C David Stephens wrote:
It will be TFDVD by the end of the year.

It already is TFDVD for me, if the model has a DVD player.

RachelJ wrote:
Perhaps also TFWP: Time for Wardrobe Pieces or even TFS: Trade for Shoes!

I have done that TFWP before when I needed the model to have a certain look for a personal project and I have also done TFC (Time for Corset) which is related but way better and more expensive. But I have not done TFS yet, although have been thinking about it for one model as she doesn't have the shoes that go well with one of my costumes she otherwise looks good in.

I have gotten a bit of extra time for a place to stay the night, does that count?

David Pankhurst Photo wrote:

Whoa there, lady.  It seems you are the one with the problem! Talk about an agressive response to a mild comment.
I have been a pro for almost thirty years..what he said is TRUE! TFP/TFCD is not COMMON with pro photographers.  It doesn't mean we don't do it..just not often, mainly because we either don't need to or can't afford to donate our time in a trade arrangement except for very exceptional models (male or female).  I charge $1,000 to do a portfolio and have plenty of business, thanks so if I agree to a TFP/TFCD deal and it takes a day, that's a $1,000 opportunity cost to my business - it better be worth it.
He didn't say he didn't like it!  He didn't say he didn't want to do it! And his observation was in no way a dig at anyone...so I have to ask myself, who is being immature....get over it

It may have seemed like "an aggressive response to a mild comment," but in reality, it was an appropriate response to the photographer I was addressing.  I accused him of making digs at those who do TFP/CD because he does it all the time.  This particular instance was not nearly as offensive as what I've read from him in other threads, but I just couldn't believe that he was taking yet another chance to say something bad about it.  It was a dig: 

"its an internet thing, not common with real pro photographers"

He's clearly implying that if someone does TFP/CD shoots, they're obviously not a "real pro photographer" -- which is NOT true.

He didn't say he didn't like it!  He didn't say he didn't want to do it!

Not this time....  But he's said it so many other times, in very uncertain (and ofttimes rude) terms -- he jumps in threads where TFP/CD is mentioned offhandedly, and tries to scare new models with stories of how their nude pics will end up in smutty magazines and their careers ruined -- that I couldn't let it slide through this time. 

I'm glad that you're busy enough, making big money, that you can't spare much time for TFP/CD shoots -- but that doesn't mean that none of those who DO have time aren't pros.

Carole Hayes wrote:

Not this time....  But he's said it so many other times, in very uncertain (and ofttimes rude) terms -- he jumps in threads where TFP/CD is mentioned offhandedly, and tries to scare new models with stories of how their nude pics will end up in smutty magazines and their careers ruined -- that I couldn't let it slide through this time. 

I'm glad that you're busy enough, making big money, that you can't spare much time for TFP/CD shoots -- but that doesn't mean that none of those who DO have time aren't pros.

By the way, swimsuit models don't have money to pay so they always get TFCD/TFP or in rare instances...swimsuit.  So if you shoot mostly swimsuit...you almost do exclusively TFCD.  It will always be that way as the funds are not there.

Lightwave Photography wrote:
Hi Heidi and other newer models Ill elaborate:

TFCD/TFP is when a model poses for photos in exchange for prints.  In theory this sounds reasonable but in practice you are better off paying a professional when you are starting out, here's why:

1-Most aspiring, new models do not have one in a million or really outstanding looks that would get a top level photographer interested in photographing them TFCD. 

2-The next level of photographers are solid, talented professional photographers that do photography for a living and charge new models a reasonable amount for a model portfolio.  The advantages of this is you decide what kind of photos you want-the photographer does not do it mainly for his/her purposes.  You deal with a professional with a reputation to maintain(assuming you did your homework and found a good one, of course there are bad professionals but less likely than hobbyiests primarily doing TFCDS) so he/she is less likely to be innapropriate with you.

Also when you pay a professional starting out you are demonstrating that you value the time and respect the process.  So in the future, as long as you were on time, have a good look and can learn, the working professional will consider you for paid assignments.  Photographers that mainly do TFCD rarely have connections to paid work and most are hobbyiests.

This site has many more hobbyiests than working professionals so you will get a bias towards TFCD.  The other problem is there are photographers pretending to be hobbyiests or want you for "special projects" and offer you free pics but dont tell you that you will have to pose topless or nude to get the pics at the session.

The business model for them is they have you sign a release that they make all the profits on the nude pics or you dont get them.  Then if you didnt want to do that kind of photography you have that stuff circulating around which could damage your career.

