Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-23-2019, 11:26 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,591
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Some post processing on the raw image is needed due to the abrupt response of digital sensors, film did not have this particular problem.
And I agree that more and more digital images are overprocessed in a attempt to compensate for lack of interest in the composition itself (old b&w photographs with images look great because they tell a compelling story, even if the contrast and sharpness are average). The problem is, the stronger the post processing is, the more we get used to surreal photographs, stronger and stronger post processing is then needed to keep images standout. It's analogous to the food we eat, nearly every transformed food sold in supermarkets contains preservatives, additives, sugar, salts, and taste enhancers needed due to desensitization of people taste, and also the lower taste on basic food before chemical are added.
For many of the images I post, I have to do fair bit of work to make them look like what I saw. So, yes and no on that one. That people have gotten used to images being flatter than what real life looked like comes into play as well. It doesn't just go one way. When people do an image of a mild sunset, come up with flat image on a regular basis, they tend to think the photographer did something that made the image special, when in fact it's that they don't do the basics to make the image what it was.


Last edited by normhead; 01-23-2019 at 12:07 PM.
01-23-2019, 11:53 AM - 1 Like   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 330
Many of the options available in pp now, originated in the film days, and if you think that some of those iconic film era shots were untouched, you probably need to look again.

I hope this thread doesn't end up as a debate around, as shot, images.

When is too much pp too much, ?
Is a very subjective question, and is all down to the individual to decide, what's too much for one, may not be half enough for someone else.

Remember our eyes can adjust so quick and our brains fill in so much, that scenes that we can See with our eyes. May need copious pp to realise in a photo.

For me,
Do as much or as little as you want, but ultimately the viewer gets to make up their own mind when viewing.
Free choice and all that 👍
01-23-2019, 11:55 AM - 3 Likes   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: SW Bavaria
Posts: 41
I completely agree with all of you.


While I prefer the point of view of dlh and dartmore dave. I often see pictures of places I have been to and especially, when they are taken at dawn or in the night, I think to myself "That's not the way it looks like in reality". The picture itself is bombastic, sharp full, full of contrast in color and lights, mindblowing. And I say this without irony. These pictures are winners. But they do not reflect the actual perception of the object in nature.


From the view of a hobbist, I think the discussions ends here with the statement, that highly postprocessed pictures exist and they are more then ever. I really think those people with the mindblowing pictures are doing a great job. But I also expect a good photo to find recognition that shows a foggy day with muted colors. Everyone is supposed to carry out his hobby to his own liking. We should just know when a picture is good an aprecciate it, regardless how it was created.

In everyday life I think we are massively surrounded by fake pictures and escpesially as photograpers we should keep in mind, that they do not represent reality and are made for a purpose.
01-23-2019, 12:13 PM - 3 Likes   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,435
I will put forward two propositions: 1) the human eye never sees things exactly as they are; 2) no photograph records things exactly as seen by a human. Consider what the world looks like to either a bird or insect that can see ultraviolet light. How about a pit viper that can see infra red light? (And no, infrared photos do not mimic what such a snake sees, as best we can tell). Consider a frog sitting perfectly still with no breeze - what does it see? absolutely nothing insofar as there is zero activity in the optic nerves under such circumstances, but if something moves, a worm on the ground, an insect flying by, or a predatory heron sneaking up, THAT and that only the frog sees with no bokehed background, so long as the worm, bug or heron is moving. The human eye is sensitive to an enormous range of brightness, and it adjusts in a twinkling so we can almost instantly see things in darker or brighter areas that a moment earlier we could not. Does any photographic image duplicate this? As noted by the OP, we see more detail with our monochrome rod receptors than with our cone color receptors. We are blithely unaware that we have have far more resolution and far more color discrimination dead center than at the periphery of our visual field, and our total FOV approaches 180 degrees so presumably a fish-eye lens with substantial IQ and color deterioration at the edges would best mimic what our eyes see, but psychologically that is not so. We all know that HDR sometimes looks "natural" but sometimes looks like a painting, so paintings are not "natural" as the eye sees things? And we criticize vignetting, even though our eyes do it. Every image is some balance of what was there, what the eye saw, what the photographer thought he/she saw, how the photographer wants to convey what was seen or the response they had to what they saw, or thought they saw. It's all a matter of that ancient, debatable thing called "taste," or "in the mind of the beholder." I'll take a chance on any image posted on this forum, and for the most part, I almost never find one so far outside of a "photograph" that I would have cause to complain, but that doesn't mean that I like every one of them. Some speak to me, and now and then one does not. Photographs are not something whose visual qualities meet certain criteria. They are a product of equipment and process, what on labels in an art museum are listed under "medium,"


