Shoot and Share Photographers - You Either Love Them or You Hate Them

Shoot and Share Photographers - You Either Love Them or You Hate Them

Over the last couple years, more and more photographers are turning towards a new business model of sharing the digital files with their clients rather than requiring them to place print orders to generate revenue. The traditional business model photographers who rely on sales of prints to make money are furious with the growing popularity of "shoot and share photographers" even going as far as "declaring war" against it. Here's what photographers need to know.

What is a "Shoot and Share" photographer?
It is a photographer who has chosen to turn over the edited digital files to their client so that they can share the images as they would like and print them wherever they wish.

Why are so many photographers upset with this business model?
They feel it cheapens the industry and cuts into revenue sources that photographers have been relying on for years. Traditionally wedding or portrait photographers set up meetings with clients after the photos have been edited and use the time to sell prints of many sizes to them. An average sales meeting for traditional photographers will yield them anywhere from $500 to $3,000 extra income from the sale of prints, canvases, albums and other photo related items. Photographers relying on this extra income to maintain their business are growing upset at the number of photographers offering the "shoot and share" model making it too easy for clients to receive the digital files and print them on their own.

Fstoppers Shoot and Share Photographers Wedding 1

Are they ruining the industry?
Over the last few years as the "Shoot and Share" model of photography has continued to grow a number of outspoken photographers have taken to the blogging, email newsletters or Facebook to pronounce their disgust with the model. Often they will say that photographers who follow the "Shoot and Share" model will be out of business in just a matter of years or that they care less about the clients because they don't want to sell them beautiful prints and canvases for their homes and instead just push them to Walmart to have products made. "Shoot and Share" photographers are told they are ruining the photography industry and that if they keep it up soon we will all be out of business. John Mireles, who calls himself "The Photographer's Business Coach" even went as far to say in a blog article published on August 10th that he was "declaring war" on one product and its innovator. In the article the author says those who follow the "Shoot and Share" business model are, "not making's a hobby at best and recipe for failure at worst." He goes on to say, "Now if you're a photographer who just likes to shoot the wedding and then wash your hands of it, that's your prerogative and I respect that. It's just important to know that you're leaving a significant amount of money on the table." He goes on to explain in the article that he has yet to meet a photographer who is rolling in the cash because he sold a bunch of prints and that the reason photographers following the traditional model charge as much as they do is because it is necessary to "operate sustainably."


Can't we all just get along?
Now before I go any further, this article is not about trying to sway photographers to choose one model of business versus another. I say pick whichever you feel works best for you. My reason for writing this blog post is because over the last year I have seen a number of contentious battles between the two sides. In fact, I was once a member of a great group of photographers on Facebook but, because they constantly battled over this idea that photographers cannot be profitable as a "Shoot and Share" business model I decided to leave the group and in turn have lost daily contact with a number of friends there. I was just tired of photographers slinging mud at each other and being disrespectful in the way they handled different attitudes towards running their photography business. Ultimately we all want to do the same thing, which is bring happiness to our clients while making money to continue operating our business successfully.

Here's a business term worth knowing.
What I hope all photographers reading this article learn is the business term that was coined by a professor at the Harvard Business School Clayton Christensen called "disruptive innovation." According to Wikipedia, "A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in a new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market."

Fstoppers Shoot and Share Ikea Southwest

Examples of companies that shook up their industry.
When IKEA entered the furniture retail business it shook the industry up and had other furniture stores reevaluating how they manufacture and sell their product to compete or differentiate themselves. When Southwest entered the airline market with its low cost, no frills, pick your seat way of doing business, other airlines took notice and some even tried to compete, some went out of business while some re-innovated their own marketing strategy to continue operating their business in a more traditional sense of the way. There are a number of examples of companies that have used disruptive innovation to shake up an industry.

One visionary who was incredible at doing this was Steve Jobs. For those old enough to remember, he took Apple from a struggling computer company that was competing with the behemoth Microsoft and turned it into a consumer device company. The iPod and later the iPad were disruptive innovations that turned personal computing on its side and revolutionized the technology industry. Then came iTunes with the ability to buy individual songs from artists rather than having to purchase the whole disc of music, then apps (disruptive innovation to the software industry) then came their new line of laptops that didn't even offer a CD/DVD drive thereby pushing users to do their file saving using cloud services.


