Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > SI Mandate suggestion

Reply
Thread Tools

SI Mandate suggestion

 
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2013
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:10:10 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:46:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:22:13 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>>>> I don't think you want much texture in the cat's fur. Everything else in the
>>>>>> picture is bright solid colors. The cat needs to be solid black.

>
>>>>>Just as the groom needs to be solid black and the bride be
>>>>>solid white, right?

>
>>>>>There's texture in fur, and IMHO it belongs there. Just as I
>>>>>can see texture in the furniture.


We both know, as demonstrated in the two links below, that getting
detail in fine white fur of animals like cats is extremely difficult.
>
>>>> I'll be looking forward to some examples of your work showing details.
>>>> I don't seem to be able to find any.

>
>>>What, you can't find any details in my work?

>
>> I'm having trouble finding your "work".

>
>Try this one
> http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-97Lg...97Lg35H-X3.jpg
>

I'll call your cat's whiskers and raise you:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...03-04-1-XL.jpg



>> What name do you use when you
>> post links to your work?

>
>Is that the "only those who post links can judge photos" aka
>"only cows can judge milk" argument?


No, I feel quite the opposite. I would like to see more participation
in the SI comments including participation by those who don't submit.
The whole thing of submitting images in forums and competitions, to
me, is to know what other people see in my images. I don't care if
the person commenting has a submission or even if they do decent work
themselves. Other people see things good and bad in my photos that I
don't notice, and I learn from it.

The only thing I ask in comments is that they include the "Why". Don't
tell me my image is crap or my image is great without saying why you
see it that way...What is wrong about it, or what is right about it.
It try to include the "Why" in my SI comments.

I also ask for an understanding of timing. I do a lot of candid
shots, and "street" stuff, and that's usually shot on a grab-it basis.
You don't wait for the sun to be right or something in or out of the
scene. That's fair with some shots, but not all.

I do think that the regular posters here should be willing to post
links to their images - even if not in the SI - so we have a feeling
of their capabilities. Otherwise, it's "all hat, no cattle".



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2013
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:02:38 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:42:45 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:06:31 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:34:19 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>[...]

>
>>>>>Shooting only planned scenes and using only cooperating
>>>>>models is rather boring, IMHO, and only emphasizes planning,
>>>>>not observation and preparedness.

>
>>>> I got the shot, didn't I?

>
>>>Results are all that matter? So why is there a problem with
>>>staged, photoshopped works for "news"?

>
>> You don't see the difference between capturing a unexpected scene and
>> Photoshopping a news shot?

>
>"I got the shot" means you could have done anything.
>So if you'd poisoned the cat and placed it there --- "I got
>the shot". No more unexpected scene ...
>
>> Or staging an event and claiming it
>> represents news?

>
>In the end, does it really matter? As long as the event is
>represented truthfully, does it matter? There've been so
>many real examples where non-staged events were photographed
>(and no photoshopping was applied!) and the result told a
>completely different story from what really happened ...
>
>It reminds me of the earlier days of Old Time Radio --- when
>shows had to be performed life and recording was completely
>out of the question. Unethical! Cheating! Boo!
>
>
>I'd take truthful reporting with photos over non-staged,
>non-photoshopped lying photo reports.


I don't see how this pertains to this discussion, but it's OK if you
just want to get it off your chest. It seems like you're talking
about "documentary" photography, and I don't really do that. I did
just do a series of a mock disaster drill at a local hospital, but
that's an exception for me.

>
>>>And if results are all that matter, why not using archive
>>>shots anyway?

>
>> Non sequitur.

>
>"I got the shot" is "the end justifies the means".
>

That expression is usually used when the "means" used are somehow
suspect or dubious or illicit and the "end" is obtaining a particular
desired result. I don't see how that pertains to this discussion.

If the "means" are simply some trick to obtain a particular "end",
then it doesn't seem to fall under the "end justifies the means"
heading. If I photograph a dog by having someone hold a treat or make
a sound in order to get the dog to perk up and look a particular way,
there's nothing (that I see) illicit about it. Baby photographers do
it all the time.


>>>> Isn't that utilization initiative?

