Ken Rockwell is a liar

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill, Dec 1, 2006.

  1. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "Bhogi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >> One sure bet that Rockwell has mental problems is his need to wear
    >> his
    >> watch upside-down on his right forearm so that he can't easily read
    >> the time without contorting his arm into uncomfortable positions.
    >> Maybe one of his personalities is into masochism?

    >
    > If you're refering to his photo with the monster lens, it's
    > reversed,
    > or have they made some lefty cameras at nikon lately?



    Rockwell claims he has a left-handed prototype from Japan. But all
    information I've found indicates no such prototype was ever made
    available.

    I've been hoping for months that others would notice the same small
    details that I have, but so far no one has mentioned them. So today I
    will prove that Rockwell was just bulls#!tting readers who noticed the
    flipped image on his main page.

    It's more than a just reversed image, he's edited the photo to make it
    appear legitimate by putting Nikon on the flash unit and pasting the
    watch face in.

    Let me clarify:

    Rockwell combs his hair to his right in all other photos of him,
    except this one where his hair is to his left. He also has several
    freckles that are not symmetrical and here they're reversed too. That
    means the main image was flipped.

    In the photo, his yellow shirt is buttoned on the left, which would
    mean he's wearing a womans shirt since mens shirts have the buttons on
    the right.

    He claims the image was not reversed because he wears his watch on his
    right arm. But we know from close examination this is NOT true. For
    starters, the Nikon letters have been added since their is virtually
    no speckling of the white lettering, which is odd, but I admit it's
    not conclusive.

    But then look closely and you'll notice the watch face is right-side
    up in the image, but it would be upside-down if he checked the time.
    He claims he wears his watch on his right wrist, but other photos of
    him show other watches and tanlines on the LEFT wrist.

    Also, as anyone who is left-handed knows, if they wear their watch on
    their right wrist, the controls are on the inner side toward the
    elbow, not toward the fingers.

    So we KNOW the image is reversed, which means he has lied about the
    camera since it's not left-handed in the true image, he's lied about
    where he wears his watch, and then lied about the edited photo to
    cover up his previous lies.

    Lies, lies, lies (isn't that from a song?).

    Yet after all this, some people still think Rockwell is an honest and
    helpful person who cares only about helping others. What a crock of
    s#!t.
     
    Bill, Dec 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill

    Al Monte Guest

    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Bhogi" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>> One sure bet that Rockwell has mental problems is his need to wear his
    >>> watch upside-down on his right forearm so that he can't easily read
    >>> the time without contorting his arm into uncomfortable positions.
    >>> Maybe one of his personalities is into masochism?

    >>
    >> If you're refering to his photo with the monster lens, it's reversed,
    >> or have they made some lefty cameras at nikon lately?

    >
    >
    > Rockwell claims he has a left-handed prototype from Japan. But all
    > information I've found indicates no such prototype was ever made available.
    >
    > I've been hoping for months that others would notice the same small details
    > that I have, but so far no one has mentioned them. So today I will prove
    > that Rockwell was just bulls#!tting readers who noticed the flipped image on
    > his main page.
    >
    > It's more than a just reversed image, he's edited the photo to make it
    > appear legitimate by putting Nikon on the flash unit and pasting the watch
    > face in.
    >
    > Let me clarify:
    >
    > Rockwell combs his hair to his right in all other photos of him, except this
    > one where his hair is to his left. He also has several freckles that are not
    > symmetrical and here they're reversed too. That means the main image was
    > flipped.
    >
    > In the photo, his yellow shirt is buttoned on the left, which would mean
    > he's wearing a womans shirt since mens shirts have the buttons on the right.
    >
    > He claims the image was not reversed because he wears his watch on his right
    > arm. But we know from close examination this is NOT true. For starters, the
    > Nikon letters have been added since their is virtually no speckling of the
    > white lettering, which is odd, but I admit it's not conclusive.
    >
    > But then look closely and you'll notice the watch face is right-side up in
    > the image, but it would be upside-down if he checked the time. He claims he
    > wears his watch on his right wrist, but other photos of him show other
    > watches and tanlines on the LEFT wrist.
    >
    > Also, as anyone who is left-handed knows, if they wear their watch on their
    > right wrist, the controls are on the inner side toward the elbow, not toward
    > the fingers.
    >
    > So we KNOW the image is reversed, which means he has lied about the camera
    > since it's not left-handed in the true image, he's lied about where he wears
    > his watch, and then lied about the edited photo to cover up his previous
    > lies.
    >
    > Lies, lies, lies (isn't that from a song?).
    >
    > Yet after all this, some people still think Rockwell is an honest and
    > helpful person who cares only about helping others. What a crock of s#!t.
    >
    >