How about Netflix? or RedBox? Look what those two companies are doing to the video rental industry. Are they not making money because they are doing it differently (which happens to be the argument of the traditionalists)? Not at all. Both of these companies have found ways of getting a product consumers want into their hands without the need to build one of the more traditional brick and mortar retail stores stocked with product and employees.

Is it really worth going to war over.
The way I see it is that the "Shoot and Share" business model is a disruptive innovation and for that reason has caused such a visceral reaction by some who might be susceptible to losing business because of it. Sadly, some who feel threatened think it's best to go on the attack, "declare war" and try to sway as many photographers as possible to their side of the battle field. Often they will ask you to sign up for their email newsletter, "Like" their Facebook page, or buy their coaching so they can show you the "correct" way to operate your business. Does fighting with one another do anyone any good? Does it really help to sling mud, call each other names, and waste our time writing or reading blog posts that are full of hate? It's sad to see our industry is filled with so much hate. I understand why bloggers/coaches write this kind of stuff, it gets a reaction. It gets shared and liked, they get applauded, they feel good for the week as they see the number of site visitors climb. In the blogging world we call it "click bait."

Why waste time fighting when you could be growing your business instead?
So, do photographers really need to waste time kicking, clawing and screaming at one another? Absolutely not. Find a model that works best for you and OWN IT. Let me give you an example of a business that has stuck to its traditional ways and is thriving by marketing this difference. The financial company Edward Jones has been around for a long time. Their business has always been to hire a representative for an area, build a small office for them right in the heart of town and then make that representative available to locals for help with their financial services, 401k rollovers, savings accounts and more. Many financial companies started out the same way but as the internet made it possible for people to trade stocks online most financial service companies followed suit and began offering the same service. Edward Jones however held steady. They did not change their business model. Instead they decided to do what in the business terms we call "disrupt the disrupter." They began marketing themselves as some place different. Edward Jones knew their business model, who their customer is, and what that customer considers valuable. Rather than trying to publicly fight other financial companies telling them how they are doing business all wrong, Edward Jones has separated themselves by showing people they are simply different and if you like that business model that revolves around a face to face interaction and a handshake versus a mouse click than you are a perfect fit.

Fstoppers Shoot and Share Edward Jones

In conclusion
If you believe that selling prints to your clients is the best way to serve them then by all means stick to your beliefs and do what you love! Find a way to market yourself so that those who value those services find you and together you'll make a perfect match one for another. Stop wasting time drawing battle lines and instead focus your energy on your business. The same goes for those who enjoy the "Shoot and Share" business model. Sure you can highlight your differences but don't try to tell traditional photographers that they don't know what they are doing. Many of them feel comfortable with their structure of doing business and have been doing it for sometime. If someone tries to waste your time with hateful speech about one business model or another, move on, hell, run as fast as you can away from them. Instead look for those who will help you understand the benefits of each model and then choose the one that works best for you. Lastly, don't sit comfortably thinking your business model will stay the same forever - remember disruptive innovation is always changing things - and in order to be successful you need to be on top-of-your-game knowing what is new and how to adopt it into your business, differentiate yourself from it, or die.

Here are some links to articles I have referenced in the article.
Harvard Business Professor - Clayton Christensen
Responses to Disruptive Strategic Innovation
The Photographer's Business Coach
Reinventing Your Business Model
Disruptive Innovation Explained - Video

Trevor Dayley's picture

Trevor Dayley ( was named as one of the Top 100 Wedding Photographers in the US in 2014 by Brandsmash. His award-winning wedding photos have been published in numerous places including Grace Ormonde. He and his wife have been married for 15 years and together they have six kids.

Log in or register to post comments

I am a "shoot and share" photographer and to put it frankly, I use this business model because I was tired of seeing friends, family (and even myself before I launched my own business) pay for a DVD copy of images that I could do nothing with.

I get that for some photographers, the print income is essential. For me, it's not. I make more business making my clients happy and through their referrals than I would through gauging them for a $3 4x6 image.

Keep your clients happy = growing business.

My two cents.

