«

On a friends suggestion I took a look at www.photosig.com . Honestly I've
seldom seen so much bad photography concentrated in one spot before. I
think the photo techs at Wal-Mart see a better percentage of good photos
than one finds at this photosharing community. I'm sure I take my share of
lousy photos too, but I don't put them online to make everyone else suffer.

Doug

"Doug Robbins" <> wrote in message
news:45b4e696$0$4895$...
> On a friends suggestion I took a look at www.photosig.com . Honestly I've
> seldom seen so much bad photography concentrated in one spot before. I
> think the photo techs at Wal-Mart see a better percentage of good photos
> than one finds at this photosharing community. I'm sure I take my share
> of lousy photos too, but I don't put them online to make everyone else
> suffer.
>
> Doug
>

And there is a point to your comment?

Did you see any good images there? What were your expectations of a critique
site like Photosig, that everyone share your tastes? Did you post some of
your own images for critique?

Eric Miller

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2285 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

Doug Robbins wrote:
> On a friends suggestion I took a look at www.photosig.com . Honestly I've
> seldom seen so much bad photography concentrated in one spot before. I
> think the photo techs at Wal-Mart see a better percentage of good photos
> than one finds at this photosharing community. I'm sure I take my share of
> lousy photos too, but I don't put them online to make everyone else suffer.

The purpose of photosig is commentary/critique on photographs. If
enough people find your critiques "helpful" you get to post more of
your own photos.

I participated for a while, but since I like to post positive comments
that go beyond "cool photo", I found it too much work to find images
that were worth the bother.

Austin

It gets even worse on the internet! Some people post bad photos so bored
people can seek out and find them to be offended. Some just post stupid
comments for others to read. Pick your poison.

"Doug Robbins" <> wrote in message
news:45b4e696$0$4895$...
> On a friends suggestion I took a look at www.photosig.com . Honestly I've
> seldom seen so much bad photography concentrated in one spot before. I
> think the photo techs at Wal-Mart see a better percentage of good photos
> than one finds at this photosharing community. I'm sure I take my share
> of lousy photos too, but I don't put them online to make everyone else
> suffer.
>
> Doug
>
>
>

Doug Robbins wrote:
> On a friends suggestion I took a look at www.photosig.com . Honestly I've
> seldom seen so much bad photography concentrated in one spot before. I
> think the photo techs at Wal-Mart see a better percentage of good photos
> than one finds at this photosharing community. I'm sure I take my share of
> lousy photos too, but I don't put them online to make everyone else suffer.

PhotoSIG isn't a "photo sharing community", it's a "photo critiquing community".
It's not intended to be your personal photo gallery, it's intended for getting
critiques of your photos, suggestions and advice for improving them, and
presumably learning from that advice.

But I guess you figure all your work is perfect already, so you'd have no use
for the input of others...

No, if you bothered to read my post, I acknowledged I take some bad photos.
The critiques on photosig are as bad as the photographs. I find the whole
website a waste of bandwidth and won't be returning.

By the way, you took this personally and felt the need to make a comment
about my photography, about which you know nothing.

"Matt Ion" <> wrote in message
news:5P9th.774466$1T2.611767@pd7urf2no...
> Doug Robbins wrote:
>> On a friends suggestion I took a look at www.photosig.com . Honestly
>> I've seldom seen so much bad photography concentrated in one spot before.
>> I think the photo techs at Wal-Mart see a better percentage of good
>> photos than one finds at this photosharing community. I'm sure I take my
>> share of lousy photos too, but I don't put them online to make everyone
>> else suffer.
>
> PhotoSIG isn't a "photo sharing community", it's a "photo critiquing
> community". It's not intended to be your personal photo gallery, it's
> intended for getting critiques of your photos, suggestions and advice for
> improving them, and presumably learning from that advice.
>
> But I guess you figure all your work is perfect already, so you'd have no
> use for the input of others...

"Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
news:1F7th.114$%...
> It gets even worse on the internet! Some people post bad photos so bored
> people can seek out and find them to be offended. Some just post stupid
> comments for others to read. Pick your poison.
>

And others make stupid responses.

Doug Robbins wrote:
> No, if you bothered to read my post, I acknowledged I take some bad photos.
> The critiques on photosig are as bad as the photographs. I find the whole
> website a waste of bandwidth and won't be returning.

None of us care.

> By the way, you took this personally and felt the need to make a comment
> about my photography, about which you know nothing.

You post a negative opinion, and complain because some poeple disagree
with you. Sounds like a troll-wanabee to me. I see nothing in the
post you responded to that suggests he took your post personally.

Austin

AustinMN wrote:
> Doug Robbins wrote:
>
>>No, if you bothered to read my post, I acknowledged I take some bad photos.
>>The critiques on photosig are as bad as the photographs. I find the whole
>>website a waste of bandwidth and won't be returning.
>
>
> None of us care.
>
>
>>By the way, you took this personally and felt the need to make a comment
>>about my photography, about which you know nothing.
>
>
> You post a negative opinion, and complain because some poeple disagree
> with you. Sounds like a troll-wanabee to me. I see nothing in the
> post you responded to that suggests he took your post personally.

It wasn't actually a comment about his photography anyway... it was a comment
about his arrogance.