In contrast, a good professional will charge you for portfolio photos and updates.  However, the professional will pay you when he used photos of you commercially rather than reap all the profits on the socalled free for the model TFCD deal(not really free because the model usually signs over any money made on the photographer selling the photos and very likely they will try to get you to pose topless and nude because its obviously easier to sell those to raunchy magazines).

Also it is much more likely that hobbyiests doing TFCD will never get you your pics(because its a hobby and it may take months for them to get around to doing them for you).  They may also want you to do photos for their own pet projects and nothing you need for your career or personal use;  again much less likely when you pay a professional because they want your business and will do what you need for yourself.

Most importantly, the chances of you getting really bad poorly done photos is much higher doing TFCD because when you pay an established fulltime professional he/she has to do work people like that is good or not stay in business.

There of course are exceptions to every rule but not often.

My point is, especially when you're starting out, don't see a photographer just because it's TFCD and free.  It is usually worth it to invest in paying the best professional you can afford(and a few hundred dollars is not alot to invest in a career) when you're starting out for the reasons I outlined.

Best of luck,

Jon

Once again, if a model has the money to invest, there's no reason she shouldn't pay somebody whose work will help her develop her portfolio in the direction she wants to go.  However, not all of us have money to invest. 

For those of us who can't yet afford to invest in a portfolio, TFP/CD shoots are a realistic alternative for portfolio building!

If I did have money, I wouldn't just do a google search for "portfolio photographer" and give my money to the first guy on the list -- I'd do my homework and find somebody who could do what I need done.

So why do you think, for a second, that I'm going to spend less time researching someone for a TFP/CD shoot??!??

Frankly, I find your attitude insulting.  I'm very picky about who I allow to photograph me:  I turn down TFP/CD offers which won't benefit my portfolio, and I turn down paid work which I feel will harm my reputation.  I do have a brain in my head and I use it.  Nobody is going to talk me into taking my clothes off when I don't want to, and if I'm shooting for trade, then I'm an active participant in deciding what we're going to shoot!

You say there are rare exceptions to your rule -- but they aren't all that rare.  Yes, they're outnumbered -- but there are plenty of them, and they aren't all that hard to find for those of us who do our homework.

Renée Jacobs wrote:
TFT: Time for truffles ;-). Hi Carole! Happy New Year all!

Hi Renée!!!

mmmmmmmmmmm....  Truffles.... 

Didn't anybody tell you it's not nice to tease a pregnant lady?  (I might have to make my husband run to the store now -- I'll be sure to tell him it's all your fault!)  ; )

Happy New Year to you, too!  : )

ImageConcepts wrote:

By the way, swimsuit models don't have money to pay so they always get TFCD/TFP or in rare instances...swimsuit.  So if you shoot mostly swimsuit...you almost do exclusively TFCD.  It will always be that way as the funds are not there.

I think that's part of the point that Lightwave/Jon is missing....

Yes, for some types of modeling, hundreds of dollars towards a great portfolio might actually pay for itself -- but for those of us who don't fit the high-fashion/runway mold, it's not going to....

Trevor Snyder wrote:

So by real pro you mean people who started with film? Or perhaps people over 40 who make 50K plus annually solely off sales of their images? Or maybe elitists who are scared of change? I'm not sure what you mean here.

Boy, is it clear how unsure you are...but not afraid to make a snide comment about Lightwave's post.
Some 'real pros' started back when everything was done in B/W (shot my first wedding in 1961 - were you born?), some started  last year with digital; some 'real pros' are over 50 (can you believe it?) and if my photographic business doesn't make 3 to 4 times your quoted $50K annually, there's something wrong - and many pros make a lot more - and some make a lot less... being a 'real pro' isn't always about money, but idf it is your sole source of income, you better understand the relationship between steady quality, marketing, customer satisfaction,  and $.
And scared of change..now that's just plain stupid.  Most 'real pros' are in the forefront of change because we are the ones the manufacturers approach to beta test software and field test new equipment, and once the change is marketed, we are the first to buy in because we can't afford to be behind the market.
So don't be so quick to criticize others when you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

Carole Hayes wrote:

California is too far from Dallas!!  (I'd take you up on it!)  sigh....

Do you have a hi-res webcam and speakers?  I can always ship the PC to you...you'll have to pay shipping.

Anyone else need a PC?

