Well, Bob, I probably would have let it go if I hadn't wasted a Slice of
Time looking at your website.  I can point to more than a half dozen shots
where the exposure appears to be off.  Owning a good digital camera doesn't
necessarily make someone a good photographer.  Maybe you should learn to
spend a little more time in post processing as well.  And by the way, I have
been a professional photographer for over 17 years and I think you're
probably worth every penny you charge per image.


"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bhavsn$10043v$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:I_2_a.123485$4UE.76901@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > That's what I thought.
> >
> >
> What is it about some who when disagreed with must insult the
understanding
> or intelligence of the person who disagrees with them.
>
> I fully understand the "concept" of RAW date. I also understand the
concept
> of working with up to 6 clients a day with between 70 and 100 image each.
> These images must be shown to each client for their selection and
purchase.
> To be lazy at the camera and have to spend the time to correct
approximately
> 350 images every damn day in order to provide the client with an image
that
> "looks good" would be just plain stupid.
>
> I also understand the concept of getting the best image in the camera to
> start with. It's amazing the number of folks using film who will brag
about
> their "spot on" exposures and have no realization that the image they see
on
> the printed paper is the result of a darn good lab tech correcting their
> screwups.
>
> Do as you will but I will continue to expose the image correctly in the
> camera because while I understand the "concept" of RAW date I also
> understand the "concept" of correct exposure using either film and
digital.
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>