    Get a life.
     
    Al Monte, Dec 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill

    Scott W Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > "Bhogi" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > >> One sure bet that Rockwell has mental problems is his need to wear
    > >> his
    > >> watch upside-down on his right forearm so that he can't easily read
    > >> the time without contorting his arm into uncomfortable positions.
    > >> Maybe one of his personalities is into masochism?

    > >
    > > If you're refering to his photo with the monster lens, it's
    > > reversed,
    > > or have they made some lefty cameras at nikon lately?

    >
    >
    > Rockwell claims he has a left-handed prototype from Japan. But all
    > information I've found indicates no such prototype was ever made
    > available.
    >
    > I've been hoping for months that others would notice the same small
    > details that I have, but so far no one has mentioned them. So today I
    > will prove that Rockwell was just bulls#!tting readers who noticed the
    > flipped image on his main page.
    >
    > It's more than a just reversed image, he's edited the photo to make it
    > appear legitimate by putting Nikon on the flash unit and pasting the
    > watch face in.
    >
    > Let me clarify:
    >
    > Rockwell combs his hair to his right in all other photos of him,
    > except this one where his hair is to his left. He also has several
    > freckles that are not symmetrical and here they're reversed too. That
    > means the main image was flipped.
    >
    > In the photo, his yellow shirt is buttoned on the left, which would
    > mean he's wearing a womans shirt since mens shirts have the buttons on
    > the right.
    >
    > He claims the image was not reversed because he wears his watch on his
    > right arm. But we know from close examination this is NOT true. For
    > starters, the Nikon letters have been added since their is virtually
    > no speckling of the white lettering, which is odd, but I admit it's
    > not conclusive.
    >
    > But then look closely and you'll notice the watch face is right-side
    > up in the image, but it would be upside-down if he checked the time.
    > He claims he wears his watch on his right wrist, but other photos of
    > him show other watches and tanlines on the LEFT wrist.
    >
    > Also, as anyone who is left-handed knows, if they wear their watch on
    > their right wrist, the controls are on the inner side toward the
    > elbow, not toward the fingers.
    >
    > So we KNOW the image is reversed, which means he has lied about the
    > camera since it's not left-handed in the true image, he's lied about
    > where he wears his watch, and then lied about the edited photo to
    > cover up his previous lies.
    >
    > Lies, lies, lies (isn't that from a song?).
    >
    > Yet after all this, some people still think Rockwell is an honest and
    > helpful person who cares only about helping others. What a crock of
    > s#!t.


    You missed that the shadow on the watch face is inconstant with the
    light coming from the upper left, but mirror the watch and rotate and
    it is spot on.

    I got to say that the photo looks doctored to me and if so then it is
    one of the worse things you can do in photography, fake an image and
    claim that it is real.

    If someone wants to reverse a photo I have no problem with that, but to
    then claim that it is not flipped is going too far.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Bill

    Bhogi Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > "Bhogi" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > >> One sure bet that Rockwell has mental problems is his need to wear
    > >> his
    > >> watch upside-down on his right forearm so that he can't easily read
    > >> the time without contorting his arm into uncomfortable positions.
    > >> Maybe one of his personalities is into masochism?