Last edited by WPRESTO; 02-05-2019 at 10:34 AM.
01-23-2019, 12:21 PM - 1 Like   #20
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,591
QuoteOriginally posted by dick897 Quote
Many of the options available in pp now, originated in the film days, and if you think that some of those iconic film era shots were untouched, you probably need to look again.
I remember when I got my images back from the pro labs, they used to have note on the back detailing the three filter values used to achieve the look and if i wanted the same image I had to send in those values. Every colour enlarger had those filters built in. In the later days of film, even the 1 hour photo labs had built in colour adjustment and contrast adjustments, all done by the machine with no human intervention. 3 filters and contrast. Most people didn't know the machines did that. They just assume there was no PP. It was aways a myth.

Richard Avedons development instructions for a portrait. Over 60 for the one image. I never do 60 adjustment with modern PP software. Avedon and many top photographers were way more demanding in their post processing than any of us are. Singer Buffy Saint marie used to rent a photo lab for 3 or 4 days a couple times a year to work with technician to get her images the way she wanted them.

The only thing that has change is now we can all do it, even if we aren't Richard Avedon and can't afford a full time lighting/'makeup crew and our own personal darkroom technician.
01-23-2019, 12:21 PM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,731
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
When people do an image of a mild sunset, come up with flat image on a regular basis, they tend to think the photographer did something that made the image special, when in fact it's that they don't do the basics to make the image what it was.
They is some loss between what the eyes see and camera standard rendering: for sunsets, I've never been able to render digital colors the same way as my eyes could see, processing reduced the gap.

QuoteOriginally posted by Papa_Joe Quote
The picture itself is bombastic, sharp full, full of contrast in color and lights, mindblowing. And I say this without irony. These pictures are winners. But they do not reflect the actual perception of the object in nature.
Some images are very flashy but still look realistic so it's hard figure if the scene was really like it is in the photographs. Some images don't look realistic, hrd like, we know that processing was too much or simply intentional.
01-23-2019, 12:26 PM - 2 Likes   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,188
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
My comment wasn't about raw v. jpeg, it was about what I regard as too much CGI, which can be artistic as all get out, but the end product isn't a "photograph" in my opinion.
You have your opinion of what counts as a "photograph", some guy down the street has a different opinion of what counts as a "photograph", a little birdie has yet another differing opinion, ... where to draw the "photograph" line? More importantly, who cares where you or I or anyone else draws the line? Outside of the limited arenas where there are specific editing rules (some contests, photojournalism, etc), I really don't think it's anyone's business to start binning other people's work into their own 'non-photograph' pile.

That said, I am a firm believer in being transparent about how an image was made, especially if it's depicting some kind of real event. For example, I enjoy making images showing fields stock full of firefly flashes. I always try to include a caption saying how long the exposure was for to give people an idea of what the activity was like so they don't think the fireflies were blindingly bright. Another is images of the northern lights. At my latitude they are only rarely visible to the naked eye, but our cameras are capable of picking up far more. I see so many images posted and people are saddened that they didn't get to see this awesome display. Well no, no one actually saw with their eyes what our cameras were able to capture and I think it's important to understand this. Our cameras can capture a 'reality' our eyes don't see, and this is a good thing imo.

