No tripod, a strain on the arms and a real long shot for getting a sharp image...

Something's taken the edge off the sharpness Mike, maybe the teleconverter.

You can hope they never read that!

It's your task to make them look superb and bring out the glow from within.

There might be a half power setting, I'm not sure offhand. The lights were probably full power for the main light and reduced for the fill, very much reduced in this case. To reduce the light further you can move it further away.

Exposure would have been f8 at 1/180 sec

Actually I have to say that is ironic. How many times did people keep asking me for rules for the Forum Competition and how many times did I say there really were none and it was up to the judge to set the parameters?

Not at all, in fact I'm not really arguing anything. I'm putting contrary and contrasting views to elicit the feedback on the original question and see what the core issues are.


What I'm trying to make sure I get at are the core reasons behind things so that I can see if there is an equitable solution to a problem that I know exists.

As yet, I personally don't have a conclusion.

Interesting, Prieni, but I think there's plenty of free speech around here isn't there?

I offer this slightly "tongue in cheek" but there are some very nice bits of film of politicians saying things with utter sincerity, only to say the opposite when the situation makes it more convenient for them to do so.

Now what would happen if said politician (no names!) could go back and rewrite the piece of film? Or should we allow him that freedom?

George, your innocence is beyond doubt!

Thanks for that.

I'd really like to hear some opinions from other members as well. Even those who don't find it an issue as well as those who do.

After that, we'll see what we have and what conclusions can be drawn.

May I ask why you think doing this punishes those who don't want to abuse the system. Could it be that it protects them from having their meaning distorted or hijacked?

What I am curious about is whether or not unlimited editing is actually something that a lot of people want to do or is it not? If hardly anyone really wants this ability then limiting it is hardly a punishment is it?

I suppose looking at the messages posted in general, it's also true that very, very few of them are actually marked as edited. :

Hardly ever necessary, but all has always been in hand regarding that, which is why I say it's not really part of the question I posed at the beginning of this thread.