    > >
    > > If you're refering to his photo with the monster lens, it's
    > > reversed,
    > > or have they made some lefty cameras at nikon lately?

    >
    >
    > Rockwell claims he has a left-handed prototype from Japan. But all
    > information I've found indicates no such prototype was ever made
    > available.
    >
    > I've been hoping for months that others would notice the same small
    > details that I have, but so far no one has mentioned them. So today I
    > will prove that Rockwell was just bulls#!tting readers who noticed the
    > flipped image on his main page.


    <snip stuff that actualy makes sense>

    But, I actualy think all this is intentional. My guess is the main
    photo is reversed because he wanted it oriented that way. The full res
    one is just a bait for pixel peepers and measurebators he abhores
    constantly. It worked :)
     
    Bhogi, Dec 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "Bhogi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > <snip stuff that actualy makes sense>
    >
    > But, I actualy think all this is intentional. My guess is the main
    > photo is reversed because he wanted it oriented that way. The full
    > res
    > one is just a bait for pixel peepers and measurebators he abhores
    > constantly. It worked :)


    So then you're saying he doesn't care if people know he's a liar?

    OK, I suppose as long as he gets hits, nothing else matters. And it's
    true that controversy gets hits. Maybe from now on we should all just
    ignore anything to do with Rockwell and that would hurt him more than
    the truth.

    :)
     
    Bill, Dec 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Bill

    Annika1980 Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > So we KNOW the image is reversed, which means he has lied about the
    > camera since it's not left-handed in the true image, he's lied about
    > where he wears his watch, and then lied about the edited photo to
    > cover up his previous lies.
    >
    > Lies, lies, lies (isn't that from a song?).
    >


    Well yeah, if you want to pick nits.

    Hey, does that mean a Canon 5D might actually be a better camera than a
    $150 P&S?
     
    Annika1980, Dec 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Bill wrote:
    >> So we KNOW the image is reversed, which means he has lied about the
    >> camera since it's not left-handed in the true image, he's lied
    >> about
    >> where he wears his watch, and then lied about the edited photo to
    >> cover up his previous lies.
    >>
    >> Lies, lies, lies (isn't that from a song?).

    >
    > Well yeah, if you want to pick nits.


    What, about the the song, the camera, or the dogs?

    Personally, I don't care for fleas.

    > Hey, does that mean a Canon 5D might actually be a better camera
    > than a
    > $150 P&S?


    NO! NO! NO!

    Ken Rockwell has clearly stated that nothing beats a $150 P&S, and
    you're obviously suffering from some form of dimentia if you believe
    otherwise.

    :)
     
    Bill, Dec 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Who gives a ****. You think Rockwell is pathetic. How about some with such a
    pathetic existence as to waist time with this bull shit.

    LDC


    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Bhogi" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>> One sure bet that Rockwell has mental problems is his need to wear his
    >>> watch upside-down on his right forearm so that he can't easily read
    >>> the time without contorting his arm into uncomfortable positions.
    >>> Maybe one of his personalities is into masochism?

    >>
    >> If you're refering to his photo with the monster lens, it's reversed,
    >> or have they made some lefty cameras at nikon lately?