>
>>>?

>
>> It's a typo for "utilizing". You understand.

>
>I still don't get it. Maybe I'm particularly dense today,
>maybe it's a language barrier --- where exactly is the
>initiative?


When you go to photograph a furniture grouping, but end up including
something unexpected in the shot, that's initiative in that the
photographer initiates a new plan and carries through with it.

>Or was the point that you saw the cat and managed to press
>the trigger? I wouldn't see that as utilizing initiative,
>therefore '?'.


The point is more that what was seen was the presence of the cat added
to the scene, or, at least added in my estimation. More contrasting
objects in the scene. My use of "initiative" was making an on-the-fly
change to a new plan and composing the image with the new element.
>
>
>> Just like you made a
>> typo below in "extend" for "extent".

>
>Darn. I ought'ta know the difference.
>
>
>>>>>> This, by the way, is a re-shoot of a scene I've shot before, and was
>>>>>> done for a mandate in another group, but it wasn't used for that
>>>>>> group because I had another shot I liked better. That answers your
>>>>>> comment about my position on shooting "fresh".

>
>>>>>It does. You're on the extreme side of it. I could be saying
>>>>>that you shouldn't use a photo that was in any way staged or
>>>>>pre-planned --- but I recognize that that would be extreme.

>
>>>> All shots are pre-planned to some extent.

>
>>>To the extend that you didn't leave your camera at home, yes.

>
>> If you are one of those people who do not pre-plan your shots,

>
>I don't pre-plan any shot and you don't look at your shots if
>they're older than 3 months (you simply reshoot them).


Certainly I do use old shots. I have below. What I don't do is use
old shots for mandates where "fresh" is more appropriate. The idea of
a mandate should be both a challenge to find something that fits *and*
make a good photograph from it.

I participate in some forums where there is no mandate, and I'll
submit archive shots there.
>
>> with
>> camera in hand, that explains why you don't have the balls to link to
>> any of your photographs or join in the SI.

>
>I've linked before ...
>
>-Wolfgang

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-30-2013
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:53:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:43:48 -0400, Tony Cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:10:10 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:46:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:22:13 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>>Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think you want much texture in the cat's fur. Everything else in the
>>>>>>>> picture is bright solid colors. The cat needs to be solid black.
>>>
>>>>>>>Just as the groom needs to be solid black and the bride be
>>>>>>>solid white, right?
>>>
>>>>>>>There's texture in fur, and IMHO it belongs there. Just as I
>>>>>>>can see texture in the furniture.

>>
>>We both know, as demonstrated in the two links below, that getting
>>detail in fine white fur of animals like cats is extremely difficult.
>>>
>>>>>> I'll be looking forward to some examples of your work showing details.
>>>>>> I don't seem to be able to find any.
>>>
>>>>>What, you can't find any details in my work?
>>>
>>>> I'm having trouble finding your "work".
>>>
>>>Try this one
>>> http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-97Lg...97Lg35H-X3.jpg
>>>

>>I'll call your cat's whiskers and raise you:
>>
>>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...03-04-1-XL.jpg
>>

>... and again:
>
>https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_0263_DxO.jpg
>

You have that cat plugged into an AC or DC socket?

This one was taken through a plate glass window. No polarizer.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...2-16-3G-XL.jpg

>>>> What name do you use when you
>>>> post links to your work?
>>>
>>>Is that the "only those who post links can judge photos" aka
>>>"only cows can judge milk" argument?

>>
>>No, I feel quite the opposite. I would like to see more participation
>>in the SI comments including participation by those who don't submit.
>>The whole thing of submitting images in forums and competitions, to
>>me, is to know what other people see in my images. I don't care if
>>the person commenting has a submission or even if they do decent work
>>themselves. Other people see things good and bad in my photos that I
>>don't notice, and I learn from it.
>>
>>The only thing I ask in comments is that they include the "Why". Don't
>>tell me my image is crap or my image is great without saying why you
>>see it that way...What is wrong about it, or what is right about it.
>>It try to include the "Why" in my SI comments.
>>
>>I also ask for an understanding of timing. I do a lot of candid
>>shots, and "street" stuff, and that's usually shot on a grab-it basis.
>>You don't wait for the sun to be right or something in or out of the
>>scene. That's fair with some shots, but not all.
>>
>>I do think that the regular posters here should be willing to post
>>links to their images - even if not in the SI - so we have a feeling
>>of their capabilities. Otherwise, it's "all hat, no cattle".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2013
Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:10:10 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:46:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:22:13 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>>> I don't think you want much texture in the cat's fur. Everything else in the
>>>>>>> picture is bright solid colors. The cat needs to be solid black.


