# Don't Like Digital



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

In the midst of my own internal battle over whether to buy a dSLR or hold out for MF digital, something is tipping the scales. 

Working on another photographer's pictures, and my first retouching work for publication, I'm finding that there aren't enough pixels. Full-length portraits shot on a 5D simply don't have enough detail for me to do a really stellar retouch. The shots look fine at 100%, but I need to go beyond that to get into the nitty gritty of the skin. I'm really having to pull out all the stops to make this work well. :meh:

Guess I won't be buying one after all.


----------



## Overread (Aug 3, 2008)

well what about the Canon 1Ds Mark III? 
Full frame sensor and 20 megapixels - that might have enough for your greater than 100% editing


----------



## K_Pugh (Aug 3, 2008)

Surely there's some nice 39MP MF digital backs/cameras out there


----------



## Overread (Aug 3, 2008)

50MP enough for you?
http://www.hasselblad.se/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx

if not what about 60?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p65-announced.shtml

wish they had these smaller for wildlife


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Aren't enough pixels? What exactly are you trying to do that you cant? I've seen lots of pros do excellent re-touching... What kind of retouching cant you do?

I am asking out of curiosity. I like to learn


----------



## Overread (Aug 3, 2008)

when it comes to fashion and modeling photographers I think they go as far as editing the pores on the skin!


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Overread said:


> when it comes to fashion and modeling photographers I think they go as far as editing the pores on the skin!


I think its unnecessary, since nobody will ever look up that close at each pore. That is just my opinion though... What do I know.. im just a newb


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Yes, we do go as far as editing pores. On head-and-shoulders closeup, you can get in close enough to take care of skin well, but on a full-length portrait, things start pixelating FAST when you zoom in on, say, a face. Just because the photo itself isn't of the face only, doesn't mean you don't have to retouch the skin nearly as well. 

For other work, maybe you guys are right when it comes to big enlargements. But with 13MP I would NOT feel comfortable printing something like a poster. Once I break about 16x20, skin starts looking bad.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> I think its unnecessary, since nobody will ever look up that close at each pore. That is just my opinion though... What do I know.. im just a newb



To answer your question, very fine skin detail becomes really important for a) Big enlargements, and b) Facial closeups, like in beauty work.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

OK Show me.

Show me one, just one 35mm film scan that's better than a 12mp digital. 

Currently I'm not believing a word of this and  I've owned all manner of camera.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Who said anything about 35mm?

I see you added that caveat. I don't even need to break out the scans from 6x9 chromes, do I?


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

The digital versus film debate is, in a sense, irrelevant.

What I'm saying is that in a full-length portrait from a 12.8MP FF sensor, there isn't enough detail for me to do a great skin retouch on the face. End of story.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

Well then you're comparing apples to planets. Of course there's a difference.  Why on any planet, would you think a 35mm format digital could compete with a 6x9?

And you brought up the differences between "film" and digital.  That was your whole purpose to the thread as I saw it.  Digital wasn't enough - you need film. Even the thread title is "_ don't like digital".  I'm not trying to make an argument out of it but if we're going to discuss it let's at least be clear what it is we're discussing._


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

This isn't supposed to be a competition, really. It's not about whether MF film has more resolution than a 13MP sensor (though I believe it does). It's about what I need to get the job done well. And 13MP isn't enough for me. That's all I'm saying. Just reporting that revelation.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> And you brought up the differences between "film" and digital.  That was your whole purpose to the thread as I saw it.  Digital wasn't enough - you need film. Even the thread title is "_ don't like digital".  I'm not trying to make an argument out of it but if we're going to discuss it let's at least be clear what it is we're discussing._


_

The argument, as I posed it, is not between dSLR's and film. It's between dSLR's and MF digital. I stated that quite clearly:

"whether to buy a dSLR or hold out for MF digital"

You introduced the 35mm *film* versus dSLR thing. I did not._


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

OK. I see. You're 100% right too. There's no way any 33mm format digital SLR no matter how many MP it's got can give you the same detail and dynamic latitude as a medium format camera (*digital* or film!).