    >
    >
    > Rockwell claims he has a left-handed prototype from Japan. But all
    > information I've found indicates no such prototype was ever made
    > available.
    >
    > I've been hoping for months that others would notice the same small
    > details that I have, but so far no one has mentioned them. So today I will
    > prove that Rockwell was just bulls#!tting readers who noticed the flipped
    > image on his main page.
    >
    > It's more than a just reversed image, he's edited the photo to make it
    > appear legitimate by putting Nikon on the flash unit and pasting the watch
    > face in.
    >
    > Let me clarify:
    >
    > Rockwell combs his hair to his right in all other photos of him, except
    > this one where his hair is to his left. He also has several freckles that
    > are not symmetrical and here they're reversed too. That means the main
    > image was flipped.
    >
    > In the photo, his yellow shirt is buttoned on the left, which would mean
    > he's wearing a womans shirt since mens shirts have the buttons on the
    > right.
    >
    > He claims the image was not reversed because he wears his watch on his
    > right arm. But we know from close examination this is NOT true. For
    > starters, the Nikon letters have been added since their is virtually no
    > speckling of the white lettering, which is odd, but I admit it's not
    > conclusive.
    >
    > But then look closely and you'll notice the watch face is right-side up in
    > the image, but it would be upside-down if he checked the time. He claims
    > he wears his watch on his right wrist, but other photos of him show other
    > watches and tanlines on the LEFT wrist.
    >
    > Also, as anyone who is left-handed knows, if they wear their watch on
    > their right wrist, the controls are on the inner side toward the elbow,
    > not toward the fingers.
    >
    > So we KNOW the image is reversed, which means he has lied about the camera
    > since it's not left-handed in the true image, he's lied about where he
    > wears his watch, and then lied about the edited photo to cover up his
    > previous lies.
    >
    > Lies, lies, lies (isn't that from a song?).
    >
    > Yet after all this, some people still think Rockwell is an honest and
    > helpful person who cares only about helping others. What a crock of s#!t.
    >
    >
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Dec 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Bill

    Charles Guest

    On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:09:13 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
    <> wrote:

    >Who gives a ****. You think Rockwell is pathetic. How about some with such a
    >pathetic existence as to waist time with this bull shit.
    >
    >LDC
    >



    Waste, not waist.
     
    Charles, Dec 2, 2006
    #9
  10. "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >

    [ . . . ]
    > I've been hoping for months that others would notice the same small
    > details that I have, but so far no one has mentioned them. So today I will
    > prove that Rockwell was just bulls#!tting readers who noticed the flipped
    > image on his main page.
    >
    > It's more than a just reversed image, he's edited the photo to make it
    > appear legitimate by putting Nikon on the flash unit and pasting the watch
    > face in.
    >
    > Let me clarify:
    >
    > Rockwell combs his hair to his right in all other photos of him, except
    > this one where his hair is to his left. He also has several freckles that
    > are not symmetrical and here they're reversed too. That means the main
    > image was flipped.
    >
    > In the photo, his yellow shirt is buttoned on the left, which would mean
    > he's wearing a womans shirt since mens shirts have the buttons on the
    > right.
    >
    > He claims the image was not reversed because he wears his watch on his
    > right arm. But we know from close examination this is NOT true. For
    > starters, the Nikon letters have been added since their is virtually no
    > speckling of the white lettering, which is odd, but I admit it's not
    > conclusive.
    >
    > But then look closely and you'll notice the watch face is right-side up in
    > the image, but it would be upside-down if he checked the time. He claims
    > he wears his watch on his right wrist, but other photos of him show other
    > watches and tanlines on the LEFT wrist.

    [ . . . ]

    All true. The image is definitely flipped, but where does he claim it's NOT
    flipped?

    Hard to understand why he would do all that, but obviously he did. Very
    strange.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 2, 2006
    #10
  11. Charles wrote:
    > On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:09:13 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Who gives a ****. You think Rockwell is pathetic. How about some with such a
    >> pathetic existence as to waist time with this bull shit.


    >
    > Waste, not waist.


    And bullshit, not bull shit. And, who gives a ****? How about some?

    --
    yours in the evolution of language

    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 3, 2006
    #11
  12. Bill

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Neil
    Harrington <> wrote:

    > > But then look closely and you'll notice the watch face is right-side up in
    > > the image, but it would be upside-down if he checked the time. He claims
    > > he wears his watch on his right wrist, but other photos of him show other
    > > watches and tanlines on the LEFT wrist.

    > [ . . . ]
    >
    > All true. The image is definitely flipped, but where does he claim it's NOT
    > flipped?


