.

Great Details

Very Nice.

 

But why is is categorized under Nature (instead of says Nudes)? :D

This belongs under "nudes" and not "nature". If you ask yourself, is this safe for work, which this most certainly is not, then it belongs in "nudes". Some of us prefer not to see them.

 

There is a reason why there is a filter of All (no nudes).

Are you guys really so stupid you can't work out that was a mistake? Why would I deliberately file this under nature? Nudes and nature are two cats away from each other, must have bumped the scroll wheel or something after selecting Nudes. I apologise for the screw up but come on...before you lecture someone about why we have different categories use your head and think about why it might be there - Occam's razor.

I guess you didn't see the smiley (:D) at the end of the sentence. And "lecture"? Seems like an over the top reaction to a benign, friendly observation.

in my opinion the category doesn't matter as much as you are talking about it.

lets talk rather about the photo.

impressive details, great light, and interesting crop/composition. a very good photo.

a n: My words weren't directed to you, even though I erroneously addressed it to both of you. And you're right it was an over reaction. An over reaction to an over reaction, isn't life ironic?

Ben Heys , March 01, 2010; 08:45 P.M.

 

Are you guys really so stupid you can't work out that was a mistake? "?

 

Perhaps you should switch to decaf, I would say you're wound too tight. Insulting people by calling them stupid for pointing out something gets you nowhere but pissing people off. And you are aware, that before you confirm your photo for critique, there is a window at the bottom of the page telling you which category the photo will fall into. Perhaps you should spend a little more time proofing your page a little closer before you hit the confirm button.