A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SI Comments - Cooper



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 11th 13, 03:06 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default SI Comments - Cooper

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote:
: : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote:
: : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: : :
: : : snip
: : :
: : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
: : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
: : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
: : : when looking at "The Loser".
: : :
: : :
: : : Thanks for your comment.
: : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
: : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
: : : was better than no image.
: :
: : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
: : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
: : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
: : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
: : loss of sharpness isn't.
: :
: :
: : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
: : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
: : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
: : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.
:
: You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license.
: But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
: I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
: the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.
:
:
: Yes it can.
: However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
: with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
: rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image
in post.

Bob
  #2  
Old January 11th 13, 07:56 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Charles E. Hardwidge[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default SI Comments - Cooper

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW
image in post.


NR is correction for the medium so is just removing what was added by
electronic noise. That's just a practical issue. I'm puzzled why someone
would want to over-intellectualise it.

The limits codified by film journalists are a good benchmark.

Dodging and burning like Ansel Adams to the point where you get a different
look and feel to the negative is art. Editing out an object you were too
lazy to walk over to and move may be legitimate if the scene is
representative of default reality. But this is getting into a grey zone.

A lot of time would be saved if a common system could be developed but that
would interfere with all the arguing wouldn't it?

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

  #3  
Old January 11th 13, 04:24 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Peter[_18_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default SI Comments - Cooper

On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote:
: : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote:
: : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: : :
: : : snip
: : :
: : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
: : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
: : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
: : : when looking at "The Loser".
: : :
: : :
: : : Thanks for your comment.
: : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
: : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
: : : was better than no image.
: :
: : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
: : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
: : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
: : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
: : loss of sharpness isn't.
: :
: :
: : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
: : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
: : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
: : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.
:
: You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license.
: But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
: I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
: the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.
:
:
: Yes it can.
: However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
: with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
: rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image
in post.

True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.


--
PeterN
  #4  
Old January 11th 13, 04:38 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default SI Comments - Cooper

On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote:
: : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: : :
: : : snip
: : :
: : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
: : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
: : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all
comments
: : : when looking at "The Loser".
: : :
: : :
: : : Thanks for your comment.
: : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
but shooting
: : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter
speed. It
: : : was better than no image.
: :
: : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
question is whether
: : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at
the cost of a
: : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff
in low light,
: : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to
the human eye;
: : loss of sharpness isn't.
: :
: :
: : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
: : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
: : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
: : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.
:
: You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
artistic license.
: But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
: I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
: the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.
:
:
: Yes it can.
: However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
: with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
: rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image
in post.

True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.


So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
photographs.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #5  
Old January 11th 13, 06:30 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Peter[_18_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default SI Comments - Cooper

On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: : :
: : : snip
: : :
: : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but
not much
: : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
that much
: : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
all comments
: : : when looking at "The Loser".
: : :
: : :
: : : Thanks for your comment.
: : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
but shooting
: : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
shutter speed. It
: : : was better than no image.
: :
: : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
question is whether
: : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
at the cost of a
: : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
tradeoff in low light,
: : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
to the human eye;
: : loss of sharpness isn't.
: :
: :
: : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
make.
: : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation
of their
: : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
: : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
mandate.
:
: You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
artistic license.
: But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
RAW, which
: I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
homing in on
: the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
mandate.
:
:
: Yes it can.
: However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
: with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
: rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
RAW image
in post.

True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.


So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
photographs.


Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)


--
PeterN

Old habits are hard to break
  #6  
Old January 11th 13, 07:07 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default SI Comments - Cooper

On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: : :
: : : snip
: : :
: : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but
not much
: : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
that much
: : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
all comments
: : : when looking at "The Loser".
: : :
: : :
: : : Thanks for your comment.
: : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
but shooting
: : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
shutter speed. It
: : : was better than no image.
: :
: : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
question is whether
: : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
at the cost of a
: : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
tradeoff in low light,
: : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
to the human eye;
: : loss of sharpness isn't.
: :
: :
: : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
make.
: : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation
of their
: : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
: : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
mandate.
:
: You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
artistic license.
: But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
RAW, which
: I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
homing in on
: the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
mandate.
:
:
: Yes it can.
: However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
: with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
: rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
RAW image
in post.

