Originally posted by reverend
Originally posted by AinuLainour
Lots of backhanded insults and comments floating around here, eh?
Blimey, hark at Mr Self Important! To then go and rip apart the fella\'s views and grammar (albeit with an half-arsed apology) shows you up in a bad light. In the spirit of your surmisal, please answer me why it is that a fella (thee) who writes up a weekly review on superbly painted and (importantly) photographed minis can\'t actually get a decent bloody picture up on CMoN. Surely you\'ve learnt something by now! :cussing:
If you can\'t see what I may find a bit troubling in this thread, then you must be blind. Face it Reverend, you, Spacemunkie and I aren\'t afraid to speak what\'s on our mind (even if it may be harsh...). But when I go back and read over what I\'ve written, sometimes I realize how awful it sounds, despite my best attempts to tell the person what is really needed. Technically, this defeats my point
And let\'s not turn this into an attack on my gallery. I\'m busy enough with school work, work, writing, music, the hobby etc. (on a related note, DrEvilMonki sent me some excellent instructions on how to take decent photos :beer: )
As for the articles, go check out my first one, and then my most recent. Whether you choose to do this or not, you will notice that:
1. I know a lot more about what makes a miniature a good miniature than I did at the start (ie. at first it was what \'popped\' or what \'looks absolutely AMAZING\" but now it\'s far more in depth; as in accurate directional lighting/shadows in the painting, colour contrasts etc.).
2. My writing has improved.
I\'d also like you to know why I\'m a little bit sensitive when comments ridiculing the column come up.. On average I spend over an hour going through that week\'s submissions, and an hour to four hours writing the article.