We have a deluge of images to look at, if you don't like what you're seeing, move on to the next one.
01-23-2019, 12:32 PM - 2 Likes   #23
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,591
Herein lies the conundrum.

QuoteOriginally posted by Papa_Joe Quote
But they do not reflect the actual perception of the object in nature.
QuoteQuote:
1) the human eye never sees things exactly as they are; 2) no photograph records things exactly as seen by a human. Consider what the world looks like to either a bird or insect that can see ultraviolet light.
With reference to the second quote, there is simply no objective point of view you can use as reference to the first point.

QuoteQuote:
But they do not reflect the actual perception of the object in nature.
There simply is no unqualified "the actual perception of the object in nature". There is no baseline standard against which to measure. Every one thinks they are objective and everyone else is subjective...but, it's all subjective. The most likely reason for their image being different than yours is , they saw differently than you did. Not that one of you is more reflective of something as undefinable as "the actual perception of the object in nature." How can you define what that even is?


Last edited by normhead; 01-23-2019 at 12:41 PM.
01-23-2019, 12:33 PM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,697
QuoteOriginally posted by dick897 Quote
Many of the options available in pp now, originated in the film days, and if you think that some of those iconic film era shots were untouched, you probably need to look again.

I hope this thread doesn't end up as a debate around, as shot, images.

When is too much pp too much, ?
Is a very subjective question, and is all down to the individual to decide, what's too much for one, may not be half enough for someone else.

Remember our eyes can adjust so quick and our brains fill in so much, that scenes that we can See with our eyes. May need copious pp to realise in a photo.

For me,
Do as much or as little as you want, but ultimately the viewer gets to make up their own mind when viewing.
Free choice and all that 👍
It's all true. And yet, and yet ...

If photography-as-art really is on a par with other forms of art, the value of it must go far beyond individual likes and dislikes. There must be some widely shared notions of what is worthy, what is powerful, what is great. There must be some tastes, some opinions, some understandings, that have more value than others. And if that's true, then we can talk about those things, and don't have to kowtow to individual preference.
01-23-2019, 01:14 PM - 4 Likes   #25
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,591
Sometimes you come across something mundane and the light is hitting it just right, and it looks really special. You go back to your PP software and you work on it until you have exploited what made it special. Now you might say it's little over the top, but, I'm making it easier for you to see what I saw, because in this case, I saw a lot of people walk right by it. They didn't appreciate what was there, and they certainly wouldn't accept this as a representation of what they saw, what they saw wasn't worth photographing. To be photographer you really need to see in different way. To them it was just a rock. While I was pretty amazed at how existing light brought out the colour a depth in the rock. (I've walked by that rock 50 times and never seen it look like that before.) I might have emphasized it a tad, but I was helping you see what I saw.



On this famous picture....
The jpeg


My favoured rendition.


The majority of the forums favoured rendition.


What actually caught my attention.


How do you argue which was subjective and which was objective? I argued that the snow was blue. Most of the forum argued the snow should have been white balanced. My focus seemed to be that what was important was the cabin and sunset, and that how the rest was portrayed was irrelevant. At this point, I can't even remember what I actually saw, except that the colour of the sky was reflected in the water as it is in my preferred rendition. The jpeg and forum rendition are not what I saw, but the majority of the forum participants thought it was. What's a guy to do? I know your eye does an automatic white balance, but there was enough yellow in the sunset to keep that from happening. There was nothing I could do to help folks understand that my preferred image was what i saw, and there's was actually a reflection of the reality, because they weren't there. Their minds were made up. The jpeg was right, mine was wrong. Why listen to the guy who was there?

In this image direct golden hour light, I had to dial things back. With the shadow in behind it was very hard to make out any detail on this bird in real life. Yet I compressed the contrast using levels and made it so you could actually see the bird. How is that not better than what I originally saw?