>>>>>>Just as the groom needs to be solid black and the bride be
>>>>>>solid white, right?


>>>>>>There's texture in fur, and IMHO it belongs there. Just as I
>>>>>>can see texture in the furniture.


> We both know, as demonstrated in the two links below, that getting
> detail in fine white fur of animals like cats is extremely difficult.


It's a question of the camera's dynamic range, the usual
methods to limit the dynamic range of the scene where needed,
choosing the right settings and producing a print (which has
less dynamic range) from the negative (respective JPEG/RAW).

I guess the "black tux and white wedding dress" is the same
problem type.

>>>>> I'll be looking forward to some examples of your work showing details.
>>>>> I don't seem to be able to find any.


>>>>What, you can't find any details in my work?


>>> I'm having trouble finding your "work".


>>Try this one
>> http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-97Lg...97Lg35H-X3.jpg


> I'll call your cat's whiskers and raise you:


> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...03-04-1-XL.jpg


The white parts of the fur are plain 255-255-255 white.
Was that your point, using too strong a graduation and too
much exposure?


>>> What name do you use when you
>>> post links to your work?


>>Is that the "only those who post links can judge photos" aka
>>"only cows can judge milk" argument?

[...]
> I do think that the regular posters here should be willing to post
> links to their images - even if not in the SI - so we have a feeling
> of their capabilities. Otherwise, it's "all hat, no cattle".


"All hat, no cattle" ... is that different from "only cows"?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2013
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> More and more I have come to hate the "pussy cat portrait". I loathe
> the thousands of images of loved kittens, and broody, moody, and
> indifferent domestic cats, including the handful I have snapped because
> the cunning, ruthless animal made me believe that it might be an
> unusual capture, but it is just another cat snap along with all those
> other cat snaps.


So where's the difference in all the landscapes, all the
wedding shots, all the car portraits, all the architecture shots?

Never mind all the hobby astronomers who can never even get
close to what large telescopes or space based telescopes manage

> We all love the idea of capturing the totality of the loved feline pets
> in an image.


Oh, I'm happy with capturing a fragment of their personality
in one image. Same with people.

> Most every time they defy us, and and we are left to
> appear to be fawning fools confounding the World with the cat captures
> which are no better than the pussy pix with which others bore us.


This is true for most any type of picture. (Or posting. Or
book. Or webpage. Or recipe. Or program. Or show. Or
film. Or song. Or building. ...)

There is very little new under the sun, after all.[1]
So why should pets be any different?

Yet people keep *their* pets, talk about *their* pets, think
oh-how-so-clever *their* pets are, photograph *their* pets
and show *their* pet photographys.

And how about "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but
this one is mine. ..." --- is that about something unique?


-Wolfgang

[1] There are some things. First DSLR, for example. First
photo of the earth as a sphere. First colour photography.
First photo of the Empire State building. etc.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2013
Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:02:38 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:42:45 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:06:31 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:34:19 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>>>Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>[...]


>>>>>>Shooting only planned scenes and using only cooperating
>>>>>>models is rather boring, IMHO, and only emphasizes planning,
>>>>>>not observation and preparedness.


>>>>> I got the shot, didn't I?


>>>>Results are all that matter? So why is there a problem with
>>>>staged, photoshopped works for "news"?


>>> You don't see the difference between capturing a unexpected scene and
>>> Photoshopping a news shot?


>>"I got the shot" means you could have done anything.
>>So if you'd poisoned the cat and placed it there --- "I got
>>the shot". No more unexpected scene ...


