.

Moral of the o/t story? If it's being used editorially… leave the fly alone, the one that can be harmed by removing it is you.

 

[DTBA]

Truth often being stranger than fiction I'm being accused of editing something [very small] out of an image that was published. Of course I didn't, and I can prove it but this sort of thing is potentially career threatening and also a waste of my time.

Moral of the o/t story? If it's being used editorially… leave the fly alone, the one that can be harmed by removing it is you.

is there a story behind the story? tell us

 

[nanonyous]

Truth often being stranger than fiction I'm being accused of editing something [very small] out of an image that was published. Of course I didn't, and I can prove it but this sort of thing is potentially career threatening and also a waste of my time.

Moral of the o/t story? If it's being used editorially… leave the fly alone, the one that can be harmed by removing it is you.

Aye, I've read up on regulations for various stock sites as well as magazines and newspapers as far as editing of images intended for editorial use is concerned - hence my stating that the photo looked more 'personal' and that consequently, I'd have 'personally' removed it. That wouldn't necessarily mean that for the purpose of sending it for printing in a newspaper/magazine I'd have done so, but if I were posting a copy of it online for personal purposes as well, say, I'd have removed it.