BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Connie Niehaus
 

Digital vs Traditional??


I'm a conservative in every sense of the word--even when it comes to photography. But I'm learning how great it is to use my computer to, for example, add vignettes instead of trying to hold a piece of tissue paper with a hole in it over my lens when I'm shooting or smearing Vaseline around the edge of a cheap filter. I can play with trims and colors and tones for hours--but my finished products seem to lose their sharpness (not so on those images I scan and leave as is). Does digital photography preserve the "integrity" of the image better than scanning traditional photographs? Is digital REALLY good enough for a once-in-a-lifetime wedding shoot? Am I hopelessly old fashioned and outdated?


To love this question, log in above
8/31/2004 5:50:22 PM

 
Buddy Purugganan   Connie, your question is truly DEBATABLE and yet an excellent question. Digital cameras have already reached up to 11 maybe even higher MEGAPIXELS ( especially the digital SLRs ) that digital photos can possibly be enlarged without loss of quality and detail. Its BEST you deploy HIGH MEGAPIXEL SLR type of camera ( i.e. Canon EOS-1Ds, Kodak DCS14N, even Sigma's SD9 ). On the lighter side, a Film SLR camera will capture the wedding with a real fantastic kind of camera ( Canon EOS series, Nikon F100, N80, N90S,Minolta Maxxun 9,7, Pentax MZ-S,ZX-7, etc. )You're not old-fashioned nor outdated---technology just advanced and its now both digital/film world in the shops for the novice and pro alike!


To love this comment, log in above
8/31/2004 8:25:00 PM

 

BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/28/2003
  Is digital really good enough for a once-in-a-lifetime wedding shoot?

Hmmm. Well, from the perspective of someone who does this, I would say yes. The reason I don't shoot digital has nothing to do really with the quality, but more with the work-flow.

You can get prints from the digital images that are every bit as good.

I just did an engagement shoot for a couple. I used 35mm film. I was able to eek out an 11x14 BW image. It was a little grainy, but looked nice. My opinion is that 11x14 is at about the top of the range for 35mm. Any larger and it falls apart. Really 8x10 is about the top, but I like to push it.

For the equivalant in digtal, you could go much larger, if you wanted to and not lose the quality. In fact, there is software now that can take a 6 MP image and make a very nice 16x20 out of it with no loss in quality.

So, in some respects, I do think digital is maybe a better medium in the long run as compared to 35mm.

Now, if you're talking about medium and large format film, then I argue that digital has a long way to go, unless of course, you are talking about a digital medium format back vs a film back on the same camera. I haven't seen that comparison yet with my own eyes, but I understand you get a humongous file from a digital medium format camera back; so large, that it needs to be hooked directly into a PC. I'm sure the digital image also contends with the film image.

I think for the freedom that digital has given both customers and photographers, many pros are switching.

I rarely do digital, but when I do, I seem to get more sales later because I can do things more creatively, I can sell small image CD's with my logo watermarked across the images for like $20. I can sell larger files without my logo for more. I can sell large image CD's for $250 or more. Or, I can sell individual files without having to print. Just charging for manipulation (like picture within a picture, or something).

Jerry


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 12:28:46 PM

 

BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/28/2003
 
 
  Untitled
Untitled
© x
Canon EOS 1V 35mm ...
 
 
This is an example of what I mean...the couple fell in love with this photo.


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 12:31:05 PM

 
Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/22/2002
  Yes - the sooner one gives up film the better...


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 12:54:18 PM

 

BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/28/2003
  I hate blanket statements like this. That is not true at all. Digital is fraught with problems.

Jerry


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 1:33:54 PM

 
Rebecka Franklin   Now wait a minute, We should not give up film. I see photography as an art form. I am not willing to let film go away just because it is more convinient to go digital. I think think that they both have thier place. You can't say one is better than the other because that is personal prefferance. If you don't like film Damian you don't have to use it. Personally I would take my old autographic brownie over my digital and my 35mm film, and that is my choice. Sometimes it is not about the money, but what I enjoy. What "I like to do", and not "do I think it will sell". And by the way, my medium format film photos get lots more attention from my clients than any other format that I shoot. Maybe that is because I have more fun with my brownie and that shows through in the photo. Not just that but they see me shoot with my brownie and they want to see the pictures from that camera, which takes them to my buisness to see my work. MY medium formats are better than MY digitals or MY 35mm, in MY opinion!