Last week I just did a TFLCD...except it was for baby sitting time.

Lightwave Photography wrote:
Hi Heidi and other newer models Ill elaborate:

TFCD/TFP is when a model poses for photos in exchange for prints.  In theory this sounds reasonable but in practice you are better off paying a professional when you are starting out, here's why:

1-Most aspiring, new models do not have one in a million or really outstanding looks that would get a top level photographer interested in photographing them TFCD. 

2-The next level of photographers are solid, talented professional photographers that do photography for a living and charge new models a reasonable amount for a model portfolio.  The advantages of this is you decide what kind of photos you want-the photographer does not do it mainly for his/her purposes.  You deal with a professional with a reputation to maintain(assuming you did your homework and found a good one, of course there are bad professionals but less likely than hobbyiests primarily doing TFCDS) so he/she is less likely to be innapropriate with you.

Also when you pay a professional starting out you are demonstrating that you value the time and respect the process.  So in the future, as long as you were on time, have a good look and can learn, the working professional will consider you for paid assignments.  Photographers that mainly do TFCD rarely have connections to paid work and most are hobbyiests.

This site has many more hobbyiests than working professionals so you will get a bias towards TFCD.  The other problem is there are photographers pretending to be hobbyiests or want you for "special projects" and offer you free pics but dont tell you that you will have to pose topless or nude to get the pics at the session.

The business model for them is they have you sign a release that they make all the profits on the nude pics or you dont get them.  Then if you didnt want to do that kind of photography you have that stuff circulating around which could damage your career.

In contrast, a good professional will charge you for portfolio photos and updates.  However, the professional will pay you when he used photos of you commercially rather than reap all the profits on the socalled free for the model TFCD deal(not really free because the model usually signs over any money made on the photographer selling the photos and very likely they will try to get you to pose topless and nude because its obviously easier to sell those to raunchy magazines).

Also it is much more likely that hobbyiests doing TFCD will never get you your pics(because its a hobby and it may take months for them to get around to doing them for you).  They may also want you to do photos for their own pet projects and nothing you need for your career or personal use;  again much less likely when you pay a professional because they want your business and will do what you need for yourself.

Most importantly, the chances of you getting really bad poorly done photos is much higher doing TFCD because when you pay an established fulltime professional he/she has to do work people like that is good or not stay in business.

There of course are exceptions to every rule but not often.

My point is, especially when you're starting out, don't see a photographer just because it's TFCD and free.  It is usually worth it to invest in paying the best professional you can afford(and a few hundred dollars is not alot to invest in a career) when you're starting out for the reasons I outlined.

Best of luck,

Jon

Jon,

Whew!

1) What do you consider a "top level photographer"?  Speaking for myself, I have a unique style, I've been doing photography for 35 years, was trained by a serious professional and worked with his company for 10 years, have done film, digital, holography, x-ray, infra-red...hell...you name it!  Spent years in the darkroom, doing everything from B&W, color, slide, even lifesize prints and spray-on emulsions.  I've had a ton of my pics published, have done catalog/product photography for international companies, worked at an observatory photographing star clusters, galaxies, nebulae tens to millions of light-years away, worked for model agencies, worked for department stores....  Sheezz.....  Not sure how much more "top level" I could get.  But I do mostly tfpcd with models.

2) A lot of the models I've worked with have decided what they wanted and we've done it - tfpcd.

3) Every model I work with gets their pictures - all of the ones we shot during the shoot - on CD BEFORE they leave my studio.

Now, I've read a lot of statements from photographers that they won't give models the raw files because they want to edit them and not have other people see things they don't want them to see.  That's ok - but you gotta realize, too, that photography is an artform and any artform is something that is found in the eye of the beholder and not necessarily in the eye of the artist.  So, what you may see/want in a picture as a photographer may not be anywhere near what the model sees/wants in the exact same photograph.  This is sort of like software engineering and the concept of GIGO (garbage in - garbage out).  You take a good photograph and you'll end up with a good photograph no matter what.  Then again, I don't worry about my *reputation*.  My work is my work. Some will love it.  Some will hate it.  Such is life.

4) I've seen a lot of "paid-for professionally done" photography that made my skin crawl it was so bad.  Paying for something does NOT equate to getting some good in return - this is especially true these days and professional integrity is at its lowest level ever (imo)!!!!

