Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 246539" data-attributes="member: 9240">Re: helpNo? Then why specifically categorize post as an &quot;escape&quot; after already having one thread shut down over an exchange?As is my statement.&nbsp; Where do you see name calling?&nbsp; You can infer anything you'd like from it, but I am merely dismissing your repeated and off-hand categorization of a recognized part of digital photography while pointing out inconsistencies between your signature quote and your actions.&nbsp; Had you eliminated the parenthetical statement I'd have no issue supporting you 100%.&nbsp; But it is the intentional inclusion of the parenthesis that was indeed a provocation based on an earlier exchange.&nbsp; Look, I'm happy to have views you want to stick to.&nbsp; Espouse them all you want.&nbsp; Just don't do it while being dismissive of others'.&nbsp; I've afforded you that courtesy - at least up until now.&nbsp; But to categorize my posts as &quot;pushing post processing&quot; is akin to saying that a mechanic, when addressing someone who has just rolled into their shop with black smoke billowing from their exhaust, is &quot;pushing repairs&quot; when they tell them that they've got to rebuild their engine, instead of saying, &quot;You know, if you perform routine maintenance on your vehicle...&quot;&nbsp; Does that mean the mechanic does not believe in proper maintenance, or would not advocate that were the person to come in and say, &quot;I just bought this car, and I'm not sure what I should do with it.&nbsp; What do you recommend?&quot;&nbsp; Absolutely not!!&nbsp; A certain type of question demands a certain type of answer, and had the initial question here been about the process and not the result my response would have been completely different.&nbsp; Go back and reread it - it's not about how she's shooting, it's about what she's seeing, and with no specific comment as to what she was hoping to see.&nbsp; My response speaks for itself as the first thing I address are the things she would have expected to check at the time of the shot.&nbsp; Had there been something like, &quot;How can I make it look more...?&quot;, component of the question then I never would have spoken of post.&nbsp;&nbsp; But there wasn't, so I addressed what could still be done, now that she believed she had done all she could, taking time to both explain and show the results.&nbsp; So if anyone has a right to take offense when a detailed response to a question asked is dismissed as escapism it was me.&nbsp; Was I offended?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; But I wasn't going to dismiss it offhand as if it has no validity within the realm of digital photography.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 246539, member: 9240"] [b]Re: help[/b] No? Then why specifically categorize post as an "escape" after already having one thread shut down over an exchange? As is my statement. Where do you see name calling? You can infer anything you'd like from it, but I am merely dismissing your repeated and off-hand categorization of a recognized part of digital photography while pointing out inconsistencies between your signature quote and your actions. Had you eliminated the parenthetical statement I'd have no issue supporting you 100%. But it is the intentional inclusion of the parenthesis that was [I]indeed[/I] a provocation based on an earlier exchange. Look, I'm happy to have views you want to stick to. Espouse them all you want. Just don't do it while being dismissive of others'. I've afforded you that courtesy - at least up until now. But to categorize my posts as "pushing post processing" is akin to saying that a mechanic, when addressing someone who has just rolled into their shop with black smoke billowing from their exhaust, is "pushing repairs" when they tell them that they've got to rebuild their engine, instead of saying, "You know, if you perform routine maintenance on your vehicle..." Does that mean the mechanic does not believe in proper maintenance, or would not advocate that were the person to come in and say, "I just bought this car, and I'm not sure what I should do with it. What do you recommend?" Absolutely not!! A certain type of question demands a certain type of answer, and had the initial question here been about the process and not the result my response would have been completely different. Go back and reread it - it's not about how she's shooting, it's about what she's seeing, and with no specific comment as to what she was hoping to see. My response speaks for itself as the first thing I address are the things she would have expected to check at the time of the shot. Had there been something like, "How can I make it look more...?", component of the question then I never would have spoken of post. But there wasn't, so I addressed what could [I]still be done[/I], now that she believed she had done all she could, taking time to both explain and show the results. So if anyone has a right to take offense when a detailed response to a question asked is dismissed as escapism it was me. Was I offended? No. But I wasn't going to dismiss it offhand as if it has no validity within the realm of digital photography. [/QUOTE]

Verification