Back to the original question, You bet digital is just as good film. I think digital can even help to make a wonderfull wedding. I think I read it here at BP where someone gave the suggestion to take pictures of the wedding, and while they set up for a reception run print out the pictures so that they can be seen at the reception. Then you can get pictures of the bride and groom viewing their own wedding photos! I thought that was a great idea.

You should listen to someone with experience in that field, like Jerry. But something that I would like to add is the printer quality. I could have a flawless photo with 11 megapixels look like crap from my printer, but the same photo would look great from a printer that was made for photography. And don't forget paper quality. I can change the printer head to photo head on my printer, and alter all the settings, but it still looks like it came from a printer.


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 2:48:59 PM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
  As a film user, I might find it interesting, if not enlightening, to hear Damian's reasons why he hates film so much.


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 3:06:37 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  that's funny. I doubt there was ever a time in his life that he hated film.


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 5:55:32 PM

 
Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/22/2002
  I don't hate film, never have... I just believe that it's no longer the most practicle nor productive way to work, not to mention cost effective. Sure, film is an artform in and of itself, and there are true masters of the darkroom that the casual digital photographer will never be able to match....

My response had to do with cost effective and efficient business practices...

hth


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 9:18:34 PM

 
Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/22/2002
  One last thought on digital, it has allowed a lot of people to pursue their interest in photography would not have been able to before because of the costs associated with buying and developing roll after roll of film.

Granted digital makes for many, many more bad photos, but statistically even the world's worse photographer will get one right once or twice...

In the end, it is the photographer who has to be happy with the results regardless of film/digital.


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 9:23:51 PM

 
Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/22/2002
  One last thought on digital, it has allowed a lot of people to pursue their interest in photography that would not have been able to before because of the costs associated with buying and developing roll after roll of film.

Granted digital makes for many, many more bad photos, but statistically even the world's worse photographer will get one right once or twice...

In the end, it is the photographer who has to be happy with the results regardless of film/digital.


To love this comment, log in above
9/1/2004 9:25:34 PM

 
Rebecka Franklin   Now why couldn't you have said it that way to begin with instead of leaving yourself open for an attack?!

O.K. war over. I am really curious how much printer ink you go through and how many 8x10s you can get before you have to replace the cartridge, and how much a cartridge costs. What is the biggest size you can print out. How much did your printer cost, camera cost, computer cost?

Saving time and money in the long run can also be debated. I don't think that there is that much of a difference in how much you spend on film compared to digital. Just a difference in how much you pay all at once or over the course of time.

I have been saving up for a newer camera than the ones that I have, I haven't bought anything yet because I can't decide which way to go. I really would like to have a nicer digital camera than the one that became obsolete 5 minutes after I bought it, but then I would have to get a better printer than the one I have, and maybe even a computer that has more memory that is one. So I am looking at a lot of money all at once. Or I could get a realy nice medium format film camera. I am already set up in my darkroom. I will have to replenish my chemicals before long but thats pennies comapred to a printer cartridge. A would need film too, but I buy in bulk and I really don't go through it as fast as someone else might.

If I am on a trip somewhere that I may never see again, I would rather have a digital so I can see imediatly if it turned out and have the chance to take another shot if I need to. Or if I was shooting celebraties on the red carpet I would need to have a digital so that I could hurry and submit my photos to a magazine. I wouldn't have a chance in H-E-double hockysticks if I had to run to the darkroom and develope the film before I could see what I had and then submit to a magazine. There are times when digital is without a doubt the smarter choice. But rest of the time it is personl prefferance.

Do you really spend less time in Photoshop altering and creating than I do in the darkroom?

I really am curious about these things and I am not just trying to create more waves. This is an endless debate. everyone has different points of view and different experiences, and there is no right or wrong answers. But I love to hear the different sides and different opinions.


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 12:24:11 PM

 
Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/22/2002
  Hmmmm, good questions! I never thought about the printing part. I don't print any photos. I mostly burn them onto a CD and stick them in the closet.

Occasionally, I'll upload a photo and order a print, but not very often. I've gotten nice 20X30 prints for under $20.00 with shipping.

