jdubu wrote:
I was under the impression that a photo of a person or a group belonged in a section like the People Photography site, as long as it followed the rules of posting.
Gpoyner makes points that I totally agree with. The critique section and gallery are really self-promoting love your shots and fluffy critiques. The people forum was a ghost town before the pros came on, and I love it now.
Mr. deal and his attitude are unprofessional and his remarks. Never said his work was un professional just do no think this site is the place for it. So because my opinion was different he started the verbal war! Everyone has an opinion even you ,so why was it wrong for me to state mine? Because he did not like it and others agreed with me as some do him he insist on carrying it on. Can't this be enough said?
I am not sure how you find Bobby defending himself as proof of his raunchy, so-called professional work coming from a cesspool of slime being true. He didn't cast aspersions at you or any other morally superior poster here.
He was attacked for posting glamour photos with instructional lighting explanations. What a bastid!!! he should be shipped off with the rest of those "males" who would jump to shoot a nude (because that's the only way for them to see a naked person) for re-education to your narrow view of the world.
Can't really accuse you of being unprofessional, only condescending and bigoted.
I look forward to the photos that Bobby, Palepictures, CaptC, etc., post in the people section, because I learn to be a better photographer from their instruction, critiques and dialog. Sometimes, the subject matter isn't to my taste, but I still learn technique, and that's why there is variety in life. If you want everyone to see and think like you do, join a commune and exchange your name for a number.
I know the few times I have placed photos in that forum, the critique was brutally honest and meant to teach me, just as it is with others who post.
I was under the impression that a photo of a perso... (
show quote)