"Seems" and actuality are two different things.

Best to please yourself bro.

:thumbup:

LOL And you are standing in front of me when you say all that???
Bwwwwwaaaaaahhhhhh, what next bud?


How hard is it to tell the truth? Or in the Ops
case, "Which photo do you want to buy?"

Society, as it is, is turning out a pack of pathological liars.
and you're condoning it bud.

The packaging is worth more than the product... often literally,

ribbons are awarded for loosing,

Incompetence is considered a virtue,

and now it's normal to lie thanks to the likes of you!

Well I've had a gut full of it, and if you don't like it you can lump it.

That works for me too, but you should try fitting a subject
into the "divine ratio": 1.62 to 1... and even using the rule
of thirds and or the rule of triangles as well. For the right
photo, those protocols can work great. You don't have to
use them all in the same image. It can be fun and even
rewarding trying to do that at times though.

Rule of triangles: Right lower triangle being the camera man left upper being contrasting background


This is the divine ratio: long side 393 divided by short 244 = 1.62 or so close it doesnt matter. It also complies with the rule of thirds, both horizontal and vertical: Body on the vert, and eyes on hori.

(Download)

I didn't see your post before I raised that
same concern in a certain way.

I've been vilified for it though.
And told by one that I'm
less than a 12 year old and that I should be banned
by another.

I feel like Ive wandered into the Twilight Zone or
an asylum for the deranged and criminally insane.
If I'm not in either of those places perhaps I should
put them on my bucket list.

I feel this thread should be under the classification
of:

"Reasons To Go To Mars"...

If I were you MontanaTrace,
I'd stay in your box and keep your fingers off the keyboard;
you may be on an other hemisphere, but I can still read your
brain cell.

Your "12 year old students were more respectful" you say. Where I come
from 12 year olds are more likely to be respectful to an elder,
not the other way around.


I suggest the same is true of where you come from.
I also suspect that from time to time you have "scolded"
a 12 year old student. And that could hardly be conceived
as respect by you to the 12 year old student that has erred.

Ergo, your comment "Actually, my 12 year old students were much more respectful" is counter reasoning... or perhaps; anti logic.

Apart from your failure of logic and reason;
your students, you say, are more respectful... Of course you mean, to
you, because when they are away from you, you may have no idea of their "respect" or lack of respect of others, as you are not there to witness their words and actions.

Which brings me to, what you could call a case study.

In my early years at State High School at the age of 12,
the maths teacher of my class, was well respected
by virtually all of her students, including myself.
(perhaps, like you say, you were respected by virtually all of yours)

Our geography teacher that same year however, was harassed,
ignored and treated with a gross lack of respect by virtually every student in that same class.

There is no way as a teacher of 12 year olds, that you do not
know of that phenomenon.
Citing "respectful" 12 year old
students here, is as credible as a vegetarian shark or a three sided square; so that's how much credence I'm giving you.

You are possibly thinking, Shutter Bugger is "rude" or some
other thing like that, for giving you the above verbal picture
of yourself, but if you are, you can add being a hypocrite
to your list of flaws. You picked on me, not the other way around when you inferred I am below a 12 year old student.

"I think there are those that get their kicks out of being rude. I wonder whatever happened to him."
Good grief :roll:

The honest question being; should I lie or should I tell the truth.

The OP should be a politician with plenty of sycophantic "advisors".

Thanks Steve, very interesting.

I was stuck in thinking
the divine ratio, about
1.62 to 1 was where "it"
was at.

It had occurred to me to
user wider ratios to give
a feeling of scope,
but never thought about
using old film ratios
to take viewers down
memory lane.

The popular and contemporary
16:9 (1.78 to 1) is a compromise of "scope"
and the Divine Ratio of 1.62 to 1.

Me too. Reminds me of Alan Arkin and Catch 22.

A favourite film that's in my collection.

Thanks for posting your great work.

Great.

Not bad!

I reckon that sort of experimentation is good practice.

Possibly if you rotated the filter you may have eliminated
the reflection on the unit in the top left of the photo.
That may not have eliminated the floor reflection though.

Could it be, if you made a compromise between the floor
and unit at top left, you could reduce both reflections
a satisfactory amount.

You have 2 options; lie or tell the truth.

If you have no integrity, your word is
not worth a dime and you want to be
a f@#k wit, do the former.

Imho if you are more than 12 years
old you should not need to ask that question.

#5 floats my boat.

You've broken the law of thirds... very well.

You outlaw, you!

Your weather is changing; down here too, however
we are getting blossom on the fruit trees.

Pleases my eye.

Thanks for posting.