I'm not sure how charging $3 for a 4x6 is gauging. My pro lab charges about $1.50 for a 4x6. If the client orders 5 and the photographer charges them $3 each, it brings in $15. Cost of prints is around $7.50 and then you have to package them. Basically, $3 nets you nothing. The purpose of a business is to make a profit that will allow you to pay your bills, eat, drive a car, and save for retirement. I'm not saying it can't be done with the "shoot and share" model, but you can't do it unless you're charging enough for your session fees. I suppose comparing the models really does nothing because the profit is what it comes down to. If a shoot and share photographer is charging $1,000 for their sessions, then they'll do just fine. If they're charging $150, they're never going to have free time and will never be able to retire.

I read that closely and he said gauging them for "a" $3.00 4x6 - not that he thinks $3 is gauging.. He's probably talking about gauging being the markup to $30 or so. Just thought it may have been misread and wanted to avoid confusion. .. On a side note, "gauging" no longer looks like a word to me ;)

The word you guys are looking for is gouging. Gauging is something you do when looking into a new market. Gouging is when you rip someone off with your prices.

niyahahahaha . is all i can say

that's because it should be "gouging"
"gauging" is actually assessing the situation

The problem with people who think that charging $50 or $75 dollars for a print is price gouging, is that the are basing that off of the cost of the paper it's printed on or how much the franchise big box printers like Walmart charge, and not on the VALUE of the image and of the artist who took the images, their education, their experience, their time, their talent or anything else that has to do with the creation of the image. There will always be Walmart and there will always be professional Photographers. Just like you can get a bottle of Ibuprofen for $3 but that same bottle with Advil's name on it, is $8. You can get diamonds that are just as beautiful at Jared as you could at Tiffany's....but are they price gouging? No, they're simply profiting off of the mere fact that they are Tiffany's, and to buy from them, you're buying more than a diamond in a box.

You have to keep in mind (and i am usually a shoot and share also) that when they purchase that 4x6 they are NOT paying for the paper, they are paying to have that image. All the time shooting your equipment, talent, editing time. Just like when we pay for a car or anything, it's definitely not just the pieces that we have to pay for. They are now owning that image and it gives it value if it's more than .95

It can be tricky and a mindset, that's for sure :) I think pictures are losing value with all the digital stuff. People have a CD, but the pics never make it up on the wall. I'm definitely stuck somewhere in between :)

I think I'm stuck somewhere in between also...

I think using terms like gouging is part of what the article decries. This reminds me of the story about the plumber who came out and stopped a leak in five minutes by tightening a valve. When the homeowner objected to paying that much for 5 minutes work, the plumber rewrote the invoice: 1) tightening the valve $1 2) knowing which valve to tighten $99.

Whatever model works for you, works for you that's what I get out of this. Charge a lot for the session and give them the images to print anywhere. Or charge less for the session and make it up on print fees. Whatever gives you the profit margin you need to make a living. I guess that's what Ben says.

I agree with you.

I agree also, but, that is a fair way to look at it. What I have been seeing a LOT of recently in my own area of the state I live in, are photographers offering a session with 20-50 (or all) fully edited digital images on a disc for $150 or $200. This to me, is what I feel most people are upset about. Not that our clients are upset that some photographers are giving the digital files, but that they are educating the client that they should expect custom photography to include all of their photos, fully edited, for pennies. Personally, I give the digital files of the prints that are chosen in my collections, but my collections range up to $5K. I have priced my collections for profit and sustainability of my business. I have had my share of potential clients who come in and expect much lower prices and I'm not going to lie, I don't feel I should need to defend my pricing to anyone, so I simply turn those clients away (professionally of course). This article, while well written, doesn't really go into this point of the matter. Most of the shoot and share photographers I have seen, are not educated properly on how to sustain a business and I think are mainly doing it for quick cash, without the thought of the actual work that they have to put into it and then the clients are left dissatisfied with their products. If a shoot and share photographer wants to charge $1000 for their work, then great, but at $150, I think it's doing a disservice to not only the customers, but to other photographers - by educating the customer incorrectly.

I agree!

You think a markup on prints is upsetting your customers. They won't be your customers as they'll realise the local kid with a dslr can do the same for you and undercut you as well. What then?

Matthew I'd say that if the "local kid with a dslr can do the same for you" then you best be upping your game. :) In other words, competition shouldn't take us out of business, it should instead make us (in the great words of Daft Punk) "harder, better, faster, stronger!" :)

I thought that was by Kanye West (totally kidding). As a soon to be Wedding Photographer I appreciate the discussion.

