RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Denny B, Oct 29, 2006.

  1. Denny B

    Denny B Guest

    Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    you did not train and discipline yourself
    to understand light metering and no matter
    how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    you never know what you are looking at, is
    what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    version.
    I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.

    I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    there is conversion in the camera program )

    Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    is not what you see.
    Every picture I take I do not want to display
    in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.

    Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
    do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
    is only good enough after it has been doctored
    using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
    other doctoring software.

    Your opinions are awaited.

    Thanks in advance
    Denny B
    Denny B, Oct 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:36:59 GMT, Denny B <> wrote:


    >Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
    >do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
    >is only good enough after it has been doctored
    >using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
    >other doctoring software.



    What is reality?

    But hey, be a purist if it makes you happy.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Denny B

    John Bean Guest

    On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:36:59 GMT, Denny B <>
    wrote:

    >I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    >never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.


    Your choice. My choice differs.

    >Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    >is not what you see.


    So I guess you never made prints? Prints are
    second-generation whether film or digital and involve
    external processing of some sort.

    >Every picture I take I do not want to display
    >in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    >prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.


    So... how does your camera camera produce prints without
    external processing? If processing is needed, what
    difference does it make whether the original was raw or a
    JPEG?

    >Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
    >do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
    >is only good enough after it has been doctored
    >using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
    >other doctoring software.


    Hm. I really don't know what you're asking here, you seem to
    be suggesting that all raw images are in some way inferior.
    Each to his own I suppose.


    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Oct 29, 2006
    #3
  4. Denny B

    All_Thumbs Guest

    "Denny B" <> wrote in message
    news:vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82...
    > Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    > you did not train and discipline yourself
    > to understand light metering and no matter
    > how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    > always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    > you never know what you are looking at, is
    > what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    > version.
    > I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    > never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >
    > I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    > just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    > there is conversion in the camera program )
    >
    > Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    > is not what you see.
    > Every picture I take I do not want to display
    > in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    > prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
    >
    > Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
    > do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
    > is only good enough after it has been doctored
    > using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
    > other doctoring software.
    >
    > Your opinions are awaited.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    > Denny B


    Beliefs are stronger than facts.
    All_Thumbs, Oct 29, 2006
    #4
  5. Denny B

    frederick Guest

    Denny B wrote:
    > Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    > you did not train and discipline yourself
    > to understand light metering and no matter
    > how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    > always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    > you never know what you are looking at, is
    > what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    > version.
    > I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    > never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >
    > I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    > just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    > there is conversion in the camera program )
    >
    > Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    > is not what you see.
    > Every picture I take I do not want to display
    > in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    > prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
    >
    > Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
    > do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
    > is only good enough after it has been doctored
    > using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
    > other doctoring software.
    >
    > Your opinions are awaited.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    > Denny B

    You can "doctor" ex-camera jpegs with PSP or PS just the same.
    And quite contrary to your understanding, using RAW gives you far better
    latitude to adjust white balance and exposure to as accurately as
    possible reproduce what your eyes saw.
    Is it cheating? Yes it is - just like using a light meter is cheating.
    frederick, Oct 29, 2006
    #5
  6. Denny B

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    Denny B <> wrote:

    > Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    > you did not train and discipline yourself
    > to understand light metering and no matter
    > how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    > always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    > you never know what you are looking at, is
    > what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    > version.
    > I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    > never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.

    [..]

    > Your opinions are awaited.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    > Denny B


    I think you are missing the point of using RAW files. These are merely
    the equivalent of using negatives in film photography. Working with JPGs
    and TIFFs (although not so much with TIFFs), is like working from a
    print. Every time you adjust a JPG or TIFF, you will degrade the
    quality, just like reproducing a print to change its attributes - of
    course you can always go back to an original file, but this will always
    have whatever exposure settings were applied at the time the file was
    created - like getting a set of prints back from a photo developer. If
    they have a colour cast, they will always have a colour cast. If they
    were over exposed onto print, they will always be over exposed. You can
    adjust to some extent, but it will always be destructive.

    Likewise, so will JPGs and TIFFs (expect you can never recover from any
    defects), if a camera applies the wrong white balance, then you can only
    destructively compensate for it.

    Using a RAW file is like working from your own negatives. You have the
    choice to apply white balance, exposure, sharpening, or levels
    adjustment etc. without being destructive to the original image. You can
    control how the photo turns out, just like working in your own darkroom.

