As you folks may or may not have noticed, I'm getting mixed reactions from the residents of this forum partly for my sense of humor, partly due to my raising provocative questions, initiating evocative subject matter and a little bit for the images I've submitted with mixed reviews.

My dad was a Baptist Minister so I was raised in the environment that most of you would seem to fit into and I think I understand where you're coming from but I want to raise a question or so, some serious questions, pertaining to your own words that I think deserves answers from each of you if you're going to pursue your line of reasoning and make such a public issue of it on this forum.

If you give credit to God for your abilities, talent, and minute details, who do you thank for all those shots that go into the trash bin and why do you think they happened since you're under the direction of a superior ensuring that you can do no wrong, "God's hand?" Are you having moments when you forget who's guiding you and leaving God out of the equation, hence you are rewarded with a momentary loss of your God given talent, or what?

Please explain it to me, how that works. It looks to me like if it's out of your hands then there can't be any bad shots. If it's all up to you then why do you get those bad shots and how do you get the excellent ones? It looks to me also that if you're not in control and some superior force is guiding you then are you accusing that force as being lazy or vindictive and letting you down when you get bad shots or are you being ignored because of some assumption of momentary self-glory or are you letting your force down with your actions? Or, are you saying that you don't get any bad shots? Please - I'm serious.

Good! ...and, that's my intent, a little laughter! Thanks for getting it, and banana is king. 'bout choked to death one night recently, thought I was getting a banana and picked up a lemon instead. Now, I like lemon in "aid" and "pie" but in a moonpie, it just ain't supposed to happen.

Thanks. I value that. So far #1 has the most votes.

Nope, Bobbee, I'm not the "hijack" sheriff. That'd be Bob Mielke. I'm the "read the prior posts dumbass," sheriff.

And, it's coke, pepsi, RC, big orange or whatever as long as I've got a moonpie.

Then, it's chevy, ford, dodge, anything as long as it'll get me up to 13,000 ft. elevation where the mountain goats are without breaking the bank for gas, like my wimpy lil' ol' foreign pickup that'll barely carry my photo gear, and not just to Wal Mart, Target, Safeway, etc., where you'll find most of those Chevys, Fords, and Dodges sitting in the parking lot, jacked up so they can go over the curb without turning over or bottoming out and impress the gals up and down the street.

Shucks, you shouldn't let that bother you. I don't, as I'm sure you've noticed and I'm normally a pretty quiet guy if you can believe it. Well, quiet anyway.
:)

Thanks. My aim was the reproductive instruments of the lily and the pedals were merely a backdrop, supporting cast, as it were, not the subject. I felt I had gotten enough of what I saw as the backdrop to imply and attest to the fact that this was a lily.

I tend to run hot and cold on colors. Here at altitude, if I go up into the mountains any higher to say, 12,000 ft., it get so close to the atmosphere that a polarizer maxed out and shot 90 deg from the sun, I can almost turn a midday sky so totally dark blue that it appears almost black. For some things that works but usually not. The tendency around here among photographers is a saturated sky of medium to dark blue. If you go for muted you fall out of step with what the buying public has come to expect even though their eye has never seen such a sky. Pack in a few stark white clouds for contrast and it's like hotcakes at the art fairs. Almost amusing at times, it does force aspiring photographers who want to sell into a goosestep formation, go somewhere, or give up. It's amazing to me how regional tastes in photography can be at times.

Evidently you're too quick for me 'cause you caught me between replies. Repeats happens but at least we can tell what each other is talking about.

Thanks. Comment #1, that's how it was.

Comment #2, way too complex for me this a.m., er, uh, p.m.


:)

Thanks. You said, "what do you think?" No offense but it appears to me as thought you didn't get in on the first of this thread but are responding to someone else's comments and a picture they may have put up after "fixing" mine. If I'm wrong about that then please forgive me. But here was my original question - "Which is better, my #1 pic which is the unaltered original, or #2 which is that same shot cropped, or #3 which is with no cropping but turned 90 degrees up, or #4 which is #2 turned up 90 degrees. All the same picture just 2 uncropped, 2 cropped the same, and 2 turned up instead of to the left.

There certainly is merit in confirming opinions but when someone asks a specific, fairly uncomplicated question that doesn't involve either opinion or is philosophic in nature, it doesn't deserve 50 answers either all the same or different. Again, however, as I said in my earlier response, I'm not talking simply about repeating posts but rather, I'm talking about people who reply to a post when it is obvious they haven't bothered to observe the context of the conversation, hence making it look like their comments are "off the wall" and not related to the discussion. I could offer you an example but I'm trying to cut down on my comments, at least a little.

I've seen the same thing and in fact, subsequent to my original post on this, I posted comments making that point. I'm not talking about that as much as the other point I was trying to make, i.e., people posting where it is blatantly obvious they weren't keeping up with what had been said. Back in the '50s we used to call it "coming out of nowhere with a weird statement that didn't apply in any way to the conversation." Repeats are not, IMHO, as bad as a comment completely out of context. I think if a person is inclined to comment he/she ought to at least know what the conversation is about, and if possible, know whether their point has already been offered.

Now I'm gonna crack on myself about polarizers. Early on, I'd heard that they "punched up colors" so I figured out that there'd be nothing better'n a brilliant rainbow to use it on. They forgot to tell me that it also cut the glare and reflection off of some things like glass, etc. Between me pickin' up those two tidbits I ran smack dab up on the most beautiful, brilliant, colorful double rainbow against a deep purple-grey sky I'd ever seen before or since. My once in a lifetime chance. I grabbed my camera and whipped out my polarizer and began to fire away with a good highly saturated film in my camera. Got the prints back and am still affected by that feeling and my response. That damn polarizer had taken all the reflection outta my beautiful rainbow and I didn't even know it was doing it 'til I got that film back. THEN, somebody at the camera shop figured it was time I needed to know what that polarizer is used for mostly, to cut glare and reflection off of non-metallic surfaces - yup, like my rainbow. I'm still fumin' over that. Got nobody to thank but myself. Know better now and thought I might take this opportunity to share with anyone who might not know 'fore they ruin the rainbow of their life. The polarizer is a magnificent tool if you understand it and know what you want to do with it.

Good thinking! :)

That's a good idea. I'll have to resubmit and add that.