    <http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm>

    near the bottom, he writes:

    The left handed Nikon F100 you see on my home page was loaned to me
    for beta testing in 1998 when Nikon was considering producing a left
    handed version of the F100. Yes, I also wear my watch on my right arm
    and if you think I'm kidding just click the image on my Contact page
    for the original hi-rez film scan where you can see for yourself it's
    not just a flipped negative

    > Hard to understand why he would do all that, but obviously he did. Very
    > strange.


    yes, it is very strange. but he clearly lies.
     
    nospam, Dec 3, 2006
    #12
  13. Bill

    dcisive Guest

    He's not a liar. He just has an opinion, of which we are ALL entitled to.
    Some of the things he has to say make PERFECT sense, and other things I
    would also call into question for my personal application. But overall he is
    trying to be "sensible" in regards to the use of photographic equipment. Too
    many are hung up on little details that indeed make little to NO difference
    in the "real world" of photography. If you just want to be a tweak head it's
    probably NOT the best hobby. If you want to be more of an artist at it
    indeed you need to get past some of the drivel that abounds in the internet
    world regarding the use of photographic equipment.
     
    dcisive, Dec 3, 2006
    #13
  14. "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:021220061803282218%...
    > In article <>, Neil
    > Harrington <> wrote:
    >
    >> > But then look closely and you'll notice the watch face is right-side up
    >> > in
    >> > the image, but it would be upside-down if he checked the time. He
    >> > claims
    >> > he wears his watch on his right wrist, but other photos of him show
    >> > other
    >> > watches and tanlines on the LEFT wrist.

    >> [ . . . ]
    >>
    >> All true. The image is definitely flipped, but where does he claim it's
    >> NOT
    >> flipped?

    >
    > <http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
    >
    > near the bottom, he writes:
    >
    > The left handed Nikon F100 you see on my home page was loaned to me
    > for beta testing in 1998 when Nikon was considering producing a left
    > handed version of the F100. Yes, I also wear my watch on my right arm
    > and if you think I'm kidding just click the image on my Contact page
    > for the original hi-rez film scan where you can see for yourself it's
    > not just a flipped negative
    >
    >> Hard to understand why he would do all that, but obviously he did. Very
    >> strange.

    >
    > yes, it is very strange. but he clearly lies.


    Yes, I'll have to admit you're right. He lies and goes to elaborate lengths
    to do it. That's disappointing -- but thanks for the pointer.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 3, 2006
    #14
  15. Bill

    Annika1980 Guest

    dcisive wrote:
    > He's not a liar. He just has an opinion, of which we are ALL entitled to.
    > Some of the things he has to say make PERFECT sense, and other things I
    > would also call into question for my personal application. But overall he is
    > trying to be "sensible" in regards to the use of photographic equipment. Too
    > many are hung up on little details that indeed make little to NO difference
    > in the "real world" of photography. If you just want to be a tweak head it's
    > probably NOT the best hobby. If you want to be more of an artist at it
    > indeed you need to get past some of the drivel that abounds in the internet
    > world regarding the use of photographic equipment.


    Rockwell makes contradictory statements, some of which are patently
    untrue.
    That would make him a liar by most definitions of the term.

    Much of the drivel on the internet is coming from his website.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 3, 2006
    #15
  16. "dcisive" <> wrote in message
    news:45723a7c$0$503$...
    > He's not a liar. He just has an opinion, of which we are ALL entitled to.


    Claiming a flipped photo is *not* a flipped photo, and going to elaborate
    lengths to fake it, is not "just [having] an opinion."

    I've been a defender of him here, but that is disappointing to me.


    > Some of the things he has to say make PERFECT sense, and other things I
    > would also call into question for my personal application. But overall he
    > is trying to be "sensible" in regards to the use of photographic
    > equipment. Too many are hung up on little details that indeed make little
    > to NO difference in the "real world" of photography. If you just want to
    > be a tweak head it's probably NOT the best hobby. If you want to be more
    > of an artist at it indeed you need to get past some of the drivel that
    > abounds in the internet world regarding the use of photographic equipment.