Gotta agree with you on that. We keep getting told that with the prevalence of digital cameras, "anyone can be a photographer!" And why wouldn't any camera/phone manufacturer try to convince the public that everyone can buy their product and become an artist?

Anyone can take a photo, but not everyone can be a photographer. The creativity, professionalism and experience you bring to the table should be the biggest selling point to any client.

I thought those were the sell words of late night television commercials


As much as I want to agree, I think that's a gross oversimplification. In my area, the cost of living is so low, that it attracts a lot of people who are not making enough money to pay the prices of really good photographers.
That's what the majority of the market is around here, and the others who do have the money are usually of an older generation, so they go get their photos taken by a photographer who is also older and more traditional.

I'll wager that most of the time it is the photographer's fault that his business is failing, but sometimes I think it is because of factors that are out of the photographer's control.

Hence, they must adapt or go out of business...but even then - effectively adapting when you're a small business owner is sometimes not the easiest thing to do (as opposed to large companies who have a whole team of creative people tasked with being innovative).

Just my two cents.

I'd love to see a next-door-photographer give them pictures and see them printed at the local Drugstore...

Some client are educated as to WHAT make a good picture/print... some aren't.

Their is space in the market for both.

This is an unfair comparison - it's like comparing a qualified doctor to a medicine man or a lawyer with a good rep to someone with a legal book who knows how to use the index in the back.
Surely, as photographers, our aim is to provide a quality service, hopefully with some originality rather than the point-and-shoot same pose repeated for everyone images. If we charge a fair price for the quality of product being produced, does it really matter what business model a photographer opt for.
The objective is to build a client base who respect your work and who are willing to pay for it. Whether you give them prints/CD's/electronic files doesn't really matter if you produce quality images.

Kevin, can I ask what you charge for a typical session using the "shoot and share" business model (say a family or child portrait session with 30-40 images)? Just curious.

My business likely operates differently than everyone else (I'm assuming) here. I currently have a 9-5 while I grow my business (with the end goal of quitting the 9-5). So, currently, my prices are lower to garner more business and grow it to the tipping point.

And with that disclaimer, $200 for the session you described, and number of images guaranteed is 20, but I usually hand over 50-75.

Then you usually hand over money. Nice.

I too work a 9-5 and because of that my time is even more valuable. For $200 they would only get a session and 3-5 digital images.

50 cents an image; How long it the session + how much time in editing/processing? IE, what's your net hourly rate?

Don't fall into the trap of working for cheap because you are growing your business. Place a fair value on your work and charge it because that's what you and your work are worth.
If you charge cheap and grow your numbers with cheap clients, realize that they are in part, coming to you solely on your prices. It's far better for you to build a client base who love your creativity and value your service because they will pay based on your quality.
There's no point in growing to have a large client base who you charge a couple of hundred bucks (for example) when you can do half the bookings at $500 because you are being paid a fair price which is reflective of the quality of your work and time. Unless you are targeting the cheaper end of the market, this is a hard expectation to break and when the time comes for you to charge based on skills and value, the client base you built based on cheap prices, will fade away anyway.
There's nothing to stop you from continuing to hand over more images than the minimum contracted or from doing that electronically but charge a fair price for your services as a photographer - don't cheapen your own work.
Just a thought.

I don't disagree with anything you have said. I am aware of the "people booking with me because I am cheap" and for the time being, I am ok with that. I do realize that in a year or two when my prices increase, I may lose some clients, but right now, thats a bridge I'll cross when I come to it.

That's fair. Don't feel you have to compete cheaply because you are beginning though. That, I imagine, is a hard trap to get out of. Good luck to you Kevin. Every success with your dream to do this full time.

Unfortunately you've already created a brand perception based on price. Your customers and word-of-mouth referrals have positioned your service in a market place based on the money you charge. This makes it problematic if you want to leave your 9-5.
Why don't you assess the money you make from your 9-5, review the hours you've spent on photography jobs in that same period and calculate a project or hourly rate based on that assessment.
You will be surprised how much money you are currently handing over to clients. Ouch!

Photographers starting out who undercharge while they "get their name out there" don't realize that the name they're getting out there is "cheap photographer". Is that the name you really want to get for yourself?