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Yeah, it's not about film vs digital for me. It's pure detail and resolution. Until I started working on this retouching job, I'd never had to do a skin retouch on a full-length portrait shot with a dSLR. 

Based on my experience in the last two days editing these shots from a 5D, if I owned a comparable dSLR and a client asked for a full-length shot with a killer skin retouch, or a full-length that they could blow up to display size, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying yes.

So that leaves me sticking with MF and LF film for the time being until I can afford an MF digital back.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> The argument, as I posed it, is not between dSLR's and film. It's between dSLR's and MF digital. I stated that quite clearly:
> 
> "whether to buy a dSLR or hold out for MF digital"
> 
> _You_ introduced the 35mm *film* versus dSLR thing. I did not.



OH, where's the egg on face remover?  My bad. 


I was going mostly from your other thread about camera comparison of a different kind.  I assumed, sorry. :blushing:


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> So that leaves me sticking with MF and LF film for the time being until I can afford an MF digital back.



The wisdom of common sense. Indeed stay with the MF film over a 35mm digi any day. For what you're doing at least.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

No problem.

Just tools for the job, I suppose.

This is both good and bad for me. On one hand it saved me the hassle of doing my own tests in the studio side-by-side (since I'm working with this guy's RAW studio shots). On the other hand, it's proven to me that a 12-14MP dSLR won't be powerful enough to meet my needs, which leaves me holding out for a $5k-$10k digital back.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

for that 5 or 10K  it's only going to hit in the middle though. You realize that of course right?

I mean in the middle between 12 to 22mp 35mm dSLR and your MF film. They don't have anything in our price range (less than the cost of a NICE house) that's better or the same yet.  Maybe in the future if we don't blow ourselves up?

I had a 22mp back for awhile (6 or 8 months) and I've played with a few here and there for a few days or hours at a time and they're *NOT* the "WOW!" experience that some think they might be.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Well I'm gonna do my editorial gigs on 6x7 and 4x5 for a while. We'll see how that goes.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

For me I learned that it all depends on the output format. If the output is going to be large photo-paper quality stuff then MF/LF film really can't be touched. If the output is offset printing for publications, periodicals, advertisements and etc., then a 12mp dSLR is overkill and a half - no "pour editing" will show up (though general selection filtering will). Super high quality posters printed by offset printers is probably in the middle with 12mp and good glass being very much enough.

What is the output medium that your editorials are delivered in?


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

I need to move back and forth. I need to be able to take one image and print a Duratrans, and then turn around and send it off for publication in a magazine. I'm working on building up a portfolio of editorial work for smaller-time designers and boutiques. Some of it will go store-front. Some of it will end us as a magazine advertisements.

I, of course, have that vain hope that I'll shoot an ad for a clothing designer who will end up breaking out into a Conde Nast publication.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Why isnt your title "Don't like 12MP" instead of "Don't like Digital"


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 3, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> for that 5 or 10K  it's only going to hit in the middle though. You realize that of course right?
> 
> I mean in the middle between 12 to 22mp 35mm dSLR and your MF film. They don't have anything in our price range (less than the cost of a *NICE house*)



hmm, and I thought houses were even more expensive over there than here in Europe


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 3, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Why isnt your title "Don't like 12MP" instead of "Don't like Digital"



:mrgreen:

I would say it really is "I do not like anything below true MF" (MF "full frame"  )


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Why isnt your title "Don't like 12MP" instead of "Don't like Digital"



Because dSLR's are the standard for most people, and at this point if I bought a digital camera it would be a dSLR. Plus I don't have the option to rent a digital back. I've never even shot with one. As far as I'm concerned, right now, dSLR's _are_ my digital option.

The market I'm in is so ****ing weird. The north american headquarters of some of the largest companies in the world are based here. We even have one of the largest advertising firms in the country. But MF digital just doesn't exist here. None of the pro shops rent it out. Even the commercial shooters with the top client lists are shooting dSLR's (though 1dsIII's in some cases). I've only ever seen one MF digital back pass through the local market, and that was a Kodak DCS 645M about a year ago. Some people on ModelMayhem have argued that the lack of people shooting with digital backs here is actually a good reason to buy one.

