"my gripe is with the people who look at Photoshop as part of the photographic routine - if that's the case, you are NOT a photographer - you are a GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATOR..." That would be the same as looking at the darkroom as part of the photographic routine. I'd like to point you towards Jerry Uelsmann: http://www.uelsmann.net/ No one is perfect. Perfect exposures are not commonplace, which is why people get 2 or 3 shots that are worth printing out of 36. Calling someone a graphic illustrator because they use photoshop to "fix" imperfections... that is a bold statement, nad isn't justified. People dodge, burn, tone, solarize, blur, soften, add bas relief, and do multiple enlargement prints in darkrooms, yet somehow, doing those things in photoshop makes you less of a photographer? I personally don't use a digital camera btw,I i loathe them, so i ain't really biased here.... If you ask me, someone who can make a "bad" exposure/shot look really good has tremendous skill. Not more or less, just a different kind than the person who has natural talent for "perfect" shots. Think about it, a "bad" shot, into something good. A bad shot into something bad, ok, you lack skill, but making it good? no offense, but what the fuck is wrong with that? Pressing the button is the first part of a photograph, and is definitely not the last, and not always the most important step in terms of the final output, be it digital or traditional. PHotoshop is merely another tool. People have relied on darkrooms for decades to aid in the final output, and sometimes that means going from a mediocre negative into a fantastic print... and I have the feeling there'd be a lot more slack cut to people who do it in a darkroom than in photoshop... its no easier either way, its just different people with a mastery of different tools. "Five years ago, the studio photographer would be concerned about dust particles on a small product shoot - now they let it ride and say "I can touch that out in Photoshop"." Well, that studio photographer would get rid of the dust particles with a little blower... what makes that more noble than blotting out the dust in photoshop? If anything, its more time consuming, and requires a greater level of skill, after all, anyone can squeeze an air tube... "That is what I was try to get across in my (then) drunken state." Im gonna bite my tongue on this one.

heh, this reminds me of the postal system. Former employees shootin up the place, lol.

there are bigger and better sites out there to search for jobs, post resumes, and for businesses to find those resumes (in canada, monster.ca is the big one). All the extra effort would probably amount to nothing in the end, which is why nothing's ever really been done I'd guess.

it may not interest you, but im sure it interests the people who both post it and say "awww cute".

the photography gallery isnt only for professional shots bro. Its for photography, which means people can post pics of friends family pets and junk in general if they want. Majority of the people who post to the galleries have low end digi cams in the 1-2 mega pixel range with little or no options, never mind removable lenses. My advice, live with it. If ya don't like'em, don't click'em bro.

that's a darn nice exposure man! gotta love the silver tone of the bridge, and that bright spot to the left.

a size 72 font on a 112x106 avatar... ummm, wqell, one letter should take up about 10 of them avatars... make sure of several things, like the colour of the font, that the font is properly installed, that you're putting the font on the uppermost layer, and that (at that size) the font itself has no antialiasing on it (meaning sharp, smooth or crisp, set the value to none instead). at that size bro, your font shouldnt be any bigger than 10 or so, and even then....

actually, I don't really do colouring, that was my first quick stab at it. set the upper layer to multiply, that'll seem to deplete all the witeness, or rather, make everything painted under the white visible. When its a grey, something inbetween, the amount visible is inbetween. strange thing though, setting the upper layer to multiply wont do anything if A: the layer underneath isn't there already, and B: If that layer underneath doesn't have any pixel information (meaning nothing already coloured). Had to paint a streak on the under layer, seet the upper to multiply, then delete the streak and do the colouring... i use a wacom graphire too tho, really helpful. This mean i did good? I should do it more often.. preferably with my own stuff... i liked doing it.

lol, seems i forgot her ear, oh well, heh.

that second one toons, look so sexy with sparks flying around "that" area, heh heh...

i dunno bout the dog, but my cats have wrecked a few pieces of homework for sure.

i acn see the headlines now "Maniacle Bald Dude Carves up Storm in Finnish Downtown District! Body Count has reached innumerable Proportions!""

there's a little hole between them there butt cheeks ya know...

heh, best idea is to not let anyone know! now michelle's gonna be watching you like a hound boy!