Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 12:36:54 PM

Title: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 12:36:54 PM
Attached
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: kikashi on February 17, 2013, 01:45:27 PM
Attached

Worth looking at. Correct-length explanation as well.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 02:12:59 PM
Worth looking at. Correct-length explanation as well.

Jeremy
Correct as you imagine the length to be, it holds zero value to me as the photographer. But thanks for typing.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 02:26:37 PM
I think I will pontificate.

The fella above assumed he was making a useful comment about this photograph. He even proudly proclaimed it was the right length of comment. He's a fan of brevity. But what purpose is brevity when it is an empty gesture? Do photographers and artists come here to see if there photograph is "worth looking at?" Possibly some. I doubt if that is the goal of most.

I think most want to know how to improve their photography, or their art. "How" - is quite a difficult thing for anyone to wrestle with. Can it be said in 3 or 4 words? Maybe, but I have yet to see it done as such. It may not even be possible in 1,000 words. But why are we counting the words?

I don't know why anyone, especially a photographer, would take the time to type out "worth looking at" as a critique of a photograph. And how do you determine that something is "not worth looking at" without first looking at it?
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Photo Op on February 17, 2013, 02:37:54 PM
I think I will pontificate.


Like you haven't in just about every thread you comment on...........wait, wait...here it comes!
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: amolitor on February 17, 2013, 02:48:40 PM
This seems to fall in an uncomfortable no-man's land between vernacular photography and landscape.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 03:05:41 PM
Correct as you imagine the length to be, it holds zero value to me as the photographer. But thanks for typing.

Ahmmm.... Jeremy is referring to your own explanation ("attached"), not to his own commentary.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 03:15:03 PM
Ahmmm.... Jeremy is referring to your own explanation ("attached"), not to his own commentary.
Thanks for the correction. Man, you really got me there.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 03:20:05 PM
Not bad at all. I see it is a rather decent landscape shot. If there is anything "vernacular" about it, it would be that it might be suitable for an article illustration, given the amount of available space for text.

On a side note, can someone help this non-native speaker with the meaning of the term "vernacular," especially how it relates to photography? Mundane, banal, everyday, utilitarian (ooops, another big word)? Yes, I checked the dictionary, but there it is more like "jargon."

It doesn't look like a snapshot, given the intensive blue sky, most likely polarized, post-processed or perhaps Velvia (although I would expect Velvia to have a slight magenta tint to it)? On the saturation note, I would scale it down a bit (I know, sounds strange coming from me, right?).

The composition is classical, close to the thirds. There is a foreground interest, middle-ground, and leading lines. The colors are generally harmonious (once the sky is altered a bit).
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 03:34:18 PM
Worth looking at. Correct-length explanation as well.

Jeremy
Now that Slobodan has explained the meaning of the second sentence. I find it a fitting place to make a comment about titles and explanations.
When one puts a title on a photograph, it is often intended to bias the viewer towards a line of thought. "God's Majesty" and "Hand of the Devil" are examples of pretentious titling. "Forest Pines" - - sure, why not, if you like doing titles.

As for explanations, this is a critique forum. Why would I want to pre-load the critique with my explanation? Why does it matter? The photograph has to do the work. I don't want to put crutches under it before people comment. If they ask questions, then fine, I can explain. But I don't want to lead or mislead the viewer who is going to comment about the photo.

What you are doing in your comments above is pretty much what you always do. You find a sly way that you can work in an insult and still have people believe you are cultured in some way, or "sophisticated," because you don't use the word "bullsh*t," like the teachers do. Why not settle for just being honest?   
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: amolitor on February 17, 2013, 03:43:26 PM
This is precisely the kind of palaver that's irritating the members of this forum.

The regular posters here are a pretty sophisticated bunch, and most of us have thought the through the issue of titles pretty thoroughly by now. Some of the members probably sorted out all that stuff 50 years ago (not me, but I have thought through titles pretty thoroughly). When you write one of these little lectures, it comes across as somewhere between condescending and insulting. This isn't a forum of 20-somethings who have just gotten their first DSLR for christmas, although those forums do exist. Your lecture is fine and correct, it's just out of place.

