sum1sgrampa wrote: Ted ellis wrote:
A royal pose indeed. A royal image too. Many sticks in the mud unfortunately.
A little sad to see you resort to name calling Ted. Nobody was passing judgement, just looking for an explanation as to why the image looked so "off". The fact that the OP wouldn't answer directly and continued to be evasive after being asked at least twice didn't help. Although, I would give the OP the benefit of the doubt as I get the impression that English is not his/her first language. Maybe there was some confusion there. But the OP is correct, he/she can do whatever they like. It's their image. And no one was saying different. We are long past the point of discussing what's real or not real. But I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to question the authenticity of an image when something is so glaringly wrong. Nor is it unreasonable to expect the poster to be honest. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to the OP now, just anyone in general who is asked about any detail of an image.
Gary
I really had to hesitate to post a response to this thread here but I would like to add another train of thought. No I didn't see anything wrong with Ted's reference. And I didn't think he was "name calling". It is NOT his style. I consider the posted image as a "composition". That word has a pretty vague "thin line" between "calling someone out" on a post" and well essentially any post processed posted image here entails just that. The image was modified in some manner. That we all that are reading this thread see that now, being a "composition", let's try to get back to photography but the discussion is very valid IMHO> I thought the image was an excellent composition.
Dan
sum1sgrampa wrote: Ted ellis wrote:
A royal pose indeed. A royal image too. Many sticks in the mud unfortunately.
A little sad to see you resort to name calling Ted. Nobody was passing judgement, just looking for an explanation as to why the image looked so "off". The fact that the OP wouldn't answer directly and continued to be evasive after being asked at least twice didn't help. Although, I would give the OP the benefit of the doubt as I get the impression that English is not his/her first language. Maybe there was some confusion there. But the OP is correct, he/she can do whatever they like. It's their image. And no one was saying different. We are long past the point of discussing what's real or not real. But I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to question the authenticity of an image when something is so glaringly wrong. Nor is it unreasonable to expect the poster to be honest. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to the OP now, just anyone in general who is asked about any detail of an image.
Gary
I really had to hesitate to respond to the posts here but I would like to add another train of thought. No I didn't see anything wrong with Ted's reference. And I didn't think he was "name calling". It is NOT his style. I consider the posted image as a "composition". That word has a pretty vague "thin line" between "calling someone out" on a post" and well essentially any post processed posted image here entails just that. The image was modified in some manner. That we all that are reading this thread see that now, being a "composition", let's try to get back to photography but the discussion is very valid IMHO> I thought the image was an excellent composition.
Dan
Aug 05, 2023 at 11:46 AM
Previous versions of Danpbphoto's message #16309903 « Panthera leo »