>>> Or staging an event and claiming it
>>> represents news?


>>In the end, does it really matter? As long as the event is
>>represented truthfully, does it matter? There've been so
>>many real examples where non-staged events were photographed
>>(and no photoshopping was applied!) and the result told a
>>completely different story from what really happened ...


>>It reminds me of the earlier days of Old Time Radio --- when
>>shows had to be performed life and recording was completely
>>out of the question. Unethical! Cheating! Boo!


>>I'd take truthful reporting with photos over non-staged,
>>non-photoshopped lying photo reports.


> I don't see how this pertains to this discussion,


"staging an event and claiming it represents news" was yours,
wasn't it? "the difference between capturing a unexpected
scene and Photoshopping a news shot" was yours, wasn't it?

> but it's OK if you
> just want to get it off your chest. It seems like you're talking
> about "documentary" photography, and I don't really do that.


I'm talking about arbitrary rules for shooting, be they
competitions ("only shots made for this competition"), news
("no photoshopping except for basic X, Y and Z") or e.g. "only
planned scenes".

Arbitrary rules mean people sidestepping them (even if they don't
break them), and that means you don't get what you made the
rules for. And you get unintended side effects.


>>>>And if results are all that matter, why not using archive
>>>>shots anyway?


>>> Non sequitur.


>>"I got the shot" is "the end justifies the means".


> That expression is usually used when the "means" used are somehow
> suspect or dubious or illicit and the "end" is obtaining a particular
> desired result. I don't see how that pertains to this discussion.


"Desired result": the shot. You got the shot. Doesn't
matter how you did it -> the means.


> If the "means" are simply some trick to obtain a particular "end",
> then it doesn't seem to fall under the "end justifies the means"
> heading. If I photograph a dog by having someone hold a treat or make
> a sound in order to get the dog to perk up and look a particular way,
> there's nothing (that I see) illicit about it. Baby photographers do
> it all the time.


Depending on the arbitrary rules this is not allowed.

OTOH, composite photographs are not necessarily bad either.


>>>>> Isn't that utilization initiative?


>>>>?


>>> It's a typo for "utilizing". You understand.


>>I still don't get it. Maybe I'm particularly dense today,
>>maybe it's a language barrier --- where exactly is the
>>initiative?


> When you go to photograph a furniture grouping, but end up including
> something unexpected in the shot, that's initiative in that the
> photographer initiates a new plan and carries through with it.


Then an intervall timer can show initiative. Place the camera
on a tripod, point it at a furniture grouping and set the timer
to shoot every N seconds. If something walks/flies/creeps in
and the timer fires the trigger ... whee! Initiative!

That doesn't really jive with how I understand initiative.


>>Or was the point that you saw the cat and managed to press
>>the trigger? I wouldn't see that as utilizing initiative,
>>therefore '?'.


> The point is more that what was seen was the presence of the cat added
> to the scene, or, at least added in my estimation. More contrasting
> objects in the scene. My use of "initiative" was making an on-the-fly
> change to a new plan and composing the image with the new element.


Humm.


>>>>>>> This, by the way, is a re-shoot of a scene I've shot before, and was
>>>>>>> done for a mandate in another group, but it wasn't used for that
>>>>>>> group because I had another shot I liked better. That answers your
>>>>>>> comment about my position on shooting "fresh".


>>>>>>It does. You're on the extreme side of it. I could be saying
>>>>>>that you shouldn't use a photo that was in any way staged or
>>>>>>pre-planned --- but I recognize that that would be extreme.


>>>>> All shots are pre-planned to some extent.


>>>>To the extend that you didn't leave your camera at home, yes.


>>> If you are one of those people who do not pre-plan your shots,


>>I don't pre-plan any shot and you don't look at your shots if
>>they're older than 3 months (you simply reshoot them).


> Certainly I do use old shots.


Congratulations, you have won a new irony meter. Your old
one seems completely broken anyway.


