Silbury Hill 180
Image by thesweetcheat

Pete G wrote:
On a photography forum I have been on for years there is quite a lot of decent discussion about Silbury with none of the bickering found on this one. (lots of photos too)
Yeah, but I bet they know little of it's history and of EH's history of neglect and mishandling of the situation, just that "it looks nice in a certain light". ;o)

And I bet they bicker about other things. Like the size of a lens, or the right filter to use. It's all relative.

Pete G wrote:
No doubt EH will release details when it has been analysed properly.
We'll see. Be nice to hear something.

G x

actualy they are as well informed as any here and don't bicker about filters or lenses. Being professional they offer help and guidance,
not like this "The tooth (if indeed there is a tooth)" from Rhubarb & Custard this morning who can't seem to open their gobs without nastiness spilling out.
sigh

goffik wrote:
Pete G wrote:
On a photography forum I have been on for years there is quite a lot of decent discussion about Silbury with none of the bickering found on this one. (lots of photos too)
Yeah, but I bet they know little of it's history and of EH's history of neglect and mishandling of the situation, just that "it looks nice in a certain light". ;o)

And I bet they bicker about other things. Like the size of a lens, or the right filter to use. It's all relative.

Pete G wrote:
No doubt EH will release details when it has been analysed properly.
We'll see. Be nice to hear something.

G x

And Goof:

"Please keep on topic, and remember what the Eds said on a related thread earlier -

...EVERYONE should think very carefully about what they say. Keep it as a discussion of issues affecting Silbury, not a chance to score points and goad people who hold a different view.

We are watching.

TMA Eds*

"

Any chance you could do the same?