I often find this such a strange way of conducting business. To actively set lower prices to build a company with the intention of going self-employed. It seems the mind-set and I'm not being derogatory here, is that because one has another income to fall back on, they feel they can attack their market with lower-prices.

A few weeks ago I met a photographer who charge works on a 'Shoot and Share' basis and he charges $4,000 for just the wedding day. He charges extra for Pre-wedding (Engagement shoots) and additional fees for post-wedding shoots. He offers prints as well but at the average market price. He has a day job and when the time is right and he is struggling to meet the demands of his photography work, he said he will quit his 9to5.

He says he has a price and he sticks to it. He doesn't need to cut he pricing of offer discounts because he isn't desperate for a supportive income; he has that already. His mentality is either clients see the worth or they don't but he knows just how much time end effort goes into editing pictures and that encroaches on his personal life with his family. He put it a different way and asked the question "How much is your time with your family worth?"

So really with there isn't any reason to cut prices if you have a regular income, there also is no reason to wage war on 'Shoot and Share' photogs because done correctly Digital images should be worth more than prints because the client can do so much more with them. When I got married the company wanted a huge amount of money for the negatives and in handing someone a 14MB Jpeg that's exactly what you're doing; you're giving them a negative which could be used to print anything from a 4x6 to a billboard and multiple times. So if someone thinks they are 'gouging' at $3 per print then they not understanding how much more their digital file is worth. I wonder how many more prints people would sell if they charge $3 for a 4x6 but $30 for each digital negative?
The further question is, who has the balls to have that price structure?

I have to agree with the others.

It's an illusion to build a business with cut prices because those clients will never pay full price and so, you have no client base willing to pay the real fees.

Slashing prices certainly might bring in clients who would normally go to Walmart and have a few clicks in a set pose lasting minutes for a few bucks but they will never pay the real cost of a photographer, reflective of the skills, talent, creativity or care. Any referrals they bring your way will also be expecting cut price deals.

For me, I'd rather have the client base or referrals based on "Go to Rachael, she really cares about the end results, takes the time to understand your requirements and is a fantastic photographer who is easy to work with" then the "Oh we used Rachael, she was nice and oh, so cheap".

These aren't the clients you want so you don't have to compete for them by offering a cheap service and devaluing your worth.

Kevin Gamble
What kind of photography industry will there be for you when you quit your 9-5 ?

The way I've dealt with this in the past (I started shooting professionally, alongside a 9-5 about two years ago) was to set prices that I felt were solid but not ridiculous ($350) for a portrait session with digitals and then would provide discounts.

I found this would show clients my regular rates and then providing them with a discount would make them understand the value of what they were getting. Instead of setting my portrait session at $200, I set it at $350 and would provide regular $100-150 discounts.

This way people are aware of my regular rates, so they won't be surprised when their next session runs them $350. I've done the same with Weddings, regular rate of $2000 offering a $500 discount for booking during certain times.

Arguably, this has enabled me to raise my rates on a yearly basis and I can happily say that I am now a full time photographer, being able to leave my 9-5.

I've since been able to raise my portrait sessions to $450 and full day Wedding coverage (2nd year) to $3000. In addition, I promote investing in product (prints, canvases, and albums) alongside the digital images all clients receive.

Any client that purchases their digital images receives coupon codes for prints, canvases, and albums.

You were tired of seeing your friends and admittedly yourself buy DVD copy of images that you could do nothing with so you move on to sell the same thing once you became a photographer? There is some serious lack of logic going on there. That DVD copy of images are sharable as well so how could you all do "nothing" with the is beyond me. It just shows you were willing to pay money for something KNOWING you couldn't use it.

If $3 for a 4x6 is "gouging", then you clearly have set no value on your time or your work. Why be in business? If you don't know the logistics of this business how can you justify any decision you make be it IPS or shoot and share?

I should have clarified: the photographers I was speaking of were handing over 72DPI images on a DVD, not full-resolution.

As for $3 for a 4x6, I have seen photographers charge upwards of $20 for a 4x6 image. Both you and I know that at a great photo lab, the cost is nowhere near this, so inflating the price 300-fold is by definition, gouging. I understand my business just fine and I understand that offering my customers a fair and honest price will keep them coming back. I'd rather have a repeat customer who is happy than one who hands me $500 for six prints.

So would you say that people that buy boots at Walmart are happier than people that pay 20x more for Uggs?