This is all way more complicated than it's being made out to be. In the end, "getting it right" sometimes means accentuating, and sometimes means "dialling it back". Difficult lighting conditions don't have to ruin your image. It's your job as photographer to alter it in such a way it seems true to you. You're going to make compromises but they will be compromises you can live with. The fact that another group of people want you to employ different compromises is neither here nor there. No one gets to pick your compromises for you. And one doesn't have less compromises than the other. Some like to portray ordinariness. Some try to emphasize the special qualities of the light captured as in the rock above. There is no baseline of righteousness that is "the way" a scene should be interpreted.

Last edited by normhead; 01-23-2019 at 01:36 PM.
01-23-2019, 02:19 PM   #26
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,593
Photography is art like any other art, and like any art, there will be those who love something and those that hate it.

From the artist's perspective (photographer here), the art is what you make of it. First and foremost is what is the artist's goal when creating a photograph? Are they trying to make something that stands out, are they trying to make sales, are they trying to convey an emotion, etc? Once that is known, they have to compose the shot and then process it (or not) to get the the answer of that initial question. In terms of greatness, a great photographer achieves their goals while also understanding their audience.

From a broader perspective, photographer and audience all have their preferences. No artist can please everyone and reaching certain goals in creating the art may mean compromising on audience appreciation and self appreciation. Like a lot of art, creating something that is popular may mean reaching a lowest common denominator and styling an image with the trends of what is popular at the moment. But, like anything popular, popularity can fade.

Now from my own perspective and subjective opinion and studies of art (painting and photography) over time is that the composition of the image (how the image is laid out, framed, what it is of, etc) plays a large part in whether it can be popular or liked in the first place, and it often dictates whether an image can transcend time. If one looks at great paintings, photographs, etc over time, it is rarely just because they used great paint, film, brush strokes, etc. While that may be a factor, the composition matters more. Looking at an artist like Ansel Adams, his most famous photographs are based on what they were of, not how they were processed. After all, the man took 1000's of photos over his life, some of which are in fact mundane from a popular perspective.

But once composition is taken care of, especially when it comes to photography, which often has less abstraction than what the painters of the impressionist period had, it is the PP that will make 2 otherwise similar shots stand apart. While I can appreciate a desire for an audience to see something from a real perspective, the emotional perspective is what makes me want to hang a photo on the wall, share it with others, or even just enjoy a museum or gallery: It's about the feel rather than real. Of course pp can go too far, and when I feel that, then I won't like it and move on. I don't need to critique the artist as I suspect for every photo I don't like, someone else might and vice-a-versa.

It does appear I am not out of the ordinary here either. Interestingly, I really love museums and galleries because there are many paintings and photographs out there that I really appreciate, even love, but I would never actually want to own or hang in my own home. Emotion can take on so many different forms.

I actually like the contests and sharing here. In my own photography, I am a bit one dimensional, shooting mostly landscapes with limited dabbles in macro and street photography. But I admire those that excel at street photography, portraiture, abstraction, etc... The PP will often grab my attention, and as long as it doesn't take away from my enjoyment, then I can continue to admire and find inspiration (and even envy at my own shortcomings as a photographer).
01-23-2019, 02:25 PM   #27
dlh
F.O.G. (fat old geezer)
Loyal Site Supporter
dlh's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Northern Piedmont of Virginia
Posts: 485
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Much of the world, most of the time, is flat, grey, boring, and with bad lighting. Photography doesn't have to be about perfectly representing reailty.
Wow! What a depressing outlook!

---------- Post added 2019-01-23 at 04:33 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
No good comes of criticizing artistic taste.
Hence the concept as known in ancient Rome: "De gustibus non est disputandum."

