I'll look forward to entering that competition John - don't like my chances though - my only interest is in adding to the debate, but I had to respond to the particular attitude expressed which is the cause of any sniping.

I must correct a misconception as well - that of the 'one button press' effects. That is not at all accurate in fact - the specific Sagelight effects used have quite an extensive panel of controls and options, including brush sizes, stoke lengths, the type of texture to the 'paper' and whether the brush is smooth or rough - all of which can be finely controlled with 100 point precision.

Of course, this won't make people think any more favourable about the actual results, but it is important to understand that there is a lot of control and choice available.

Bye the way, you may have missed my question after your earlier comment - things moved on so quickly ...

'It seems here John that you are focussing on my 2nd aspect in my intro ... [(2) the process involved ('push button computer effect') is not as valid, presumably as compared to the traditional hand created art-form it is derived from - this is despite the result, it is the actual method of production that is being doubted.]

You clearly are rejecting the method involved - yet you have not referred to the actual results. Obviously you know the origins of the shots and the 'push button' creation which is behind your response. But it is strange not to comment on the content or actual appearance of a photograph when commenting isn't it? I've never known comments here to only refer to the technique of production in isolation from the actual image in front of us.

I wonder, if I had packaged and delivered these to people, printed on beautiful canvas and expensively framed, would people react to them in the same way as here?'

OK, that's encouraging ... so you think I should at least keep all my photos in the recycle bin for now then?

And of course the worse thing would be to carry out any 'destructive' type of editing directly on the image file, such as in Photoshop working on the background layer. Much better to use adjustment layers for things like levels and saturation which won't add much to the filesize.

Personally if I'm starting with a a JPEG I always 'save as' first and create a new TIFF - do all your work on that, then flatten any layers if you won't need them again, then 'save as' a new max quality JPEG.

And its worth adding that ideally a new duplicate layer should be used if you want to apply a plastic wrap or oil painting effect - you never know, its appeal may fade over time.

Well , I was referring to misunderstandings about the thread, of my own purposes in posing these images as questions - I think I've been clear enough about that, and mostly it has been entered into with a great spirit.

I look forward to benefiting from more of your superior understanding when I share more of my hobbyist trash in future.

I appreciate all your thoughts here, but I must say I think the real ignorance at play is simply you own misunderstandings.

You've said it there - thats the same thing as the others are suggesting.

I'm posing this all as a question - the title gives it away. I'm not trying to make any statement with the images, rather the images are there to raise the questions. I think its fair to say they're doing a good job of that! Of course, I as always want it to be stimulating and interesting.

What is fascinating I find is the different attitudes between the various genres & presentations. In the previous thread, the shots were of a more personal nature - me & the family, so there was a greater acceptance it seems of my own choices. Here it is different .... the subject in these images is less personal, and are the sort of things we would all shoot in various ways, so it seems they are regarded as a more common property ... for that the responses are much stronger, and the entire vaidity of the idea is questioned, as if I have infringed some sacred boundaries, boundaries of taste as well as the artform 'definitions'.

But Ken we didn't see an answer to my earlier question ...

The complaint about the farm images was that the effects were unsuited to the subjects (such as the plastic wrap over myself and the tractor) - I can accept this, and there was a clear shock/novelty purpose.

So what now is it about these particular images of gardens, English landscapes and tourist hotspots that makes you reject them equally as unsuited to the oil painting effect?

I absolutely love No 2 there! Fantastic clarity in the foreground, and beautiful tones.

Bugs, I was asking you the question I wanted to know if you were intested in discussing more about the subjects and content of the images to make them acceptable for agencies, or whether it was about the technical aspects of the files submitted so they were easily usable.

I see you mentioned JPEGs above, and as gwing clarified its just a re-saving process that will apply further auto compression to occur. Do you know if TIFFs are acceptable for agencies?

Ah well, there goes my early retirement plans then .... But, um, does anyone know of any biscuit tin makers?