I work about 60 hours a week and don't have much time to do PS work, so I try to get the best shot out of the camera. It only takes a couple of seconds to make a minor crop or contrast adjustment.

Question: Do people really print out that many digital photos and why? If you can look at them on the computer or put them into one of those digital frames that changes out picture, do you really need that many prints of them?


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 2:01:23 PM

 

BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/28/2003
  I let the lab do my work. That frees up my time to shoot or sit on the beach and do nothing. There is a cost to that. It's worth it to me; besides the client pays for it anyway.

I could go digital, and spend countless hours behind the computer, every few years have to buy all new camera bodies, and have a nightmare of a situation with back up disks, hard drives, losing data from the cards, laptop in the field, printer costs, all these things are really expensive.

With film, I don't need as much stuff. A film body can last for 20 years if it's cared for. I don't need a computer, although I have one. But, I am not dependent on it. I don't need any of the other stuff that comes with digital.

There are costs on both sides of the equation. I just did a wedding last week that was all digital. I was estactic that I didn't have to pay a dime to do it. But, I realized that if I did that all the time, I would have to have additional things to ensure safety of the images.

This requires an increase in hardware.

Jerry


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 2:11:39 PM

 

BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/28/2003
  Damian,

Now that changes everything. You don't work professionally and you don't have that much time to screw around with PS or with spending much on prints. Hmmm. I'm not sure you should be touting digital so strongly until you have to do weddings twice a week and produce oh, around 800 per. That's 1,600 per week. That's 6,400 images per month as a low average. That would be a lot of time behind a computer. And, most of my clients want prints. I get away with some on-line proofing, but most people want to walk away with a fist full of prints.

So, next time you're telling people that digital is the only way, and to stop shooting film, I'll remember that you don't do large volume production work.

Okay, I've got it.

Jerry


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 2:33:50 PM

 
Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/22/2002
  Hope I'm forgiven - I'll say a couple of extra Hail Mary's just in case...


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 3:01:41 PM

 
Rebecka Franklin   Every year for Christmas I print out 4 calenders for my family of the pictures I have taken of my kids. So 12 months and 4 calenders equal 48 8x10s. One year I did calenders for all of my dads brothers and sisters and my moms brothers and sisters. My dad is the youngest of 9 and my mom is the oldest of 11, not to mention 2 sets of grandparents, and then my husband wanted the same for his 6 siblings and parents and 2 grandpas. Plus my sister and brother and myself. I WILL NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!!!!! Each calader was different. No two alike. Now it is just 4 identical calenders. I got wonderful attention from all of them. Even the one I do for myself hangs up here at work and gets several comments daily.

Other than that, I print my own greeting cards. But I don't have that great of a printer, It is fine for stuff I do for the family, but it doen't have the quality that you would want for something that will be framed and on display. Most of the enlargements that I do are at least 11x14 which my printer couldn't do anyway. I bought my digital back before I could afford anything really nice, so I only have 1.3 megapixels. 8x10s are ok, but anything bigger is pushing it. I don't use my digital for anything more than like family snapshots to email, or picures of stuff I sell on ebay. All of my artsy stuff I do on film.

Croping and contrast is about all I know how to do on PS! I really should take a class! Ooops but then I would need a better digital camera... but I think we covered that already!!!

If I have taken a great picture, I want to show it off. I want to hang a 16x20 or bigger on my wall and say see what I did! I don't want it hiding on my computer or on a CD. There is a lot of satisfaction in being able to say I did all the work myself.


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 4:23:28 PM

 
Connie Niehaus  
 
  oops.
oops.
Obviously I metered off the lake behind them.
© Connie Niehaus
Canon AE-1 35mm Pr...
 
  Saved!
Saved!
© Connie Niehaus
Canon AE-1 35mm Pr...
 
  oops.
oops.
Obviously I metered off the lake behind them.
© Connie Niehaus
Canon AE-1 35mm Pr...
 
  Saved!
Saved!
© Connie Niehaus
Canon AE-1 35mm Pr...
 
 
Yikes, Damian--my apologies for asking my question. If you need help getting into a witness protection program, I'll do what I can... ;)

To Jerry, thanks for posting that photo! I've been playing with trying to "intermingle" photos like that and my results have been stilted and amateurish. (Of course, I'm an amateur, so...) Seeing yours made me realize that I've been trying to include way too many other shots. I also think those shots are competing with my whole background for attention. I'm going to try wiping out some color or doing the sepia effect like you did.