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
... Truth be known, the light was great, it needed hardly any photoshop, but I have absolutely no doubt, I was the only one who stopped and took in that sunset. The probability that the long time locals have never seen anything like it is irrelevant. ...
It may not be representative, it may not be what it looks like all the time. ...
People who don't spend a lot of time in nature tend to not believe what's out there.
...
Exactly! I take pictures of things I find interesting because I know other people don't notice or observe things the way I do. Things other people would not see at all unless I show them what I found interesting. Lots of times, the reaction is, "Like, yeah? So? What's up with that?" Other times, it's more like, "OOOoooohhh!!!" Not that I'm particularly good at it, you understand, lots of the folks here are obviously much more skilled and observant than myself. But I think that's where the real art of photography is. Computer graphics is a useful tool, but that's all, by my lights.

---------- Post added 2019-01-23 at 04:39 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Some post processing on the raw image is needed due to the abrupt response of digital sensors, film did not have this particular problem.
And I agree that more and more digital images are overprocessed in a attempt to compensate for lack of interest in the composition itself (old b&w photographs with images look great because they tell a compelling story, even if the contrast and sharpness are average). The problem is, the stronger the post processing is, the more we get used to surreal photographs, stronger and stronger post processing is then needed to keep images standout. It's analogous to the food we eat, nearly every transformed food sold in supermarkets contains preservatives, additives, sugar, salts, and taste enhancers needed due to desensitization of people taste, and also the lower taste on basic food before chemical are added.
"Ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth" to quote the Cowardly Lion. Humans are immoderate, so we consume ever increasing quantities of salt, sugar, starch, fat, and glutamates; we are addicted to sensory stimulation of all kinds.

---------- Post added 2019-01-23 at 04:41 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
... There is a whole step to be taken. You start producing images of your memories, they can be any old flat looking unprocessed thing, as long as it reminds you of what was there, to doing something that will mean something to someone else who wasn't there. That's when you start to understand composition, post processing etc. and start looking for what it is people find attractive.
Good point - I don't take pictures to preserve memorable occasions - my wife, who is an inveterate tourist, does precisely that. It's because our memories work differently. I focus on the transitory nature of life on this planet, and take pictures to preserve some interesting facet that I know won't be there tomorrow (or in five minutes, depending on the sun and the clouds).

---------- Post added 2019-01-23 at 04:48 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
... Looking at an artist like Ansel Adams, his most famous photographs are based on what they were of, not how they were processed. After all, the man took 1000's of photos over his life, some of which are in fact mundane from a popular perspective.
...
Exactly my point - Adams' photography didn't get in the way of his subjects. It's because he was a brilliant photographer that people look at his pictures and think what a wonderful view of whatever that subject was; they don't stand around and ooh and ahh about how wonderfully he dodged the highlights in a particular rock. That's what I meant about the techniques and tools being unnoticable in my analogies to theatrical lighting and make-up.
01-23-2019, 03:42 PM - 4 Likes   #28
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 11,546
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
I take pictures of things I find interesting because I know other people don't notice or observe things the way I do. Things other people would not see at all unless I show them what I found interesting. Lots of times, the reaction is, "Like, yeah? So? What's up with that?" Other times, it's more like, "OOOoooohhh!!!" Not that I'm particularly good at it, you understand, lots of the folks here are obviously much more skilled and observant than myself. But I think that's where the real art of photography is. Computer graphics is a useful tool, but that's all, by my lights.
Let's be clear, though - altering images both before and after the point of capture has been common-place in photography not just in digital times, but for decades before that in the film world too. It's not limited to "computer graphics".

Filters, artificial light sources and modifiers, even depth of field and specific lens rendering characteristics have all been used for many, many years to create looks that are far from what the eye perceives.

The films used were often carefully picked to give certain tonal reproductions, some of them significantly different to what we see with our own eyes, with (for example) over-saturated colours, deep blacks, colour shifts etc. Why, any black and white film results in images that look very different to what the photographer sees through the viewfinder. But any half decent black and white photographer would be thinking in black and white when taking photographs, knowing how they want to represent the subject and scene (their artistic vision, if you will).

