Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

 
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2012
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> "Chris Malcolm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I learned photography in the days before there were any auto
>>> functions. I have no problems doing everything completely manually. I
>>> use some non-electronic lenses which are totally manual, and most of
>>> my flash guns are manual.
>>>
>>> But almost the only time I use the Manual setting on the camera is
>>> when I'm using a non-electronic lens or lighting with multiple manual
>>> flashes. Otherwise I use P A or S modes with exposure compensation
>>> under my thumb. I think I get just as much control as with full
>>> manual, and much more quickly.
>>>
>>> But maybe it depends how good your camera is with its auto functions?
>>> I've found over the years that with each camera upgrade I've ended up
>>> doing using unadjusted auto modes more often because the cameras have
>>> been getting better at getting them right.
>>>
>>> I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and
>>> failing badly with fully manual operation. I tell them to use the auto
>>> modes as a teacher, that there's no point in using manual if you can't
>>> do as well as the camera can. But they don't like that idea because
>>> someone told them that professionals use manual, auto is for
>>> dummies. So I leave them taking ages to take poor shots when
>>> their camera could take much better ones in seconds.

>>
>> True, unless you know what you are doing, the camera will probably do a
>> better job. I tell people they should *try* to *learn* to be able to do
>> better than the camera one day. Some people here don't think they will ever
>> be able to do that, and they are RIGHT because they don't want to ever learn
>> how.

>
>One obvious step is to review a lot -- you can see if it worked well
>enough early enough to remember the situation and what you did, so
>there's some chance of learning from the bad results and what you have
>to change to fix the results. (This wasn't available, of course, with
>film auto-exposure cameras.)



There are plenty of opportunities to learn, via tuition (one to one or
in a group), by study at evening classes, weekend workshops or study
vacations, by buying a textbook on basic photography and working
through it with your camera, or by joining a camera club where you
will find many "old hands" who are fond of passing on their knowledge.

Unfortunately, most people are unwilling to learn and unwilling to
spend money that could have bought them more or "better" equipment.

There is a linkage between better equipment and better images that is
firmly imprinted on most people's minds by huge advertising campaigns.
There is no such imprinted linkage between knowledge gained and better
images. However, I believe that gaining knowledge has a far more
positive effect on quality of output than buying equipment does.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2012
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I have no experience learning anything photographic in classes.
>Certainly there are numerous classes and workshops, and people attend
>them. I'm sure they think they're learning. I haven't had friends do
>it, so I haven't gotten to see the before/after to form any opinion. I
>had some interest in taking photo classes early on, but no opportunity.
>
>One friend did do a photo degree in college; I met him part-way through
>that. He clearly learned some things in classes there, but it's not so
>clear they were "technical" things much.



I should hope not!

As I have said many times, many of the most capable photographers need
to know surprisingly little about the technical aspects of
photography. Knowing from personal experience how little technical
content there is in a photography degree course, I try to give the
students a little more technical content in areas that will help them
be even more creative. But it certainly isn't technical knowledge for
its own sake.

It should be no surprise that gaining a photography degree earns you a
Bachelor or Master of Arts, not Science. A BSc degree in photography
that concentrated only on the technical side would turn out some very
poor photographers. The BA approach is the right one as long as there
is someone on hand to disseminate technical knowledge where required.

Of course there are photography careers that require a high level of
technical ability but they are comparatively rare.

I am deeply disappointed when I read of amateur photographers who
spend hours learning how to use every single feature of their grossly
over-complicated digital SLRs, when the same amount of time learning
about the creative aspects of photography would yield far greater and
more important dividends.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012

"Anthony Polson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I have no experience learning anything photographic in classes.
>>Certainly there are numerous classes and workshops, and people attend
>>them. I'm sure they think they're learning. I haven't had friends do
>>it, so I haven't gotten to see the before/after to form any opinion. I
>>had some interest in taking photo classes early on, but no opportunity.
>>
>>One friend did do a photo degree in college; I met him part-way through
>>that. He clearly learned some things in classes there, but it's not so
>>clear they were "technical" things much.