I'm gonna see how much headway I can make shooting MF and LF film.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> But MF digital just doesn't exist here. None of the pro shops rent it out. Even the commercial shooters with the top client lists are shooting dSLR's (though 1dsIII's in some cases).



That is strange indeed. digital MF is certainly a tiny fraction of the market. but those pros shooting for advertising campaigns for large companies and doing product shots and the like, they are using digital MF quite often.

Over here (walking distance) I know of a large scale HQ printing business who actually discourage people to print with them if you do not shoot digital MF. So there seem to be enough digital MF shooters around for them to make business with.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

My guess is that the big advertising firm, McKinney, is probably contracting their work out to people in major cities, particularly NY. I WANT TO SHOOT FOR THEM OH GOD I DO.

Their client list includes:
Qwest
Virgin Atlantic
Virgin Mobile
Nasdaq
Travelocity
Southern Comfort
Coldwell Banker
Audi
Sony

those are just the big ones.

Where's the orgasm smiley when you need it?


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I need to move back and forth. I need to be able to take one image and print a Duratrans,



How large are the backdrops?  I did this kinda stuff and the photographing of them (digitizing) for movie sets and so fourth.  Usually this is done in the digital matting department these days. Are they translites from a mural enlarger like in the old days, or is it for a digital process?




> and then turn around and send it off for publication in a magazine. I'm working on building up a portfolio of editorial work for smaller-time designers and boutiques. Some of it will go store-front. Some of it will end us as a magazine advertisements.



Define "store front"? For the magazine (offset printing) stuff you're really giving the machines more resolution than their screens use with an 8mp frame for something like the cover of Life or National Geographic. Inside pages are even lower resolution yet. 




> I, of course, have that vain hope that I'll shoot an ad for a clothing designer who will end up breaking out into a Conde Nast publication.



That's pretty much all social skills tee-hee-hee or knowing someone through family or friends - *after* you've got your chops that is.   But that's all offset printing and the required resolutions stated above apply here as well.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> hmm, and I thought houses were even more expensive over there than here in Europe



Not really, no. Depends on location.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> How large are the backdrops?  I did this kinda stuff and the photographing of them (digitizing) for movie sets and so fourth.  Usually this is done in the digital matting department these days. Are they translites from a mural enlarger like in the old days, or is it for a digital process?
> 
> Define "store front"? For the magazine (offset printing) stuff you're really giving the machines more resolution than their screens use with an 8mp frame for something like the cover of Life or National Geographic. Inside pages are even lower resolution yet.



Store front literally meaning store-front. Posters or Duratrans at 30x40+ inches. Printed on a LightJet if budget allows. Otherwise wide-format inkjet.



> That's pretty much all social skills tee-hee-hee or knowing someone through family or friends - *after* you've got your chops that is.   But that's all offset printing and the required resolutions stated above apply here as well.



Yes and no. Landing editorial work as a magazine photographer is different than shooting an advertisement that ends up being published in a big magazine. The former requires a lot of networking. The latter not as much.

I'll be shooting sort of "standardized" advertising materials. Shots that can go from web-sized to magazine ad to large display materials without a hitch. I don't like the idea of having to re-shoot for different display purposes. If someone only needs a web-sized jpg, but then comes back and says they want to make a poster of it, I'd like to say, "no problem."


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

Also Alex_B is right. Almost all serious studios I know are shooting the digital backs on Mamiya, Has, and etc. Part of it is resolution but color fidelity more than that and most of it seems to be convenience and prestige. The tools and abilities (transfer speeds, formats, cable and connector security and quality, etc.) of the MF digi-backs just fit in a studio environment.  This is similar to the "strobist" discussions we have here.  Both will work fine but one is just better suited to the working environment.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

It's not even strictly about my resolution-loving ego. To echo what I originally started saying in this thread, even for magazine work I don't know that I'd be comfortable doing a retouch of a full-length portrait. 