Nobody likes to be talked down to, not even children. And we're not children.

Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 03:53:11 PM
Not bad at all. I see it is a rather decent landscape shot. If there is anything "vernacular" about it, it would be that it might be suitable for an article illustration, given the amount of available space for text.

On a side note, can someone help this non-native speaker with the meaning of the term "vernacular," especially how it relates to photography? Mundane, banal, everyday, utilitarian (ooops, another big word)? Yes, I checked the dictionary, but there it is more like "jargon."

It doesn't look like a snapshot, given the intensive blue sky, most likely polarized, post-processed or perhaps Velvia (although I would expect Velvia to have a slight magenta tint to it)? On the saturation note, I would scale it down a bit (I know, sounds strange coming from me, right?).

The composition is classical, close to the thirds. There is a foreground interest, middle-ground, and leading lines. The colors are generally harmonious (once the sky is altered a bit).

This kind of traditional landscape** photography is not my primary interest. I take my hand at it from time to time. It's a genre with it's own unique difficulties and I haven't had enough sustained interest to spend lots of time working with those difficulties. This photo has some LR adjustments made to the the raw file, of course. The saturation was adjusted for JPG on screen, which is not my normal adjustment. I use LR to adjust for prints (my main interest). To post this, I quickly changed the saturation.

I certainly do not consider this vernacular photography. I posted "Vending Stand" as an example of what I loosely call vernacular photography. Even then, I am not a strict taxonomist. I don't have any concern here what category anyone else wants to apply to it.

--------------
** I do enjoy landscape photography in a much looser style that includes the man-made content along with the natural content.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: amolitor on February 17, 2013, 04:04:42 PM
Slobodan, vernacular photography is, as I understand it, essentially "snapshots" with the dismissive connotation removed. It is snapshots considered seriously as, well, whatever they are. Art? Documentation of life? Frozen moments of time?
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 04:50:20 PM
... it holds zero value to me as the photographer...

By value, you mean "advice," "help," or similar? What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for?
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
... ** I do enjoy landscape photography in a much looser style that includes the man-made content along with the natural content.

Than you and Russ (RSL) have much more in common than you are willing to admit :P
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RSL on February 17, 2013, 05:07:59 PM
Slobodan, vernacular photography is, as I understand it, essentially "snapshots" with the dismissive connotation removed. It is snapshots considered seriously as, well, whatever they are. Art? Documentation of life? Frozen moments of time?

That's my understanding of the term too Andrew. If we're right then my "Closing Time" is a fair example.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 05:43:54 PM
This is precisely the kind of palaver that's irritating the members of this forum.

The regular posters here are a pretty sophisticated bunch, and most of us have thought the through the issue of titles pretty thoroughly by now. Some of the members probably sorted out all that stuff 50 years ago (not me, but I have thought through titles pretty thoroughly). When you write one of these little lectures, it comes across as somewhere between condescending and insulting. This isn't a forum of 20-somethings who have just gotten their first DSLR for christmas, although those forums do exist. Your lecture is fine and correct, it's just out of place.

Nobody likes to be talked down to, not even children. And we're not children.


If the fella commenting about "attached" didn't want to be lectured, perhaps he ought to have left his petty joke unspoken. Ever consider it that way? And further more, why do you think it is your role to come into every thread involving me and begin lecturing me? Surely you see the irony at least a little?

Did anyone every say, "mind your own business" to you?

And as far as a "sophisticated bunch," I'll have to disagree in the strongest terms possible. For my evidence, I'll refer anyone interested to the "sophisticated" comments in the thread of two days ago which I closed. People running about yelling "bullsh*t" to everything, and unable to answer the most rudimentary questions about photography are not my idea of "sophisticated." But you know, they were also claimed to be "heavy weights" too, so go ahead and puff it up all you like.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 06:01:33 PM
How's this for sophisticated:
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: amolitor on February 17, 2013, 06:16:40 PM
It's so interesting trying to converse with you, RG.