>
>
> I should hope not!
>
> As I have said many times, many of the most capable photographers need
> to know surprisingly little about the technical aspects of
> photography. Knowing from personal experience how little technical
> content there is in a photography degree course, I try to give the
> students a little more technical content in areas that will help them
> be even more creative. But it certainly isn't technical knowledge for
> its own sake.
>
> It should be no surprise that gaining a photography degree earns you a
> Bachelor or Master of Arts, not Science. A BSc degree in photography
> that concentrated only on the technical side would turn out some very
> poor photographers. The BA approach is the right one as long as there
> is someone on hand to disseminate technical knowledge where required.
>
> Of course there are photography careers that require a high level of
> technical ability but they are comparatively rare.
>
> I am deeply disappointed when I read of amateur photographers who
> spend hours learning how to use every single feature of their grossly
> over-complicated digital SLRs, when the same amount of time learning
> about the creative aspects of photography would yield far greater and
> more important dividends.



Having lived through the days when a knowledge of all the technical aspects
of photography was a must, including darkroom chemistry, I see NO reason a
GOOD photograher should not have a sound knowledge of both the ART *and*
SCIENCE behind what they are doing. Sure you can make some good photo's
without either if you are lucky, but that's no excuse to not want to learn
more IMO.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012

"Eric Stevens" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:48:30 +1100, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>> In article <ka5g4j$4o0$(E-Mail Removed)>, Doug McDonald says...
>>>> I am very very sure that this has been clearly explained before in this
>>>> thread!
>>>
>>> It's a matter of semantics.

>>
>>Only in your mind.
>>
>>>What Trevor is referring to "JPEG exposure"
>>> is in reality image processing, i.e. the processing of the RAW file.

>>
>>FFS, I'm saying the Jpeg the camera gives you with the camera settings so
>>YOU think it looks "correctly exposed" Vs the RAW exposure set for maximum
>>dynamic range/minimum noise/minimum clipping that I would want.
>>
>>
>>>No point to discuss this further.

>>
>>True, some will obviously never understand.
>>
>>
>>> In any case, the camera should in the first place attempt to capture the
>>> entire scene in the RAW data, i.e. minimise the image area which is
>>> clipped. Once this has been achieved, the camera can do all the
>>> processing, i.e. apply white and black points, curves etc.

>>
>>Sure can by converting RAW to Jpeg, either in my camera after the photo is
>>taken, or in my computer. Others here want to capture a Jpeg only, that
>>looks "right" immediately on the screen and when printed without further
>>processing. That's NOT always what I want. Have no idea what YOU want. Nor
>>does your camera unless you tell it.
>>

>
> I can't understand how you expect the camera (or later post
> processing) do all this when producing a JPEG if you don't start from
> a "RAW exposure set for maximum dynamic range/minimum noise/minimum
> clipping". What is it you do or don't want from an exposure which you
> would regard as suited to a JPEG?



I can't spell it out any clearer than I have already done. If you don't get
it by now, I'm not really interested.
But just once again, *I* don't shoot Jpeg, those who do usually want it to
look "right" without further fiddling, eg. black cat in coal mine is black,
not grey.
The idea of "correct exposure" depends on YOUR idea of "correct", which may,
or may not match your camera's.

Trevor.




 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
On 12/12/2012 02:31, Trevor wrote:
[]
> Having lived through the days when a knowledge of all the technical aspects
> of photography was a must, including darkroom chemistry, I see NO reason a
> GOOD photograher should not have a sound knowledge of both the ART *and*
> SCIENCE behind what they are doing. Sure you can make some good photo's
> without either if you are lucky, but that's no excuse to not want to learn
> more IMO.
>
> Trevor.


... and technical knowledge is especially important in the age of digital
photography. Just look at the misleading and wrong information often
seen in this newsgroup, for example!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:59:04 PM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Chris Malcolm says...
>
> > I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and

>
> > failing badly with fully manual operation.

>
>
>
> Strange. If they are in live view mode with the histogram enabled, they
>
> see immediately is something is over- or underexposed and can quickly
>
> adjust the exposure.


Is that's what's called manual as for me I'd call that semi-automatic
For me manula exposure is looking at the subject the time & place and the amount of light coming from the sun or other objects and setting a suitable shutter speed aperture that goes with the ISO.


> Same with the focus. All they need to do is activate the 10x loupe and
>
> life view, then they can easily focus manually.


That isntl; manula focuing to me either manukla focusing is loking at the subject and decideing it's 10ft away and turning the lens barrel accoringly.

Maybe I'm just confused by the terms manual and automatic here. :-0

>
> --
>
>
>
> Alfred Molon
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site


 
Reply With Quote
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
David Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 12/12/2012 02:31, Trevor wrote:
>[]
>> Having lived through the days when a knowledge of all the technical aspects
>> of photography was a must, including darkroom chemistry, I see NO reason a
>> GOOD photograher should not have a sound knowledge of both the ART *and*
>> SCIENCE behind what they are doing. Sure you can make some good photo's
>> without either if you are lucky, but that's no excuse to not want to learn
>> more IMO.
>>
>> Trevor.