    All that may be true, but none of it justifies misrepresenting a photo.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 3, 2006
    #16
  17. Bill

    Annika1980 Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > Also, as anyone who is left-handed knows, if they wear their watch on
    > their right wrist, the controls are on the inner side toward the
    > elbow, not toward the fingers.


    Not to mention the fact that the winder is almost directly opposite the
    2 on the watch dial instead of the 3.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 3, 2006
    #17
  18. Bill

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 22:05:15 -0500, Neil Harrington wrote:

    >> He's not a liar. He just has an opinion, of which we are ALL entitled to.

    >
    > Claiming a flipped photo is *not* a flipped photo, and going to elaborate
    > lengths to fake it, is not "just [having] an opinion."
    >
    > I've been a defender of him here, but that is disappointing to me.


    Umm, I haven't been following this particular debate, but just a
    couple of messages up the thread, nospam quotes:

    > The left handed Nikon F100 you see on my home page was loaned to me
    > for beta testing in 1998 when Nikon was considering producing a left
    > handed version of the F100. Yes, I also wear my watch on my right arm
    > and if you think I'm kidding just click the image on my Contact page
    > for the original hi-rez film scan where you can see for yourself it's
    > not just a flipped negative


    This doesn't seem to be saying the image on his home page has not
    been flipped. It says that it's not *just* a flipped negative,
    meaning that more has been done to it besides just flipping it. No?
    Have I missed something?
     
    ASAAR, Dec 3, 2006
    #18
  19. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >> The left handed Nikon F100 you see on my home page was loaned to
    >> me
    >> for beta testing in 1998 when Nikon was considering producing a
    >> left
    >> handed version of the F100. Yes, I also wear my watch on my right
    >> arm
    >> and if you think I'm kidding just click the image on my Contact
    >> page
    >> for the original hi-rez film scan where you can see for yourself
    >> it's
    >> not just a flipped negative

    >
    > This doesn't seem to be saying the image on his home page has not
    > been flipped. It says that it's not *just* a flipped negative,
    > meaning that more has been done to it besides just flipping it. No?


    Even if that were true, and I don't believe that it is, it doesn't
    negate the fact that he lied about the other things in the same
    paragraph.

    > Have I missed something?


    Yes.

    Three lies from the one paragraph quoted above. It's bad enough to
    flip a photo and claim it is real, but then to tell more lies to cover
    up his deception is disgustingly inappropriate. If you don't know what
    those lies are, go back to my original post in this thread.

    I don't see how anyone with a bit of common sense can be foolish
    enough to fall for some of the crap Rockwell spews, and to also argue
    in his defense. As the line goes, "Who's the more foolish. The fool,
    or the fool who follows him.".

    :)
     
    Bill, Dec 3, 2006
    #19
  20. Bill wrote:

    > Rockwell claims he has a left-handed prototype from Japan. But all
    > information I've found indicates no such prototype was ever made
    > available.
    >
    > I've been hoping for months that others would notice the same small
    > details that I have, but so far no one has mentioned them. So today I
    > will prove that Rockwell was just bulls#!tting readers who noticed the
    > flipped image on his main page.


    I think there are two reasons for flipping the image. First, such an
    image was needed for the composition of the webpage; he is looking
    through a telephoto lens at the text weblinks comprising his website.
    Secondly, in doing it, he shows his despiction (contempt) towards all
    of you.
     
    =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=, Dec 3, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    Q. for Ken Rockwell

    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    952
    Scott W
    Dec 5, 2006
  2. Annika1980

    ANNI's Tribute to Ken Rockwell !

    Annika1980, Dec 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    672
    Not Disclosed
    Dec 3, 2006
  3. Annika1980

    Ken Rockwell: Advice from The Master

    Annika1980, Dec 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    858
    John Turco
    Dec 5, 2006
  4. Cynicor

    Ken Rockwell

    Cynicor, Dec 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    2,298
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou
    Dec 4, 2006
  5. Yoshi

    Ken Rockwell

    Yoshi, Mar 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    402
    Neil Harrington
    Mar 29, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page