You always ignore the main thrust of what is said, pick up on some phrase or side issue, mis-read it, and then reply furiously based on that. It really makes it impossible to have any sort of coherent dialog with you.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 06:18:27 PM
By value, you mean "advice," "help," or similar? What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for?
They have online dictionaries now where you can find the meaning of a word you are actually looking for. I think my use of 'value' will be contained in there.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 06:38:48 PM
They have online dictionaries now where you can find the meaning of a word you are actually looking for. I think my use of 'value' will be contained in there.

Now you've outdone yourself, however impossible that might be. That was a sincere, genuine question I asked, no implied insult, ridicule or whatever.

And what did you do? Your response is:

a) patronizing and condescending

b) not answering my direct question (ie, "What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for?")
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 08:34:04 PM
Now you've outdone yourself, however impossible that might be. That was a sincere, genuine question I asked, no implied insult, ridicule or whatever.

And what did you do? Your response is:

a) patronizing and condescending

b) not answering my direct question (ie, "What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for?")
Your specialty here seems to be word games then? Value is not a hard word to understand. I answered it very clearly that my use of the word "value" is found within any standard definition of value. Here's an idea for you....let's talk about photography. What do you say? My interest in your word games is ZERO. 
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 09:20:31 PM
Your specialty here seems to be word games then? Value is not a hard word to understand. I answered it very clearly that my use of the word "value" is found within any standard definition of value. Here's an idea for you....let's talk about photography. What do you say? My interest in your word games is ZERO. 


I am all for it. So, lets do it. Please answer the following question, related to your OP photograph:

What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for (when receiving critique)?

Looking into dictionary is not going to help me determine what type, nor what you are looking for, hence the direct question to you, related to photography.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 10:04:12 PM
I am all for it. So, lets do it. Please answer the following question, related to your OP photograph:

What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for (when receiving critique)?

Looking into dictionary is not going to help me determine what type, nor what you are looking for, hence the direct question to you, related to photography.
You guys really spend your time doing this, don't you? I have never seen so little photographic discussion in a photographic forum. Are you guys simply afraid to talk seriously about photography? I mean, based on some of the nonsensical talk here, I am coming to the conclusion quickly that photography is the LAST thing anyone here wants to face.

My dictionary contains this common use:
relative worth, utility, or importance.

When I said there was "zero value" in the other guy's comment, I meant it had no worth, no utility, and no importance. Since it had NONE of any of those things by his choice, I can't hardly tell you which thing of value he might of offered, can I? But in general, opinions related to photographic principles have some worth, suggestions for improving a photograph might have some utility, and seeing a flaw I didn't see in the photograph might have some importance.

I'm expecting you to now ask what is worth, or utility or importance, right? And the game can go on endlessly. I think I get it though. I am seeing - through you and Chris  - why I am such an irritant. What this forum comprises is basically computer jockeys. You capture something on the card. You load it into the computer and then spend countless hours sliding the levers until some insanely colorful image appears on the screen. Then you post it here, and talk about the sliders - like this:
QUOTE
In this particular instance, after isolating just the sky, I used SEP2 to create a B&W layer (full dynamic, smooth). I changed the blend to Luminosity and lowered the opactiy to 67%. To counter some of the grain created by SEP2, I did a noise reduction using "despeckle" only. Next, on a copy of the  B&W sky layer I used a blend mode of "screen" at 17%, flattened and it was finished. I am using CS6 but I think all these are available in LR4. If you don't have SEP/SEP2, make a copy of the original, use the B&W conversion adjustment and use that for your blend layer. I tend to add a bit more contrast when doing it by that method, but in the end, it's pretty close to the same.
END QUOTE

And that's what at least some of you think is photography. Talk about making my head explode. So, yes, I start asking photographic questions, or commenting on the art or the artist, and you attack me as though I was from Mars. Even down to scrubbing my posts for the meaning of a single word, or the guy who enjoys scrubbing them fro grammar. Anything at all to stop this "photography talk."