>
>.. and technical knowledge is especially important in the age of digital
>photography. Just look at the misleading and wrong information often
>seen in this newsgroup, for example!



Technical knowledge is important because it gives a photographer
control over his/her art. It is less important than in film days
because digital imaging is so much more predictable than using film
and, perhaps most important of all, it offers the ability to review
shots and take them again if necessary.

Having said that, digital has brought many more people into
photography who would have been outside it if film still ruled. They
include vast numbers of people with smartphones, most of whom don't
have a clue about the artistic and technical sides of imaging. They
include large numbers of people who see buying a camera as a logical
addition to their other computer peripherals.

The addition of the latter group has produced a paradigm shift in
photography. A much higher proportion of camera owners have come into
photography based on their technical interest. These people are drawn
from a sector of society that is least likely to understand and
appreciate art and least likely to be able to produce it.

Almost by definition, those posting to Usenet's photography newsgroups
are likely to include a much higher than average proportion of such
people. Perhaps it goes some way towards explaining the near-complete
lack of understanding of art that is in evidence here.

It would be very difficult to educate most of these people in the
artistic aspects of photography. Their interest starts and ends with
the use of a small number of deterministic "rules of composition" that
are designed only to avoid some of the worst mistakes a photographer
can make when composing an image. The formulaic images that result
are barely any better than shooting at random. Indeed, shooting at
random stands a better chance of producing a good image by accident.

When these people decide to learn more about photography, they decide
to learn more about the technical things they already know too much
about. They might be fascinated by the myriad options for customising
their camera settings or obsess about learning new routines in
Photoshop, but their starting point is almost always a bad image which
will be difficult if not impossible to make into a good one, no matter
how great their technical ability.

Contrast all that with people of genuine artistic ability who need
only to learn a few basics about digital photography to be able to
produce images that tell a story, inspire, thrill or even disgust.

Communication is what photography is all about. It is an unfortunate
fact that many technically perfect images send no message at all to
the viewer. Many of the best images are technically imperfect, but
that is of minor importance if they communicate with the viewer.

Some will no doubt quote Ansel Adams' search for technical perfection.
However, Adams was a true artist. His technical knowledge helped him
get the best out of his artistic ability.

There are plenty of people today with technical knowledge that bears
comparison with Adams'. However, almost none of them have anything
approaching Adams' artistic ability.







 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:32:08 PM UTC, Anthony Polson wrote:
> David Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 12/12/2012 02:31, Trevor wrote:

>
> >[]

>
> >> Having lived through the days when a knowledge of all the technical aspects

>
> >> of photography was a must, including darkroom chemistry, I see NO reason a

>
> >> GOOD photograher should not have a sound knowledge of both the ART *and*

>
> >> SCIENCE behind what they are doing. Sure you can make some good photo's

>
> >> without either if you are lucky, but that's no excuse to not want to learn

>
> >> more IMO.

>
> >>

>
> >> Trevor.

>
> >

>
> >.. and technical knowledge is especially important in the age of digital

>
> >photography. Just look at the misleading and wrong information often

>
> >seen in this newsgroup, for example!

>
>
>
>
>
> Technical knowledge is important because it gives a photographer
>
> control over his/her art.


No it isn't that's the advantage of digital cameras It is less important than in film days.

>
> because digital imaging is so much more predictable than using film
>
> and, perhaps most important of all, it offers the ability to review
>
> shots and take them again if necessary.


It makes taking pictures easier to get what you want.

>
>
>
> Having said that, digital has brought many more people into
>
> photography who would have been outside it if film still ruled. They
>
> include vast numbers of people with smartphones, most of whom don't
>
> have a clue about the artistic and technical sides of imaging.


Or go against the olde ways and rules.


> They
>
> include large numbers of people who see buying a camera as a logical
>
> addition to their other computer peripherals.


or to their life in general

>
>
>
> The addition of the latter group has produced a paradigm shift in
>
> photography. A much higher proportion of camera owners have come into
>
> photography based on their technical interest.


I can;t see how you make that claim.

> These people are drawn
>
> from a sector of society that is least likely to understand and
>
> appreciate art and least likely to be able to produce it.



Art can be anything, is art a bed or a cut open cow ?
50 years ago no one would have considered either as art.



> Almost by definition, those posting to Usenet's photography newsgroups
>
> are likely to include a much higher than average proportion of such
>
> people.