5) A lot of the models I've worked with I have referred to jobs with the companies I have worked with, and they have ended up making a lot of money modelling.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am not going to disagree with everything you said.  There are a lot of wannabe's/sleazy hobbyists out there who have no professionalism and/or integrity about them.  But, unfortunately, that is true of a lot of people these days whether or not you have to pay them for their *services*.

I think you might need to realize that your statements are your own business model and not everyone follows that model - and just because they don't doesn't mean they are bad photographers that new models cannot trust and work with, ending up with great stuff for their portfolios in the process.

-R

RachelJ wrote:
Perhaps also TFWP: Time for Wardrobe Pieces or even TFS: Trade for Shoes!

(Edit: I've done the food-related stuff, and have been given a couple articles of clothing before... a girl can dream about some of the other stuf... can't she? LOL!)

I buy my TF models clothes on a fairly regular basis 
Seems only fair that if I want a particular look I should provide the wardrobe.  Shoes too.

Rowen wrote:
4) I've seen a lot of "paid-for professionally done" photography that made my skin crawl it was so bad.  Paying for something does NOT equate to getting some good in return - this is especially true these days and professional integrity is at its lowest level ever (imo)!!!!

Couldn't have said it better! Just two weeks ago the school where my daughter goes decided to hire a "professional" photographer to cover the Christmas program so the parent's wouldn't be juggling to get pictures.  The pictures look like crap.  It was the only year that I didn't get any decent pictures from the Christmas program.  I complained and told them that next year I will do it...for FREE!

Rowen wrote:
4) I've seen a lot of "paid-for professionally done" photography that made my skin crawl it was so bad.  Paying for something does NOT equate to getting some good in return - this is especially true these days and professional integrity is at its lowest level ever (imo)!!!!

ImageConcepts wrote:
Couldn't have said it better! Just two weeks ago the school where my daughter goes decided to hire a "professional" photographer to cover the Christmas program so the parent's wouldn't be juggling to get pictures.  The pictures look like crap.  It was the only year that I didn't get any decent pictures from the Christmas program.  I complained and told them that next year I will do it...for FREE!

A lot of "pro" photographers are a LOT better at marketing themselves than taking pictures... The lab I work for does the processing for the guy who does most of the school portraits in my state, and a number of portrait photographers who make a full-time living from their work, and...uh...let's just say that these guys are really, really good at marketing. There's one lady who is constantly making us do hundreds of dollars of Photoshop work on her images for really, really basic stuff like zits and lens glare, because she can't be bothered with learning even the most basic lighting and Photoshop skills. And yet, her annual salary for shooting this junk is several times what I make for fixing it. Damnit, I need to get better at marketing...

Lightwave Photography wrote:
Statistically, these problems are much less likely when models pay quality professionals instead just going for "free" TFCD sessions.

I did notice on your port though that you have several nude photos, which I dont have a problem with but the issue is do you sell those and do your models receive any of $ or just the TFCD and do they understand this when you see them?

The ironic thing about this is that, in *real* life, I am an astrophysicist.  I do research....and when I hear/read the word "statistically", my scientific curiosity puffs up like the cloud of dirt around Pig Pen in the Peanuts cartoon.

In truth, I cannot support or deny that your claim is statistically correct. Perhaps those of us on here - photographer and model alike - should compare notes/pictures and photographs rather than attacking each other's stances in the TFPCD thing.  Can you prove or disprove that - statisically speaking - tfpcd shoots are less productive for a model and his/her portfolio as opposed to a model paying for such work?  In some ways, such a "research project" would be beneficial to all of us on here.

This is something we should all think about.  Accusations and false statements are not helpful to anyone - and probably more than a little confusing to new models.  Remember, the reason this particular thread was started was because a model didn't know what TFPCD even meant, let alone the implications of it.

So, let's consider what this "statistically speaking" thing REALLY means.

That being said, to answer your question about my nudes.....  I don't usually sell my works.  This is a hobby and a way to get away from the astrophysics of stellar dynamics and interiors, LOL!  However, I have had a couple requests for purchases and, in all cases, I split any sales with my models 50/50.  I will tell models this up front, too.  I need them to pose for my photographs and they need me to take them [the photographs], so I feel a 50/50 split is fair and equitable.  I do try to get them paid modelling jobs with the companies I've worked for though....as a way of helping out when/where I can.

ahh...now...where was I?

-Rowen

Lightwave Photography wrote:
Not dumb Heidi, its an internet thing, not common with real pro photographers.

By the way, nice look : )

seriously in modeling/ acting i never heard it before mm, you are not dumb!!