Everyone else, wow!--I am getting so much info from your responses! I'm finding there are advantages to both. I'm thinking doing all the posed shots with film and the candids with digital may be what I want to do.

One problem with actually seeing a "bad" shot on digital: I'd be tempted to delete it. I really loused up the exposure on a photo recently, but I found a way to do something I like with it. I'll try to post it.

Anyway--many, many thanks to you all. I love all the info from all different thoughts and views. Keep posting, and I'll keep reading.


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 6:42:24 PM

 
Connie Niehaus   * sigh * Sorry, all. I didn't intend to send EVERYTHING. I told you, I'm new here. Any way of deleting once it's on?...


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 7:00:35 PM

 
Rebecka Franklin   That really is a great save! Good job!

Damian, I am so glad that our little can of worms didn't make to big of a mess!


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 7:01:07 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  what's also funny is how people are getting snobby about film. And why do people think a digital camera gets outdated 5 minutes after buying it?
And people keep bringing up how much you may have to buy for a computer and printer, but don't talk about how much that machine is that prints their negatives. Along with paper and chemicals.
And even having a dark room, are people getting the enlarger, color head, easels, timers, chemicals for free? And as far as time, there's test prints, color correction, printing. Is that really so much faster than printing with a printer?


To love this comment, log in above
9/2/2004 10:19:43 PM

 
Connie Niehaus   TY, Rebecka--unfortunately, I probably have to attempt more "saves" than the average person...

About the "outdated" digital: I know people who are always praising the latest technology. I also know that my older daughter has printed some very nice 8x10's from her 4-year-old 2.1 mp. I don't have a digital, but I want to borrow hers for awhile and see if I like it.


To love this comment, log in above
9/3/2004 4:45:02 AM

 
Rebecka Franklin   I can't believe I have to explain what sarcasim is. 5 minutes is an exageration, but I know that the reason I got that "real good deal" was because they where trying to sell what they had so they could get all of the new models in stock. I bought that camera 6 years ago. Last year at my family reunion, my uncle was having trouble with his new digital camera. He came to me for help and I couldn't help but notice that it was the same brand and model as mine, but if sure was different! It is the same idea as a car. When a car company changes the design of a car, the cars with the old design depreciates. That doesn't mean the car is worthless now, it still runs fine, but now I want to drive the car with the new design.

O.K. lets talk about how much I spend on darkroom equipment and supplies. If you scroll up you will notice that I already said that I don't use this as much as someone else might. I bought my enlarger, used and out dated but still in great conditon (just like my old car)for $200 at on ebay about 4 years ago. Before someone jumps down my throat let me say that I am not as experienced as most, but I am not speaking for them. I am speaking for myself based on my experiences. I buy the chemicals by the gallon in powder form and spend around $5 depending on the brand. For paper developer, film developer and fixer that will do both film and paper thats about $16-$17 give or take. For 50 sheets of glossy 11x14s I spend $35. I think it's about $27 for 8x10s. I bought the trays and tongs off ebay for $5 I already had a thermometer and funnels, the timer came with the enlarger. I got a 4 bladed easel and one of those 4 in one easels together from ebay for $75. (Brand new that 4 bladed easel is $250) The film is about $2 a roll. No this stuff is not free, you just have to keep your eyes open fot good deals. I just bought a 1975 SX-70 Polaroid Land Camera at a thrift shop for $1.50 that still works great! Now I can start doing polaroid transfers and lifts.

I admit that it took a while to get to this point, but now I have the print I want after 3 test prints.

If I take my film into the one and only lab in a fifty mile radius, I pay 11.50 unless I want it the same day then that will be 4 bucks more. I don't know how it is everywhere else but I decided that while I was experimenting with photography where I might have a shot or two turn out on a roll, I didn't want to pay for the pictures that didn't turn out.

Now one photo printer head on my printer is $52 and I can only print 8-9 8x10s before I run out of ink. So for me right now the darkroom is more economical. But that is just me. Someone else will disagree. I know that and I don't have a problem with it. I do the best I can with what I have. As does everybody.