It's all in how much (or how little) someone values your work. It's not a rip off if people value what you do enough to pay $500 for six prints.

I always wonder, when I hear about "shoot and share" photographers, why they think that is acceptable. I can only think of two possibilities: Either they are ignorant of photography basics like color spaces, or they have a "it's good enough" attitude.

If you give your clients digital files you have a choice: convert images to a universal colorspace like sRGB, or convert them to a more capable color space like AdobeRGB. If you choose sRGB then your clients will never be able to make prints with as good a color as you could by sending AdobeRGB to a pro lab. It's what I call the "Good Enough" approach... not something I personally admire. If you choose AdobeRGB, then the vast majority of your clients will have an even worse result as many cheap photo-printing places can't support that system and the photos will come out exceedingly dull and muted. I've even seen a nice portrait turn into an ugly picture of a girl with ashen skin because of this.

I want to give customers quality, which is why I will never give away digital files to a normal client. If a graphic designer or other knowledgeable party hires me then sure, but the average joe? Never.

I think it was mentioned above: not all customers want the digital files for printing. I obviously encourage my clients to print with me (better colours, better paper, etc), and I warn and educate them that heading over to their local WalMart is never a good idea for these reasons.

However, if they choose to ignore my advice, then that is their choice. This would no different than them taking a 72DPI image from the web and trying to print an 11x14 and being ok with the horrible pixelation.

Your clients are bright people. Make them smarter, explain why you think they should print with you, why you are better and they will appreciate it and stick with you.

Treating them like human wallets is a horrible business practice.

For my business at least, that's not good enough. It's not just about them, my reputation is tied up in the pictures that get printed and are displayed in clients homes where their friends and family sees what is there and (hopefully) learn that I'm where they got it from. That is a major way I land new clients... by word of mouth spurned on by the "Wow" factor of seeing amazing prints displayed in homes.

I cannot afford to have my reputation tarnished by shoddy print jobs.

Dude, you're not even a photographer. Stop being such an ass

I fail to see where I've been an "ass." It seems to me that most people here in support of "shoot-and-share" fall under the "it's good enough" category, they feel that prints printed wherever (if at all) are "good enough" for spurring on word-of-mouth for their business, or else feel they don't need word-of-mouth.

I'm not saying you can't build a business that way, I am saying I take too much pride in my work to be satisfied with doing it that way.

Calling photographers who shoot and share ignorant is being an ass imo. Since you have such high standards, i though you were a major player in your market. I looked you up, interested in seeing your work, and couldnt find anything. Thats all im saying

Well said and I could not agree more, Kevin! The reality is, our clients do not "need" us to make their prints for them as they did in film days. They are educated as to how much a 4x6 print costs and to charge exorbitant print rates is obsolete and downright dishonest at this point. Charge your session fee for your equipment, time, talent and eye. Make an honest living and do not hold your client's images hostage and expect them to pay a 1000% markup for prints. Just my 2 cents..

Betsy your comment is what is ridiculous. It's art. They are not paying for ink and paper from Walmart. They are paying for my art to display and share. My session feel then would need to be $800-$1000 to be fair.

But with all these referrals, how do you have time to shoot so many sessions and actually make enough money to sustain yourself?

My clients are happy as well- happy with receiving the service and quality products I provide, with my art on the products. Saying that the shoot & share model is the only way to make clients happy and keep referrals coming in is flawed logic.

That is always my point when these fights arise. I call it the dinosaur syndrome. One need to evolve with the flow of time, technology and people. That evolution may be simply to market yourself differently as in your Edward Jones example, or it might be to try to adapt in some way to this new market. Regardless, evolution is there the stay and refusal to see it as it is will make you a dinosaur. And what happened to them ?

Everybody can learn from each other instead of fighting. One side has good points that can help the other side as well. Lets walk the line.

Great article, well written and in a neutral way. Like I always see, nothing is totally black nor white. Photographer are best placed to understand that isn't it ? ;-)

Thank you BenPhoto. You are so right. Everybody can learn from each other. Absolutely correct. Thanks for your comment as well about keeping the article neutral. I know the article won't stir up the internet as much as the others out there have, but my intent was to use the post to hopefully teach something. Getting so tired of reading all these blog posts of people just stirring one another up to hate each other.

More comments