It's humorous.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: David Eckels on February 19, 2013, 01:26:28 PM
This is an image with which I can connect, but I am trying to hone my analytical skills so I have to try to explain (to myself perhaps) why. First, is the complementarity of the intense blue and yellow. Second, the rounded shapes of the boulders that repeat off into the distance forming leading lines taking me into the depths of the photograph. I like the three dimensionality. It is curious from your earlier comment that you seem somewhat indifferent to it; maybe this is not an accurate interpretation. I would be proud of this image.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 19, 2013, 01:52:15 PM
This is an image with which I can connect, but I am trying to hone my analytical skills so I have to try to explain (to myself perhaps) why. First, is the complementarity of the intense blue and yellow. Second, the rounded shapes of the boulders that repeat off into the distance forming leading lines taking me into the depths of the photograph. I like the three dimensionality. It is curious from your earlier comment that you seem somewhat indifferent to it; maybe this is not an accurate interpretation. I would be proud of this image.
Maybe ambivalent is more accurate than indifferent? I like the photograph, but I usually don't find as much meaning (fulfillment) in this kind of photography as I do in my more typical photographic pursuits. For me, the greatest moment in photography is the instant of pressing the shutter release. THAT is photography for me, the inspirational rush of the chase process. Shooting in these hills had a more slow, analytic feel to me - more like engineering, or surveying. Not my usual process. I "knew with certainty" I could put a decent photograph down. I guess it was less suspenseful for me. I am glad you like it to some extent though - thank you.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Mjollnir on February 20, 2013, 10:58:06 AM
You guys really spend your time doing this, don't you? I have never seen so little photographic discussion in a photographic forum. Are you guys simply afraid to talk seriously about photography? I mean, based on some of the nonsensical talk here, I am coming to the conclusion quickly that photography is the LAST thing anyone here wants to face.

My dictionary contains this common use:
relative worth, utility, or importance.

When I said there was "zero value" in the other guy's comment, I meant it had no worth, no utility, and no importance. Since it had NONE of any of those things by his choice, I can't hardly tell you which thing of value he might of offered, can I? But in general, opinions related to photographic principles have some worth, suggestions for improving a photograph might have some utility, and seeing a flaw I didn't see in the photograph might have some importance.

I'm expecting you to now ask what is worth, or utility or importance, right? And the game can go on endlessly. I think I get it though. I am seeing - through you and Chris  - why I am such an irritant. What this forum comprises is basically computer jockeys. You capture something on the card. You load it into the computer and then spend countless hours sliding the levers until some insanely colorful image appears on the screen. Then you post it here, and talk about the sliders - like this:
QUOTE
In this particular instance, after isolating just the sky, I used SEP2 to create a B&W layer (full dynamic, smooth). I changed the blend to Luminosity and lowered the opactiy to 67%. To counter some of the grain created by SEP2, I did a noise reduction using "despeckle" only. Next, on a copy of the  B&W sky layer I used a blend mode of "screen" at 17%, flattened and it was finished. I am using CS6 but I think all these are available in LR4. If you don't have SEP/SEP2, make a copy of the original, use the B&W conversion adjustment and use that for your blend layer. I tend to add a bit more contrast when doing it by that method, but in the end, it's pretty close to the same.
END QUOTE

And that's what at least some of you think is photography. Talk about making my head explode. So, yes, I start asking photographic questions, or commenting on the art or the artist, and you attack me as though I was from Mars. Even down to scrubbing my posts for the meaning of a single word, or the guy who enjoys scrubbing them fro grammar. Anything at all to stop this "photography talk."

It's humorous.

No, not really.