Photography is not my main source of income, nor do I want it to be. I don't want something that I love to do to relax, have a stress factor. This Q&A was set up so that people can learn from each other. Those of us that don't know as much as some of the others need to know that we can get some advise with being judged. And some of us like to have a good debate without it turning ugly, or mean. Now that I have all that off my chest I can have a good weekend. Hope all of you have a good weekend too, even you Gregory!


To love this comment, log in above
9/3/2004 3:24:22 PM

 
Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/22/2002
  And we learn how to get good deals on equipment too! Have a great weekend! :-)


To love this comment, log in above
9/3/2004 3:53:54 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  "Previous Response:
from Rebecka F.
on 9/3/2004 3:24:22 PM I can't believe I have to explain what sarcasim is. 5 minutes is an exageration, "

I can't believe you felt you had to explain it. You don't recognize the same use of an old expression.
But it didn' make sense to compare new things for digital, with what you spent on used stuff, stuff you already had, and on top of that a black&white enlarger.
But the paranoia about outdated digital cameras "10 minutes" after you buy is something that people with digital falsley worry about, and people who say stay with film falsey claim it'll be your empending doom. If it's doing good before, why's it suddenly turn crappy just because a new model came out?
You(not a rhetorical you, but a Rebecka F. you)(slightly amusing that is) seem to not know that most everybody's just as relaxed as you are.
And if you want to keep stating a purpose of a q&a forum, you need to be able to handle somebody debating, disagreeing, and rebuttaling (if that's a word) you if they feel you're not on point with what you say, without blowing a gasket.


To love this comment, log in above
9/3/2004 10:24:42 PM

 
Mick King   9/5/04 I signed up last night. It is sad to see that people act the same way on every message board I've ever looked at. Whether it is Wood Magazine, Bodywork Online, or here. Think and count to 10-20-30 before starting a peeing contest. Want to blast me? use my email. massagemick@yahoo.com Happy weekend. mick


To love this comment, log in above
9/5/2004 7:40:11 AM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
  Hello Mick, and welcome!
Believe me when I say that BP is a great place to "hang out".
Issues like this one seem to bring out the worst in people.

Check out the other Q&A posts, and you will see a lot of great interaction among professionals, amateurs, and hobbyists who are seeking guidance or who are just trying to make their photography better.
Also, check out some of the photos posted to the Contest,...There is some real talent here!


To love this comment, log in above
9/5/2004 1:41:22 PM

 
Karma Wilson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  I just wanted to respond about printing digital photographs. I have a cheap photo printer (Canon I860) and it prints beautiful prints on paper I get from costco for 20.00 for 100 sheets. Here's some examples of reactions to these prints:

I sent some to a friend. They were shots of my children. She asked where I got my printer because my pictures looked better than her film prints!

I gave a picture to a friend who is a hobbyist photographer. It was a portrait of my daughter (it's in my gallery). She asked where I got my photo done! She thought it was pro. So there you go.

I advocate ordering important prints from an online lab. I say this becauses no printer like mine will print pics that last the ages. I use it for wallet sized, 8x10s and 5x7s that I'm going to change every year, and so on. For my special memories I will rely on the online labs which print my photo like a traditional print.

Now I'll go read the rest of the thread and probably chime in some more. :-)

Karma


To love this comment, log in above
9/5/2004 3:31:10 PM

 
Karma Wilson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  PS: one more thing about printing. With a good printer it takes hardly ANY time to print. It's got the coolest printing software ever and I can print easily and quickly. I love it!

Karma


To love this comment, log in above
9/5/2004 3:33:19 PM

 
Karma Wilson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  RE: Outdated cameras...

I bought my camera and I love it. But I'm longing for the day that I can buy a Canon or Nikon SLR because I'm outgrowing my camera. But it won't be outdated for years. It will always be the lighter camera--a great little backup. I can get nice 8x10s from the 3.2 mp and I could go higher if I knew something about interpolation I suppose. So it was a good purchase. But sometimes I LONG for a camera with more MPs and more abilities. Sometimes I wish I had gone with the SLR in the first place, but I didn't know how much I would love photography...so....