Next, there's the development process - different chemical compositions and times used to create (sometimes hugely) different end results.

And then there's the enlargement process, with dodging and burning, dust and scratch removal, and corrections for distortion and perspective.

Any or all (but undoubtedly several) of these would have been used in many of the wonderful film photographs you've viewed and enjoyed, not to mention a whole range of other techniques. Post-processing of digital images is simply a duplication and extension of those film processing techniques applied instead to digital images.

At what point in the workflow do we cease to credit the skill of the photographer and the validity of their efforts? The point at which they pressed the shutter button, or the point at which we view their final image, be it in printed or digital form? You describe what you consider to be "the real art of photography", and it's certainly one valid opinion, but one among many. I consider the real art to include the entire workflow from capture through to the final article, with all processing steps in between (whether for film or digital images). My opinion is as valid as - but no more so than - yours. Others will have a range of different opinions too.

None of this really matters, of course, because we're not here to sit in judgement (unless critique is requested, of course). Rather, we can review, appreciate, and form opinions on each photographers work, taking into account our personal preferences. Some we'll like, some we won't. Our individual opinions are as subjective and unique as the photographer's intent

Back when I was in my early teens, and long before I developed an interest in photography, a slightly older friend of mine (he became, and remains, my best friend) used a Zenit SLR and lenses to take some rather nice black and white shots which he developed in his bedroom. Over time, he experimented with different filters, film types, processing methods, enlargement and correction work, and even tried hand-colouring a number of his final images using kits designed specifically for that purpose. I can't say how well his photographs represented the reality of what he saw, but I surely enjoyed his work.

EDIT: I think what your original point boils down to is, you like images to look natural rather than un-natural... even if that natural look involves just as much processing subterfuge (and it often does) And that's fine. I like that too... but I also like cleverly processed images where the art extends beyond representing the natural scene as we imagine it

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-23-2019 at 04:41 PM.
01-23-2019, 03:52 PM - 1 Like   #29
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,591
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Back when I was in my early teens, and long before I developed an interest in photography, a slightly older friend of mine (he became, and remains, my best friend) used a Zenit SLR and lenses to take some rather nice black and white shots which he developed in his bedroom. Over time, he experimented with different filters, film types, processing methods, enlargement and correction work, and even tried hand-colouring a number of his final images using kits designed specifically for that purpose. I can't say how well his photographs represented the reality of what he saw, but I surely enjoyed his work
Didn't everybody do that?
01-23-2019, 03:52 PM - 1 Like   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,435
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
Exactly my point - Adams' photography didn't get in the way of his subjects. It's because he was a brilliant photographer that people look at his pictures and think what a wonderful view of whatever that subject was; they don't stand around and ooh and ahh about how wonderfully he dodged the highlights in a particular rock. That's what I meant about the techniques and tools being unnoticable in my analogies to theatrical lighting and make-up.
But, the general evaluation of Adam's is, he was a fairly mundane photographer, but a brilliant darkroom technician. His "zone system" for making and evaluating prints is evidence of his preoccupation with "post processing." BUT, one point I tried to make, he made the final image what he saw, or thought he saw, or wanted to show, not necessarily precisely what it was.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adams, artist, book, camera, color, darkroom, food, hand, image, images, lots, people, photographer, photographs, photography, photos, photoshop, play, post, skills, software, sugar, taste, time, times, truth, vision, wife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Misc How much is too much? krre23 Photo Critique 4 07-16-2018 06:19 PM
DA 16-85: How much decentering is too much? mgvh Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 06-06-2017 02:01 PM
Nature Another person with too much money and too much time Murra54 Post Your Photos! 10 02-15-2016 09:14 PM
When is too much, too much? lbenac Pentax Film SLR Discussion 15 05-03-2009 04:49 PM
PP: How much is TOO much? mikeSF Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 40 02-06-2009 11:30 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top