I think it more likely that you're an irritant because you respond like someone retaking a Photography 101 class at a community college for the 3rd time and and have utterly inflated sense of worth of your own rather pedantic comments.

That, coupled with baseless, borderline delusional suspicions about who frequents this board, isn't exactly a formula for being taken seriously.

Glad I could clear that up for you.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 20, 2013, 11:28:20 AM
No, not really.

I think it more likely that you're an irritant because you respond like someone retaking a Photography 101 class at a community college for the 3rd time and and have utterly inflated sense of worth of your own rather pedantic comments.

That, coupled with baseless, borderline delusional suspicions about who frequents this board, isn't exactly a formula for being taken seriously.

Glad I could clear that up for you.
This is a "User Critique" forum. I feel I must inform you that the meaning isn't to critique the users, it is for users to critique the photographs. Your bitter and filthy personal thoughts about the character of others don't fit into this forum purpose.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RSL on February 20, 2013, 11:50:39 AM
You guys really spend your time doing this, don't you? I have never seen so little photographic discussion in a photographic forum. Are you guys simply afraid to talk seriously about photography? I mean, based on some of the nonsensical talk here, I am coming to the conclusion quickly that photography is the LAST thing anyone here wants to face.

My dictionary contains this common use:
relative worth, utility, or importance.

When I said there was "zero value" in the other guy's comment, I meant it had no worth, no utility, and no importance. Since it had NONE of any of those things by his choice, I can't hardly tell you which thing of value he might of offered, can I? But in general, opinions related to photographic principles have some worth, suggestions for improving a photograph might have some utility, and seeing a flaw I didn't see in the photograph might have some importance.

I'm expecting you to now ask what is worth, or utility or importance, right? And the game can go on endlessly. I think I get it though. I am seeing - through you and Chris  - why I am such an irritant. What this forum comprises is basically computer jockeys. You capture something on the card. You load it into the computer and then spend countless hours sliding the levers until some insanely colorful image appears on the screen. Then you post it here, and talk about the sliders - like this:
QUOTE
In this particular instance, after isolating just the sky, I used SEP2 to create a B&W layer (full dynamic, smooth). I changed the blend to Luminosity and lowered the opactiy to 67%. To counter some of the grain created by SEP2, I did a noise reduction using "despeckle" only. Next, on a copy of the  B&W sky layer I used a blend mode of "screen" at 17%, flattened and it was finished. I am using CS6 but I think all these are available in LR4. If you don't have SEP/SEP2, make a copy of the original, use the B&W conversion adjustment and use that for your blend layer. I tend to add a bit more contrast when doing it by that method, but in the end, it's pretty close to the same.
END QUOTE

And that's what at least some of you think is photography. Talk about making my head explode. So, yes, I start asking photographic questions, or commenting on the art or the artist, and you attack me as though I was from Mars. Even down to scrubbing my posts for the meaning of a single word, or the guy who enjoys scrubbing them fro grammar. Anything at all to stop this "photography talk."

It's humorous.

Yes, the stuff you write certainly is humorous, I'll give you that. Do you make a lot of money writing artists' statements?

Frankly, kidding aside, before I can take your extended writings seriously I need to see some of your serious work; not the occasional junk you've been posting. Do you have a web site? Please tell us about your awards and /or the publications in which your work has appeared. If you're going to go to such lengths to expose our photographic flaws, and if we're to take the junk you write seriously it seems to me we ought to know something of your background and qualifications.

Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 20, 2013, 11:54:10 AM
Yes, the stuff you write certainly is humorous, I'll give you that. Do you make a lot of money writing artists' statements?

Frankly, kidding aside, before I can take your extended writings seriously I need to see some of your serious work; not the occasional junk you've been posting. Do you have a web site? Please tell us about your awards and /or the publications in which your work has appeared. If you're going to go to such lengths to expose our photographic flaws, and if we're to take the junk you write seriously it seems to me we ought to know something of your background and qualifications.