It will be great though to have this camera because when hubby goes on a shoot he can take the SLR (when the dream day comes that we get it) and I can keep the Fuji and not be camera-less! I'm finding it very hard to go for more than half a day without a camera in my hand. :-)

However, I want to use my photos to illustrate picture books and I fear I bought to low for that unless I choose a very small format for the books. And I like nice LARGE picture books.

Karma


To love this comment, log in above
9/5/2004 3:45:12 PM

 
Connie Niehaus   To Bob: Nice save! ;)

To Karma: Thanks for getting us back on track.

To Mick: Don't sign off yet! I've been around the board, and everyone has good stuff to say. I got on a writing board once because I love writing. Two of the folks got into it tooth and nail, and it all ended up having little to do with the craft of writing. I left that site. Then I got into a sort of "make-your-dream-come-true" board. A few days after Nine-Eleven, the messages became political... and not even my politics... ;) so I left that one too. At least everyone here stays on the SUBJECT! And I'm still learning! Viva la difference!

...but believe me, next time I post a question, I'm going to think long and hard about whether it might push some buttons. I truly never intended that!


To love this comment, log in above
9/5/2004 6:36:32 PM

 
Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/22/2002
  LOL - isn't pushing buttons what photographers do?


To love this comment, log in above
9/5/2004 9:42:49 PM

 
Mick King   Bob and Connie, thanks, I figured as much. Sometimes when the buttons get pushed is when some real information comes out. Or not. Anyway, I've got to find the medium format guys to quiz.


To love this comment, log in above
9/5/2004 9:57:15 PM

 
Rebecka Franklin   Hi just got back from the week end. Guess I better address some of Gregory's things that he brought up.

First I have a color enlarger, not B&W.

If I had a problem with out dated equipment, I wouldn't have bought my used enlarger, or Autographic Brownie, or my digital that I knew was being replaced be a newer version.

At what point did you think I blew a gasket? Sarcasim does not come across well over the internet. People think you have gotten angry when you really haven't. This is a debate with no wrong answers. ( gee how many times have I said that? ) Just because this works for me doesn't mean it will work for someone else. I know that.

I never said that printers are not as good emulsion paper, but I did say that MY printer is not as good. I do not plan on buying a new one until I can afford the one I want and the better camera than the one I have.

Karma phrased it better than I did. It isn't so much that my camera is outdated, as much as I out grew it.

Another point to make is that there are just as many used film cameras on ebay as there are digitals. That just means that lots of people are out growing their older equipment and wanting to upgrade, or what ever there reasons are.

I am not against digital nor am I trying to scare people out of buying digital. I am looking to buy a nicer digital camera myself, but I will not do it until I am possitive that I will not out grow it by the end of the year.

Mick, I hope you are still with us. I really didn't intend for this to turn ugly. But I also didn't expect the mean spirited personal attack either.

Gregory you talk so much about profesionalism. So why do you get so uptight when someone disagrees with you? I can only think of one thread where you were not the one to throw the first punch. I know that you disagree with me. In fact I think you disagree with everybody just for the sake of disagreeing. And I am sure that you will disagree with that!!

Notice how the issue between Damian and I got resolved and then Gregory chimes in to get everyone started again. I am not the first person that Gregory has attacked nor will I be the last. Sad huh?

This thread has outlived it's usefullness. It should have died a long time ago. But I am sure that Gregory will not let it die without having the last word.

Connie, Damian, it's been fun, but I am going to be a wall flower from now on. Its gone from debate to mud sling and I have just painted a target on my back!


To love this comment, log in above
9/7/2004 11:11:19 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  The smoke coming out your ears told me you blew a gasket.
But the playing the victim I know is just an escape technique.
As far as when you think I talk about professionalism, and in what context, I like to cut thru to the chase instead of the sales pitch.
How's your engine running?


To love this comment, log in above
9/7/2004 3:03:45 PM

 
Rebecka Franklin   I am laughing my butt off because I am not the only one who has told you off today!!!!!!!!!!

Get a hint Greg!!!!!

And for everybody else check out what Jan wrote. She said it perfectly.

http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/QnAdetail.asp?threadID=11330

It sounds to me like you are the one with the sales pitch, only when we don't buy it, you turn it into a personal attack.

Varrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!

My engine is running fine! How long since you checked your oil??


To love this comment, log in above
9/7/2004 4:02:30 PM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.