It doesn't really matter that the final print will only end up using some fraction of the original shot's resolution. I need to be able to really get in there and touch things up for the final print to be as good. What I mean is that I need a flawless file to edit that's about 2-3 times larger than the final shot, for me to really do good work.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> color fidelity



Have a stash of 4x5 Agfa RSX II for just that! Natively, it produces the most spot-on colors I've ever personally laid eyes on, though I'm sure digital backs come just as close and perhaps sometimes better.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> It's not even strictly about my resolution-loving ego. To echo what I originally started saying in this thread, even for magazine work I don't know that I'd be comfortable doing a retouch of a full-length portrait.



Not to offend but in that case your approach and technique (in post processing) is inappropriate for the task at hand.



> It doesn't really matter that the final print will only end up using some fraction of the original shot's resolution. I need to be able to really get in there and touch things up for the final print to be as good. What I mean is that I need a flawless file to edit that's about 2-3 times larger than the final shot, for me to really do good work.



Yeah, you need to work on technique then. Honest. If you're finding yourself needing many times the output rez for the editing and retouching steps you're doing something wrong.


EDIT: Besides the massive BG printing, it sounds to me as if you could save some money by getting into a high-level (doing hollywood film and high-street rags) photoshop user group and following their advice and tutorial.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

This is effects centric but I learned allot from here over the past 10 years: http://www.highend3d.com/

See: http://www.matteworld.com/ <-- Example Artist (company)

Other forums I'm on that are very good:
http://www.mattepainting.org/index.php?categoryid=12&p17_sectionid=17
http://forums.cgsociety.org --> http://forums.cgsociety.org/forumdisplay.php?f=196
http://forums.thegnomonworkshop.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2
and probably thousands of others.


I'm an FX guy so all my links are FX related. Sorry. But at the same time that's the epitome of editing and post processing.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Not to offend but in that case your approach and technique (in post processing) is inappropriate for the task at hand.
> Yeah, you need to work on technique then. Honest. If you're finding yourself needing many times the output rez for the editing and retouching steps you're doing something wrong.



Hardly. It's do-able but a pain in the ass. 

Here is an example, a 100% crop from a full-length shot I'm retouching. It's mighty hard to do a great retouch of the face with this.

My retouching has room from improvement. But in the stylistic aspects of technique, not the technical ones. I do 100% non-destructive editing in Lab Color. I know exactly what I'm doing.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Simple solution, better models and better makeup


----------



## sabbath999 (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Because dSLR's are the standard for most people, and at this point if I bought a digital camera it would be a dSLR. Plus I don't have the option to rent a digital back. I've never even shot with one. As far as I'm concerned, right now, dSLR's _are_ my digital option.



Not to be argumentative but the 50mp Hassy H3DII-50's ARE dSLR's.

I would be surprised if you would find one of them quite as lacking.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Simple solution, better models and better makeup



Models with flawless skin and great makeup mean less retouching. They don't make what retouching you still have to do any easier when you're working at less-than-ideal resolution.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> Not to be argumentative but the 50mp Hassy H3DII-50's ARE dSLR's.
> 
> I would be surprised if you would find one of them quite as lacking.



That was pointless. I'm so sorry. Please forgive me for not specifying "non-modular dSLR's"


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

*Hardly. It's do-able but a pain in the ass.*


I did not write the above text - in red Yet there it was and still IS - as if I had written it.  Apparently someone is messing with posts here.  Very strange.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Models with flawless skin and great makeup mean less retouching. They don't make what retouching you still have to do any easier when you're working at less-than-ideal resolution.


prove it


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 3, 2008)

How can he prove a negative?  I think he's partially right too. Makeup helps a little bit. And sometimes it gets in the way more than it helps. If retouching takes 10 min. for one with no makeup then in a helpful circumstance it's going to take 9 min. That's not allot IMO. 

The trouble I see here is that Alpha is under the impression that it's a matter of resolution when actually that has very little to do with it.  In fact higher resolutions are actually much harder to work with! Or is that what you were asking him to prove?

I still don't see how he's going to go about proving that though.