Not now, perhaps you're right to say that about facebook .

> Perhaps it goes some way towards explaining the near-complete
>
> lack of understanding of art that is in evidence here.


Art can be many things.


>
> It would be very difficult to educate most of these people in the
>
> artistic aspects of photography.


And why should they be ?


>Their interest starts and ends with
>
> the use of a small number of deterministic "rules of composition" that
>
> are designed only to avoid some of the worst mistakes a photographer
>
> can make when composing an image. The formulaic images that result
>
> are barely any better than shooting at random. Indeed, shooting at
>
> random stands a better chance of producing a good image by accident.


Pretty meaningless then.


>
>
>
> When these people decide to learn more about photography, they decide
>
> to learn more about the technical things they already know too much
>
> about.


and care less about the images themselves.


> They might be fascinated by the myriad options for customising
>
> their camera settings or obsess about learning new routines in
>
> Photoshop, but their starting point is almost always a bad image which
>
> will be difficult if not impossible to make into a good one, no matter
>
> how great their technical ability.


So.


>
>
>
> Contrast all that with people of genuine artistic ability who need
>
> only to learn a few basics about digital photography to be able to
>
> produce images that tell a story, inspire, thrill or even disgust.
>
>
>
> Communication is what photography is all about.


You don;t always need technical ability for that.


> It is an unfortunate
>
> fact that many technically perfect images send no message at all to
>
> the viewer. Many of the best images are technically imperfect, but
>
> that is of minor importance if they communicate with the viewer.


yep pays your money and make your choice.



> Some will no doubt quote Ansel Adams' search for technical perfection.
>
> However, Adams was a true artist. His technical knowledge helped him
>
> get the best out of his artistic ability.
>
>
>
> There are plenty of people today with technical knowledge that bears
>
> comparison with Adams'. However, almost none of them have anything
>
> approaching Adams' artistic ability.


Well I'd have to check out those peole before I decided on that.
of course I could dsay rembrant or piscaos are teh bets artist because their painting sell for higher thhn some other artists...



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2012
In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


>> "Chris Malcolm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I learned photography in the days before there were any auto
>>> functions. I have no problems doing everything completely manually. I
>>> use some non-electronic lenses which are totally manual, and most of
>>> my flash guns are manual.
>>>
>>> But almost the only time I use the Manual setting on the camera is
>>> when I'm using a non-electronic lens or lighting with multiple manual
>>> flashes. Otherwise I use P A or S modes with exposure compensation
>>> under my thumb. I think I get just as much control as with full
>>> manual, and much more quickly.
>>>
>>> But maybe it depends how good your camera is with its auto functions?
>>> I've found over the years that with each camera upgrade I've ended up
>>> doing using unadjusted auto modes more often because the cameras have
>>> been getting better at getting them right.
>>>
>>> I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and
>>> failing badly with fully manual operation. I tell them to use the auto
>>> modes as a teacher, that there's no point in using manual if you can't
>>> do as well as the camera can. But they don't like that idea because
>>> someone told them that professionals use manual, auto is for
>>> dummies. So I leave them taking ages to take poor shots when
>>> their camera could take much better ones in seconds.

>>
>> True, unless you know what you are doing, the camera will probably do a
>> better job. I tell people they should *try* to *learn* to be able to do
>> better than the camera one day. Some people here don't think they will ever
>> be able to do that, and they are RIGHT because they don't want to ever learn
>> how.


> One obvious step is to review a lot -- you can see if it worked well
> enough early enough to remember the situation and what you did, so
> there's some chance of learning from the bad results and what you have
> to change to fix the results. (This wasn't available, of course, with
> film auto-exposure cameras.)


Even faster and easier learning is possible with camera models which
can give you a live view preview of what the taken shot will look like
before you shoot it. With some that can even include shutter speed, so
you can select the amount of motion blur you want, e.g. the smooth
waterfall effect.

Not only a much faster learning and selection speed, but avoids
cluttering up your memory card with a lot of failed trials.

(Models with an EVF can do this in the viewfinder as well as on the
LCD, and can also review the taken shot, along with the usual
histogram etc choices if wished, without taking the eye from the
viewfinder.)

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2012
In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


>>>> How many times do I have to spell it out, a "properly exposed" RAW file is
>>>> not necessarily the same as a "properly exposed" Jpeg. If you still don't
>>>> understand, do some research on why. A good camera should give you the
>>>> option as I have already said.
>>>> Personally I don't have a problem shooting 90% of the time in full manual,
>>>> but many do it seems, since it requires a little knowledge of what all the
>>>> options mean

>>
>>> That's not, generally, the reason. Though I'm sure sometimes it is.