-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2013
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:06:10 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2013-03-31 12:59:30 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
><(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> More and more I have come to hate the "pussy cat portrait". I loathe
>>> the thousands of images of loved kittens, and broody, moody, and
>>> indifferent domestic cats, including the handful I have snapped because
>>> the cunning, ruthless animal made me believe that it might be an
>>> unusual capture, but it is just another cat snap along with all those
>>> other cat snaps.

>>
>> So where's the difference in all the landscapes, all the
>> wedding shots, all the car portraits, all the architecture shots?
>>
>> Never mind all the hobby astronomers who can never even get
>> close to what large telescopes or space based telescopes manage
>>
>>> We all love the idea of capturing the totality of the loved feline pets
>>> in an image.

>>
>> Oh, I'm happy with capturing a fragment of their personality
>> in one image. Same with people.
>>
>>> Most every time they defy us, and and we are left to
>>> appear to be fawning fools confounding the World with the cat captures
>>> which are no better than the pussy pix with which others bore us.

>>
>> This is true for most any type of picture. (Or posting. Or
>> book. Or webpage. Or recipe. Or program. Or show. Or
>> film. Or song. Or building. ...)
>>
>> There is very little new under the sun, after all.[1]
>> So why should pets be any different?
>>
>> Yet people keep *their* pets, talk about *their* pets, think
>> oh-how-so-clever *their* pets are, photograph *their* pets
>> and show *their* pet photographys.
>>
>> And how about "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but
>> this one is mine. ..." --- is that about something unique?
>>
>>
>> -Wolfgang
>>
>> [1] There are some things. First DSLR, for example. First
>> photo of the earth as a sphere. First colour photography.
>> First photo of the Empire State building. etc.

>
>Sigh!


Wolfgang is an odd duck, but not your kind of duck. Sometimes he
posts informative and interesting comments, and sometimes he just
babbles. The day this post appeared, he was in one his rambling
babble phases.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2013
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Sigh!


A masterpiece! A whole essay condensed to 4 letters and one
exclamation mark.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2013
Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:06:10 -0700, Savageduck
>>On 2013-03-31 12:59:30 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


>>>> We all love the idea of capturing the totality of the loved feline pets
>>>> in an image.


>>> Oh, I'm happy with capturing a fragment of their personality
>>> in one image. Same with people.


>>>> Most every time they defy us, and and we are left to
>>>> appear to be fawning fools confounding the World with the cat captures
>>>> which are no better than the pussy pix with which others bore us.


>>> This is true for most any type of picture. (Or posting. Or
>>> book. Or webpage. Or recipe. Or program. Or show. Or
>>> film. Or song. Or building. ...)


>>> There is very little new under the sun, after all.[1]
>>> So why should pets be any different?


>>> Yet people keep *their* pets, talk about *their* pets, think
>>> oh-how-so-clever *their* pets are, photograph *their* pets
>>> and show *their* pet photographys.


>>> And how about "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but
>>> this one is mine. ..." --- is that about something unique?


>>> -Wolfgang


>>> [1] There are some things. First DSLR, for example. First
>>> photo of the earth as a sphere. First colour photography.
>>> First photo of the Empire State building. etc.


>>Sigh!


> Wolfgang is an odd duck, but not your kind of duck.


It could be worse, I could be an even duck.

> Sometimes he
> posts informative and interesting comments, and sometimes he just
> babbles. The day this post appeared, he was in one his rambling
> babble phases.


There is some truth to that observation, however I offer
an alternative explanation: the "babbling" and "rambling"
is a bad impedance mismatch between sender and receiver; the
problem is not utterances without sense but that the utterances
are not understood by the recipient. Which is undoubtedly the
fault of the speaker as he hasn't found a common language with
the receiver.

-Wolfgang
 
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: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate! Robert Spanjaard Digital Photography 9 04-26-2010 10:17 PM
Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate! Robert Coe Digital Photography 13 04-24-2010 05:47 AM
Re: Mandate reminder/update & new mandate! Annika1980 Digital Photography 3 04-17-2010 10:37 PM
Re: [SI] Mandate Suggestion Photography 101 Digital Photography 3 09-11-2009 10:02 PM
Re: Mandate Suggestion Annika1980 Digital Photography 1 09-10-2009 08:53 PM



Advertisments