On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:22:18 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> modom > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:00:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >No....it should join a photography class in its home town. A picture like
>> >that should be done in natural light, not with flash. There are no
>> >exceptions.
>> >
>> That is an astonishingly foolish thing to to say

>Haven't been posting here long, have you?

Only about 12 years. But, I'm trying to learn my way about as quickly
as I can. Probably I was just in one of those too easily astonished
moods that hit me from time to time.
>
>On a scale of foolishness on this group, I'd only give it a "3". How
>can you even compare that with "don't buy a teddy bear or you're a
>pedophile"?

Point it well taken. And yet aesthetic judgments that allow no
exceptions strike me as astonishingly foolish. That might just be me,
though -- something to do with my profession.
>
>Frankly, I like your dinner pictures much better than the professional
>pictures I see in magazines. I know that your food is designed to be
>eaten, and that right after you take these pictures, you eat dinner. We
>don't wipe the drops of sauce off of the rims of our plates before we
>eat, and we don't arrange the meat slices "just so" either.
>
Communication is possible after all!

>And the crowning touch is that it's February in the northern hemisphere.
>There *is* no natural light at dinner time!

And my kitchen has no windows, anyway.

modom