Sorry , but it does seem invasive. And I know you did preface your amendment with "Hope you don't mind me illustrating the look I would lean towards." and absolutely fair enough. But to do it to two of 99wombats photos? And then what particularly got my goat, so to speak, was that you were rude and snobbish/sneering to mechanical vandal about his own photographs when he questioned you on it?
I remember a couple of years ago you effectively told me to take some of my own photos down from the Photos from Mobile Phones thread in a PM. You gave an excuse about bandwidth but it was clear the underlying message was one of snobbery and not feeling that they were sufficient for the thread, that pedestal of sublime imagery... I was newish to the forum at the time and not wanting to step on toes, obliged.
We're not Cartier-Bresson, we're not Adams, Bourke-White or Leibovitz. There's one thing for a bit of constructive criticism, but we don't all have your decades of experience, so go easy on us mere mortals.
Sorry , but it does seem invasive. And I know you did preface your amendment with "Hope you don't mind me illustrating the look I would lean towards." and absolutely fair enough. But to do it to two of 99wombats photos? And then what particularly got my goat, so to speak, was that you were rude and snobbish/sneering to mechanical vandal about his own photographs when he questioned you on it?
I remember a couple of years ago you effectively told me to take some of my own photos down from the Photos from Mobile Phones thread in a PM. You gave an excuse about bandwidth but it was clear the underlying message was one of snobbery and not feeling that they were sufficient for the thread, that pedestal of sublime imagery... I was newish to the forum at the time and not wanting to step on toes, obliged.
We're not Cartier-Bresson, we're not Adams, Bourke-White or Leibovitz. There's one thing for a bit of constructive criticism, but we don't all have your decades of experience, so go easy on us mere mortals.