What are the qualifications to post here then?
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RSL on February 20, 2013, 11:58:55 AM
No qualifications. You can post to your heart's content and write to your heart's content, but if we're to take what you write seriously we need to have at least some idea where all this extended ability to criticize comes from. Telling us your art background might help, though it's easy to make up stories about that kind of thing. But if you can show us a body of work that demonstrates you know what you're talking about posters might take you more seriously. Right now, the stuff you've been writing comes off as just plain funny.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 20, 2013, 12:06:54 PM
No qualifications. You can post to your heart's content and write to your heart's content, but if we're to take what you write seriously we need to have at least some idea where all this extended ability to criticize comes from. Telling us your art background might help, though it's easy to make up stories about that kind of thing. But if you can show us a body of work that demonstrates you know what you're talking about posters might take you more seriously. Right now, the stuff you've been writing comes off as just plain funny.

Correct. No qualifications are necessary. And no one is under any obligation to take my posts seriously, and more than I take theirs seriously. Where did that come from? Here's how it works: People post what they like, read what they like, view what they like, critique how they like, and are free to roam, skip, ignore, respond, accept, reject, or complain about what anyone else does, except to the extent it becomes uncivil, which here seems to be unbounded.

As far as I am aware, you are not an authority here which can demand anything from me including bodies of work, my income sources, my education, my art background or my blood type. I can't say I have seen a more pompous request since I have been here. Learn to use your mouse. That's the best answer I can afford you.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RSL on February 20, 2013, 12:15:00 PM
You're right, my friend. You don't have to show us any serious work and you don't have to explain your background. But we don't have to take you seriously either. From what I'm seeing it looks as if almost nobody is taking you seriously, so you might at least try to abbreviate your comments to save space on the threads.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 20, 2013, 01:51:38 PM
You're right, my friend. You don't have to show us any serious work and you don't have to explain your background. But we don't have to take you seriously either. From what I'm seeing it looks as if almost nobody is taking you seriously, so you might at least try to abbreviate your comments to save space on the threads.
I don't consider you an authority on any matters here either photographic, or procedural, and so I will continue to do what I am here to do, in the manner I see fit. No one here is obligated to take anyone else seriously. Maybe you have this confused with a private club you operate somewhere? 

Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RSL on February 20, 2013, 01:58:25 PM
No sweat, RG. Your posts are hilarious.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 20, 2013, 02:04:58 PM
No sweat, RG. Your posts are hilarious.
As was you comparing yourself to Lee Friedlander. As if being the next Cartier-Bresson wasn't enough?
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: RSL on February 20, 2013, 02:07:41 PM
As I said, you're a funny guy -- inadvertently I'm sure.
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: l_d_allan on March 03, 2013, 04:46:32 PM
Excellent image. My first reaction was "too bad there wasn't an interesting sky", but then I came around to feeling that the cloudless sky contributed to the starkness of the scene.

Correct-length explanation as well.

Actually, the word "attached" doesn't really add anything. If anything, it is one word too long. Obviously, the thumbnail refers to an attachment. But am I being snarky to excess?

Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Johnny_Johnson on March 03, 2013, 05:57:33 PM
Actually, the word "attached" doesn't really add anything. If anything, it is one word too long. Obviously, the thumbnail refers to an attachment. But am I being snarky to excess?

Yes, join the crowd.

Cya,
Johnny
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 03, 2013, 06:24:27 PM
... am I being snarky to excess?

No, just late to the party ;)
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: rogerxnz on March 04, 2013, 12:58:16 AM
C'mon guys, you've been pretty good recently. Can we not just stick to the purpose of the forum and avoid attacking members and their comments.
Roger
Title: Re: Down in SoCal
Post by: kikashi on March 04, 2013, 03:37:27 AM
Actually, the word "attached" doesn't really add anything. If anything, it is one word too long. Obviously, the thumbnail refers to an attachment. But am I being snarky to excess?

Yes. It's best to understand the context before you comment.

Jeremy