----------



## peterbj7 (Aug 3, 2008)

I'm sorry, I've read this thread carefully and I can't see why it was ever started.  The OP doesn't like "35mm" digital - fine, get MF digital.  It exists and is much used, though obviously only in professional circles as it's very costly.  Till then stick with film.  What's the argument about?  I think you'll find the best "35mm" digital cameras now well up there with 35mm film.

If you want to go beyond what MF digital can offer you, look at the CCDs used on serious astronomical telescopes.  I don't know what their resolution is now, but it was way beyond today's maximum "35mm" resolution as long as 10 years ago.  And also look at their prices.

I remember an astronomer friend of mine buying a Casio 4mp compact, as the first pocket camera that he found even remotely acceptable.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> But whoever is using models like that is operating on a shoestring anyway! That girl didn't even wash her hair!!  OMG!



Could you please remove that edit? I'd rather not have to flag the post.
Thanks.

By the way, that was a rather poor edit anyway.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> prove it



I'm sorry, who are you?


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> I'm sorry, I've read this thread carefully and I can't see why it was ever started.



It was started so that I could more concretely demonstrate/explain how a 12.8MP camera may or may not meed my needs.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> The trouble I see here is that Alpha is under the impression that it's a matter of resolution when actually that has very little to do with it.  In fact higher resolutions are actually much harder to work with!



I'm sorry but after that edit you did I'm gonna have to mostly tune out your pontifications on retouching. 

Or were you simply proving my point by doing a sub-par edit on a shot that wasn't big enough?

You can save face by saying yes.


----------



## peterbj7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> It was started so that I could more concretely demonstrate/explain how a 12.8MP camera may or may not meed my needs.



So why not entitle it more accurately?  As you've stated it you did start a discussion but achieved little else.

And if you're asking who other people are, who are you?  You see fit to describe yourself as a troll.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> So why not entitle it more accurately?  As you've stated it you did start a discussion but achieved little else.
> 
> And if you're asking who other people are, who are you?  You see fit to describe yourself as a troll.



Bugger off, will you? That "troll extraordinaire" title was not my doing. It's out of my control.

I'll be the judge of whether or not I've achieved what I set out to. Inflammatory titles attract more people. Never mind that "don't like digital" actually has many more nuanced caveats in the thread itself.


----------



## Peanuts (Aug 3, 2008)

Just from what I have been reading I would say Mr. Max that you have been entirely spoiled with film (said in a positive way) and that you would indeed not be happy with any of the current high end Canon or Nikon line-up.  Honestly, if I were you I would hold out for a MF digital back with some stunning Schneider glass


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

Peanuts said:


> Just from what I have been reading I would say Mr. Max that you have been entirely spoiled with film (said in a positive way) and that you would indeed not be happy with any of the current high end Canon or Nikon line-up.  Honestly, if I were you I would hold out for a MF digital back with some stunning Schneider glass



:hugs:


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha, what is your point of all of this. You seem smart enough to know what you want and what to do to get what you want.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I'm sorry, who are you?


The real question is who are you??


----------



## Alpha (Aug 3, 2008)

I think there are too many men in this thread.

Ever hear the old adage that men always feel the need to offer a solution?

I have no questions that need answering, no problems that internet banter can fix. Let's just talk. Who cares if we get somewhere.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Pointless ramble to me more than a discussion


----------



## peterbj7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Bugger off, will you? That "troll extraordinaire" title was not my doing. It's out of my control



Do tell more!!


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Aug 3, 2008)

I think Alpha knew this thread would wind down pretty quick with his "inflammatory title" to attract more people and tell them to bugger off  at the same time, but yet didn't really want them to respond. Its more of a rant thread I think.lol:thumbdown:


----------



## peterbj7 (Aug 3, 2008)

Obviously doesn't have enough interest in his life.


----------



## reg (Aug 3, 2008)

C677T said:


> Its more of a rant thread I think.



about time somebody understands it....


----------



## Iron Flatline (Aug 3, 2008)

I am late to this conversation, and may have missed this point... but there is another reason digital MF is superior for Alpha's needs: 16-bit color depth. When you need nuanced gradation of subtle tones (like skin, for example) you need as much color information as possible - especially if you're forced to edit in post-production. Most of the high-end dSLRs (ignoring sabbath's correction for the moment) don't have that kind of color information.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Aug 4, 2008)

... fuel to the fire...