>>
>>> The reason is often that it slows you down. If you're shooting
>>> fast-moving action in unstable light, it can slow you down
>>> significantly -- depending on how "fast-moving" the action is, even
>>> devestatingly.

>>
>> I learned photography in the days before there were any auto
>> functions. I have no problems doing everything completely manually. I
>> use some non-electronic lenses which are totally manual, and most of
>> my flash guns are manual.


> I got my first 35mm camera in 1966, and was shooting both B&W and
> Kodachrome without a meter. I got my first SLR in 1969, which did have
> a meter. But worked with a Leica M3 as my main camera from about
> 1973-1979, without a meter (using a separate meter for that). I learned
> to shoot bounce flash with a Braun RL515, completely manual, around
> 1973.


>> But almost the only time I use the Manual setting on the camera is
>> when I'm using a non-electronic lens or lighting with multiple manual
>> flashes. Otherwise I use P A or S modes with exposure compensation
>> under my thumb. I think I get just as much control as with full
>> manual, and much more quickly.


> I've had too many cases where I can see the exposure wandering half a
> stop or so as I turn the camera a little. This means compensation
> doesn't really give me stable results, and I'm happier going straight
> manual when I need it.


It seems many modern cameras when set to full image matric metering
add some bias a bit towards a correct exposure of whatever you (or the
camera) has chosen to focus on. Different models do it in different
amounts and different ways. I usually use central spot focus because
I'm used to it and I'm fanatic for sharpest focus, so I notice this
kind of auto exposure shifting if the center of the image is unusually
bright or dark.

But I find much easier than shifting to manual simply locking the
exposure where I like it so it stops shifting around. Same kind of
thing as using central point focus. Point camera at chosen focus point
and lock focus. Then point camera at chosen exposure area or adjust
exposure with compensation dial and lock that. Faster (for me with my
camera) than using manual, and gives me the rapid response and
flexibility of reaction to the unexpected moment of all the auto
features.

>> But maybe it depends how good your camera is with its auto functions?
>> I've found over the years that with each camera upgrade I've ended up
>> doing using unadjusted auto modes more often because the cameras have
>> been getting better at getting them right.


> The requirements of digital are stricter than the requirements of color
> negative (or B&W), as a result of which I feel like I'm still not up to
> the quality of exposure automation I had with my Nikon N90 in 1994.


Possibly because I never had such good film cameras as you, I've found
that exposure automation has for years (and the last few cameras) been
better than I got with film, and it keeps getting better as the
cameras improve in dynamic range and exposure automation.

> (Currently shooting a Nikon D700, previously a D200 and a Fuji S2 for
> DSLRs). I imagine the camera itself is doing better than the N90 was,
> though.


>> I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and
>> failing badly with fully manual operation. I tell them to use the auto
>> modes as a teacher, that there's no point in using manual if you can't
>> do as well as the camera can. But they don't like that idea because
>> someone told them that professionals use manual, auto is for
>> dummies. So I leave them taking ages to take poor shots when
>> their camera could take much better ones in seconds.


> I have no idea how one learns to shoot well these days. When I was
> learning it was an article of faith that one could not possibly learn
> well with a camera having auto exposure (I didn't have a camera with
> auto-exposure until I guess 1987). (It was probably not true, since
> people clearly *do* learn how to shoot well with modern cameras. It's
> just, this isn't the environment I learned in, and it's not obvious how
> best to learn starting today.)


O looked at the graduating exhibitions of all the local universities
and colleges who did degree courses in photgraphy. I chose the one
whose students produced the most impressive exhibits. I checked out
the course material. I was disappointed to discover that in order to
have their degree approved by professional photography bodies most of
what they taught was film photography. The students told me that some
of the lecturers didn't like this, and gave more time to digital than
they were supposed to, sometimes in extra classes which you could
volunteer for.

I didn't mind the idea of paying for a photographic education, but I
objected to having to spend most of my money paying for a film
education I didn't want.

Of course the Art side of photographic image making is relatively
independent of specific photographic technologies. Unfortunately it
also seems to be heavily dependent on having some of those rather rare
creatures, excellent art teachers.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Mort Digital Photography 130 12-25-2012 02:28 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Pat McGroyn Digital Photography 8 11-27-2012 04:38 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 8 11-26-2012 12:13 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 1 11-26-2012 05:47 AM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots RichA Digital Photography 1 11-25-2012 09:28 AM



Advertisments