.
I was thinking about this, and have another opinion about the post. I think it's just plain wrong for anyone to make changes to another member's photo and then repost it without the author's permission. Claiming it's better is even worse. I always welcome criticisms, suggestions, comments on my photos but take offense if someone alters my work and reposts it. It's not right & there should probably be a rule here about it.
Nice picture, I really like the way the terraced houses in the background set it off
I really hate it when they build houses or the like too close to something as historic and cool as that, the picture of the pyramids recently was a prime example.
I realize if you post something any one can grab it and do whatever they want with it. But this is s a community and there should be some etiquette/ethics associated with this thread. If it's a free for all with no rules or respect for others work then I consider that a sad thing.
.Fair enough. I have no problem with it when there's a request or agreement on it. I just didn't see any evidence of that on the post I responded to -- if I'm wrong about that post I apologize.I understand what you mean about how reposting other people's work without asking can be offensive to said artist/photographer. Most often, people will ask for permission before re-posting someone's stuff here.. I just wanted to say that usually it's in a very polite and respectful manner
Thanks, Steamie... yes, it's a shame that this wonderful old church is now surrounded by modern houses... rather than the mud & wattle hovels that would have surrounded it at the time it was built (8th century). But, to make things more complicated, most of the stonework for the church was 'borrowed' from Hadrian's Wall, just a few miles away (you can still see Latin enscriptions on some of the stones). So who is the architectural vandal?