12.8mpx in RAW converts to 34.9 mpx in TIFF...

and there is little improvement to print quality once you get over 300dpi...

and a full scale print (life-size) of a model would (surely) be produced to be viewed from a distance - say a shopping mall or a shop window, so would not need to be 110% flawless...

and if alpha wishes to be derogative of 35mm DSLR's and their proud users then I suggest it is he who should bugger off and register with an MF or LF forum who may cater more to his professional and ego-istic requirements - and leave us to strive towards the level of perfection he assumes to have achieved.
Jedo


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 4, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Yes, we do go as far as editing pores. On head-and-shoulders closeup, you can get in close enough to take care of skin well, but on a full-length portrait, things start pixelating FAST when you zoom in on, say, a face. Just because the photo itself isn't of the face only, doesn't mean you don't have to retouch the skin nearly as well.
> 
> For other work, maybe you guys are right when it comes to big enlargements. But with 13MP I would NOT feel comfortable printing something like a poster. Once I break about 16x20, skin starts looking bad.


 
I haven't read past this post yet, but I had a 30x45 print ran for a client. The file that was sent to WHCC was a 1-2mp jpg that was converted from an 8mp CR2 RAW file. It looked amazing. Needless to say, I had to make sure the image was very tight in editing, but the results were worth it. Somthing 12mp would have given me a lot more room to work with.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 4, 2008)

Alpha said:


> That "troll extraordinaire" title was not my doing. It's out of my control.



Is that true? All us other trolls decided actively for troll in our title


----------



## Alpha (Aug 4, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> 12.8mpx in RAW converts to 34.9 mpx in TIFF...



That's like saying a 1DSII coverts to a 1dsIII if you add a third I.


----------



## terri (Aug 4, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> Is that true? All us other trolls decided actively for troll in our title


It's true: Alpha isn't a subscriber, so I can tease him with titles as I see fit, and he can't change it.  I lifted his current title from his own words in a completely different thread, as a joke. 

The amount of pointless jabbing at the OP is disturbing. Who cares why he started the thread? This member is allowed to comment, rant, or toss things out for discussion as much as any other member. If you don't like the thread, then don't comment in it. Move along!

I also see where Bifurcator has apparently overlooked the OP's "NOT OK to edit" and posted his own edit of an example offered up by the OP. He has politely asked for that edit to be removed. I'd really rather not have to be the one to do it - but I will.

Seriously, people. Some common courtesy would be a welcome addition to this thread. Most of you are only making yourselves look petty. :thumbdown:


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 4, 2008)

terri said:


> I also see where Bifurcator has apparently overlooked the OP's "NOT OK to edit" and posted his own edit of an example offered up by the OP. He has politely asked for that edit to be removed. I'd really rather not have to be the one to do it - but I will.



No, I did not overlook it at all.  I checked his name and there was nothing there. not an "OK" and not a "Not OK".  Maybe he didn't set it or maybe you bumped it off while you were adding his extra title. 

Then 10 messages later he changed it to "Not OK".


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 4, 2008)

I notice quite a few members with older join dates (his is  Mar 2005) have no status at all by their names.


----------



## terri (Aug 4, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> No, I did not overlook it at all. I checked his name and there was nothing there. not an "OK" and not a "Not OK". Maybe he didn't set it or maybe you bumped it off while you were adding his extra title.
> 
> Then 10 messages later he changed it to "Not OK".


No hon, I didn't "bump off" anything.   

And lose the edit as you were asked, along with your attitude.     Who cares when it was added; you were asked yesterday to remove it.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 4, 2008)

calm down everyone please.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 4, 2008)

Really, be calm.  I have no attitude here. At least none that I'm aware of.


----------



## terri (Aug 4, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Really, be calm. I have no attitude here. At least none that I'm aware of.


Why, I'm very calm, but thanks for caring. I removed the edit since you refused to abide by the OP's request. Check your PM's, and run along and play nice. :sun:


----------