Lightwave Photography wrote:
Hey Heidi

The deal with alot of internet model sites is they are mostly amateur, hobbyiests that dont make money at photography or modeling.  Then you have your photographers and "models" that are either trying to get free topless, nude material to make all the money on selling to raunchy mags/sites or the stripper pretend models that charge amateur photogs to take pics of them-which explains the $100 an hour for models with no experience lol.

A relatively small number on these sites do it professionally so you rarely see that side of it.

You and other new models may want to carefully read my posts(kind of like a vaccine) because newbies get flooded with TFCD offers(kind of like the disease the vaccine is treating) which sound to good to be true and usually are.

TFCD is not always a bad thing but most of the offers for it are bad and mediocre.   So you may want to consider paying an established professional especially if you're interested in doing it professionally because it usually means alot less problems and better results.

Would you please, please, please just stop?

You have no numbers to support your claims.  What you are using to support your argument are threads started by models who are upset about something or other, which gives no idea of how many have had good experiences.  Even if you did a poll, it's likely that pissed off girls are going to respond more often than those who aren't, so there's really no accurate way to judge this on the forums.

Yes, I'm absolutely sure that the good photographers are outnumbered by the bad/mediocre -- both in trade work AND in paid work.  (Look -- I made a rhyme!)  Of course, that can be said of absolutely everything!  Ever hear of the bell curve?

Once again, it comes down to a model using her head:  when you get offers for work, do your homework whether it's for trade, paying, or paid! 

You are not offering helpful, unbiased advice on this issue:  you are a photographer who charges for portfolio work -- it should be clear to everyone that you are looking out for numero uno....

Lightwave Photography wrote:
Not dumb Heidi, its an internet thing, not common with real pro photographers.


thats as opposed to fake pro photographers i guess

Ceana wrote:
TFPC
Time for Pan Cakes...

Tea/Coffee anyone?

TFC = Time For Ceana *wink*

ward wrote:
TFC = Time For Ceana *wink*

He he... Oh yeah time to myself lol No trading EVEN BETTER! ;-)

muhahaha

Ceana wrote:

He he... Oh yeah time to myself lol No trading EVEN BETTER! ;-)

muhahaha

hehehe.

Lightwave Photography wrote:
There of course are exceptions to every rule but not often.

I'm so glad you deigned to add this sentence, albeit tucked away at the bottom of that long screed of yours.

There are some who might otherwise have taken exception to your anti-hobbyist tone...

Lightwave Photography wrote:
You are one of the statistical exceptions to the many bad and mediocre experiences with TFCD sessions.  Rowen, the reality is there are probably a 100 GWC/bad photographers doing TFCD for every guy like you that does good photos and about 1 bad professional for every good professional that charges.

"probably...." 

I really would like to know where these numbers come from, if it's someplace besides your head. 

"the reality is...."

The reality is that you're preaching worst-case scenarios as if they were the norm, because you want new models to come pay you, not go trade with someone else.

richard boswell wrote:
^^^ sag has to do with actors not models, and a "head shot" has no real value to anyone other than the actor.  that being the case it is not so surprising that an actor may have never heard the term until they exposed themselves to the modeling industry.     

the first thing a model does when she is picked up by a major modeling agency is run around on "go sees" to hopefully generate interest in photographers and have the opportunity to shoot with them.  usually for tears, and or a "trade for image".

a photographer who is booking a substantial amount of modeling work never has to look for models to shoot his personal work.  agents make sure they get as many of their models in with him as they can.  that is just good business on their parts, and it is how things are done. 

when you try to dismiss tfcd, it clearly reveals your agenda.  trying to mislead people about the legitimacy of "trade for" because you need to use "model portfolios" as a $$ market is deceptive and unethical. (i know hehe)
 
the truth is that tfcd is how the industry works at the highest level, and in every subsequent major market. 
how you, or your market works, will never change that. 
lying to people about"trade for" just serves to make you look small. 

quality of work, should be the primary reason for a model to choose to work with a photographer for the generation of her body of images. 
how the photographer chooses to generate his income has no real bearing that part of her decision.

Boswell

If you're going to attempt to reply with any degree of intelligence(not apparent in your response) try using some basic grammar like real sentences and coherent thoughts but I guess that's to be expected as you are a Daytona Beach Community College Grad-impressive Boswell.

