Dear Rico,
Although it has been several months since you made this post (below), I only now happened upon it. And this is what I have to say: While I respect your prerogative to boredom over pictures that displease you in one way or another and, to loosely quote Voltaire (though surely not in the same context): I would defend to the death your right to voice said boredom, I do still feel the need to respond and remind you that you are not following the main rule of this forum/message board. And that is to fully and properly credit the third party images that you are using.
In this thread, and on the below image at least, you are certainly not doing that. You do post a link, but that link only goes to a standalone copy of the image with no references to the author or to the actual Flickr page the image came from. How do I know this and why do I care? It must be starting to dawn on you by now... yup! You guessed it! My photo! How did I manage to find it then? Well, because, SkahHigh posted it first and he did it respectfully and correctly. For which I thank him.
For now and for the future, please note that not only is it rule #1 on this forum, but I personally also strictly require that any image of mine that is being posted in any way, anywhere, anytime, be fully credited and linked back to me. No matter how many copies of it can be found on the same page, or how boring you find it, each and every copy must be fully and properly credited to me and linked to its proper page.
Now please fix this or remove the image. I included the correct links and credits beneath my image below, to help you out.
Thanks in advance,
Szoki Adams
*******************************************************
Rico Rommheim wrote:
This is why I find most skyline shots of downtown Montreal boring, because (nearly) all of them fail at showing the core's true width, diversity and bulk .... I mean, do you really get the impression of a large, long and dense skyline when looking at this picture here?:
Montreal Nights by
Szoki Adams, on Flickr