True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.


So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
photographs.


Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)


Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #7  
Old January 11th 13, 07:18 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Peter[_18_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default SI Comments - Cooper

On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: : :
: : : snip
: : :
: : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but
not much
: : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
that much
: : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
all comments
: : : when looking at "The Loser".
: : :
: : :
: : : Thanks for your comment.
: : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
but shooting
: : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
shutter speed. It
: : : was better than no image.
: :
: : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
question is whether
: : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
at the cost of a
: : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
tradeoff in low light,
: : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
to the human eye;
: : loss of sharpness isn't.
: :
: :
: : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
make.
: : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation
of their
: : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
: : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
mandate.
:
: You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
artistic license.
: But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
RAW, which
: I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
homing in on
: the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
mandate.
:
:
: Yes it can.
: However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of
shooting
: with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my
frame
: rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
RAW image
in post.

True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.

So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
photographs.


Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)


Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.


Has email made the facts obsolete?

--
PeterN
  #8  
Old January 11th 13, 07:25 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default SI Comments - Cooper

On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: : :
: : : snip
: : :
: : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but
not much
: : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
that much
: : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
all comments
: : : when looking at "The Loser".
: : :
: : :
: : : Thanks for your comment.
: : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
but shooting
: : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
shutter speed. It
: : : was better than no image.
: :
: : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
question is whether
: : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
at the cost of a
: : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
tradeoff in low light,
: : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
to the human eye;
: : loss of sharpness isn't.
: :
: :
: : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
make.
: : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation
of their
: : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
: : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
mandate.
:
: You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
artistic license.
: But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
RAW, which
: I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
homing in on
: the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
mandate.
:
:
: Yes it can.
: However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of
shooting
: with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my
frame
: rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
RAW image
in post.

True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.

So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
photographs.


Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)


Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.


Has email made the facts obsolete?


No! The Mayan calendar has.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #9  
Old January 12th 13, 07:44 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Peter[_18_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default SI Comments - Cooper

On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter

wrote:
: : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
wrote:
: : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: : :
: : : snip
: : :
: : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach,
but
not much
: : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
that much
: : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
all comments
: : : when looking at "The Loser".
: : :
: : :
: : : Thanks for your comment.
: : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
but shooting
: : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
shutter speed. It
: : : was better than no image.
: :
: : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
question is whether
: : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
at the cost of a
: : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
tradeoff in low light,
: : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
to the human eye;
: : loss of sharpness isn't.
: :
: :
: : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
make.
: : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for
evaluation
of their
: : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
: : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
mandate.
:
: You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
artistic license.
: But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
RAW, which
: I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
homing in on
: the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
mandate.
:
:
: Yes it can.
: However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of
shooting
: with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my
frame
: rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
RAW image
in post.

True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.

So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
photographs.


Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)

Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.


Has email made the facts obsolete?


No! The Mayan calendar has.


Then we no longer exist and nothing matters


--
PeterN
  #10  
Old January 12th 13, 08:31 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default SI Comments - Cooper

On 2013-01-12 10:44:59 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said:


Le Snip



True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.

So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
photographs.


Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)

Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.


Has email made the facts obsolete?


No! The Mayan calendar has.


Then we no longer exist and nothing matters


So you too can see into the future?
I have a similar take on that sort of thing when the clock finally winds down.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PING: Tony Cooper Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 1 September 29th 11 07:26 AM
(SI) People want comments - here's comments! Sounds of the season. [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 0 September 24th 10 03:13 AM
comments please - red tulip_03-comments please.jpg JLord remove \clothes\ before replying - \clothe Photographing Nature 0 April 19th 05 10:58 PM
Comments Claim Guy Digital Photography 10 December 6th 04 02:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.