Basically, you respond trying to act like your some top fashion photographer talking about what top level agencies do when the reality is most aspiring models are never going to be with top agencies.  And frankly after I looked at your "portfolio" and myspace site(top level fashion photographers have their own professional looking websites) photos there is nothing there that looks professional calibre.

What is really unethical/lying is the posers who come on here and pretend they're some top level fashion photographer that is going to get wannabe models big assignments and then try to get them to do sleazy nude pics instead(and yours didn't look "artistic" Boswell).

Most aspiring models are not going to be with top agencies and paying for images to use on their own websites, to promote themselves and even for personal enjoyment makes alot of sense was my point and there are many advantages to it which I already explained.   And it gets tiresome to see the hack photographers with the scam model agencies always telling aspiring models they should do things a certain way.  Most modeling agencies are a waste of time and models can now go freelance and work directly with professional photographers rather than be scammed by the lower tier model agencies which will frequently claim they book hi level jobs(not)

I did not dismiss TFCD or "lie" about it but am giving the less seen on internet sites viewpoint that paying a professional is a good way to go about it.

And I do portrait as well as commercial photography(and I don't go around claiming Im a top "fashion" photographer to get models to work with me;  they come to me and do free tests for commercial assignments or pay me to update or start portfolios(unlike most wannabe photographers on here I can get models to pay me rather than the other way around or TFCD);  Ive never HAD to pay a model to see one, offer TFCD(but I may sometimes) or pretend Im something that Im not(uh Boswell).

And as far as Carol Haye's comments go they show silly overreaction(and rude ignorance) and it isn't worth my time to respond to her because I dont practice psychiatry.

It would be great to have an intelligent debate on here sometimes without the "troll" like responses as some people do need some accurate information.

Lightwave Photography wrote:
Boswell

If you're going to attempt to reply with any degree of intelligence(not apparent in your response) try using some basic grammar like real sentences and coherent thoughts but I guess that's to be expected as you are a Daytona Beach Community College Grad-impressive Boswell.

Basically, you respond trying to act like your some top fashion photographer talking about what top level agencies do when the reality is most aspiring models are never going to be with top agencies.  And frankly after I looked at your "portfolio" and myspace site(top level fashion photographers have their own professional looking websites) photos there is nothing there that looks professional calibre.

What is really unethical/lying is the posers who come on here and pretend they're some top level fashion photographer that is going to get wannabe models big assignments and then try to get them to do sleazy nude pics instead(and yours didn't look "artistic" Boswell).

Most aspiring models are not going to be with top agencies and paying for images to use on their own websites, to promote themselves and even for personal enjoyment makes alot of sense was my point and there are many advantages to it which I already explained.   And it gets tiresome to see the hack photographers with the scam model agencies always telling aspiring models they should do things a certain way.  Most modeling agencies are a waste of time and models can now go freelance and work directly with professional photographers rather than be scammed by the lower tier model agencies which will frequently claim they book hi level jobs(not)

I did not dismiss TFCD or "lie" about it but am giving the less seen on internet sites viewpoint that paying a professional is a good way to go about it.

And I do portrait as well as commercial photography(and I don't go around claiming Im a top "fashion" photographer to get models to work with me;  they come to me and do free tests for commercial assignments or pay me to update or start portfolios(unlike most wannabe photographers on here I can get models to pay me rather than the other way around or TFCD);  Ive never HAD to pay a model to see one, offer TFCD(but I may sometimes) or pretend Im something that Im not(uh Boswell).

And as far as Carol Haye's comments go they show silly overreaction(and rude ignorance) and it isn't worth my time to respond to her because I dont practice psychiatry.

It would be great to have an intelligent debate on here sometimes without the "troll" like responses as some people do need some accurate information.

Lightwave Photography wrote:
And as far as Carol Haye's comments go they show silly overreaction(and rude ignorance) and it isn't worth my time to respond to her because I dont practice psychiatry.

"Silly overreaction and rude ignorance?"

Not quite sure how you got that out of my well-reasoned posts.  Did you actually read them?

I think it isn't worth your time to respond to me because there's nothing you can say to refute anything I've said to you.

Lightwave Photography wrote:
It would be great to have an intelligent debate on here sometimes without the "troll" like responses as some people do need some accurate information.

I know! That's why it's so frustrating to keep reading your posts.
On my planet, attacking someone's work, education, and personality (as you did to both Boswell and Carole Hayes), when none of those things are even remotely relevant to the discussion, because you don't agree with their opinion counts as "trolling."