    I have only used RAW myself for a few weeks, but already I can see the
    advantages. You get much better dynamic range to work with, and you can
    adjust levels and colours without losing any detail. In fact it is much
    nearer to working with film than I thought it would be.

    You don't have to do any more messing around in Photoshop (I actually
    use Apple Aperture myself, which is even less destructive) than before.
    However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
    as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
    exposure for the final image gives much better detail.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
    Andy Hewitt, Oct 30, 2006
    #6
  7. Denny B

    Rod Williams Guest

    Denny B wrote:
    > Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    > you did not train and discipline yourself
    > to understand light metering and no matter
    > how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    > always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    > you never know what you are looking at, is
    > what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    > version.
    > I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    > never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >
    > I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    > just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    > there is conversion in the camera program )
    >
    > Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    > is not what you see.
    > Every picture I take I do not want to display
    > in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    > prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
    >
    > Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
    > do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
    > is only good enough after it has been doctored
    > using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
    > other doctoring software.
    >
    > Your opinions are awaited.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    > Denny B


    A great picture is a great picture and personally I don't care how it
    was achieved. Pro Photographers had/have lab techniques, like dodging,
    could control exposure, etc. to make their pictures better. We just have
    many more tools now.
    Rod Williams, Oct 30, 2006
    #7
  8. Denny B

    All_Thumbs Guest

    "Denny B" <> wrote in message
    news:vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82...
    > Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    > you did not train and discipline yourself
    > to understand light metering and no matter
    > how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    > always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    > you never know what you are looking at, is
    > what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    > version.
    > I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    > never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >
    > I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    > just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    > there is conversion in the camera program )
    >
    > Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    > is not what you see.
    > Every picture I take I do not want to display
    > in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    > prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
    >
    > Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
    > do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
    > is only good enough after it has been doctored
    > using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
    > other doctoring software.
    >
    > Your opinions are awaited.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    > Denny B


    Wrong thinking.

    An image shot in raw mode is likely to be a more accurate representation of
    what the lens saw than what a jpeg image presents.

    A good photograph is much more than just a technical copy of what the lens
    sees. The brain is very fickle, what we think we see is not the same as what
    the lens sees.

    I always shoot in raw.
    All_Thumbs, Oct 30, 2006
    #8
  9. Denny B

    All_Thumbs Guest

    "Andy Hewitt" <> wrote in message
    news:1hnzuqm.dk36gw9fljpqN%...
    > Denny B <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > You don't have to do any more messing around in Photoshop (I actually
    > use Apple Aperture myself, which is even less destructive) than before.
    > However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
    > as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
    > exposure for the final image gives much better detail.
    >
    > --
    > Andy Hewitt
    > <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>


    "However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW, as
    you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in exposure for
    the final image gives much better detail."

    You might want to check on that more closely.
    All_Thumbs, Oct 30, 2006
    #9
  10. In article <vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82>, Denny B <>
    wrote:

    > Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    > you did not train and discipline yourself
    > to understand light metering and no matter
    > how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    > always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    > you never know what you are looking at, is
    > what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    > version.
    > I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    > never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >
    > I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    > just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    > there is conversion in the camera program )
    >
    > Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    > is not what you see.
    > Every picture I take I do not want to display
    > in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    > prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.


    I am no longer in the business of creating commercial images - I just
    do it for the love of photography. But I still shoot RAW about 99.9% of
    the time.

    It's not cheating. You get about a stop more dynamic range and have
    more control over the final image. It's like sending your film to some
    amateur lab for processing or doing it yourself.

    As when I did photography for a living, I want the best quality
    possible. Can't do that shooting JPG.
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 30, 2006
    #10
  11. Denny B

    just bob Guest

    "All_Thumbs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Andy Hewitt" <> wrote in message
    > news:1hnzuqm.dk36gw9fljpqN%...
    >> Denny B <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> You don't have to do any more messing around in Photoshop (I actually
    >> use Apple Aperture myself, which is even less destructive) than before.
    >> However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
    >> as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
    >> exposure for the final image gives much better detail.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Andy Hewitt
    >> <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

    >
    > "However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
    > as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
    > exposure for the final image gives much better detail."
    >
    > You might want to check on that more closely.



    Yes. I shoot about 1/3 over and let ACR recover the highlights. Under
    exposing on my 1D is an invitation to noise.
    just bob, Oct 30, 2006
    #11
  12. Denny B

    Denny B Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > In article <vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82>, Denny B <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    >> you did not train and discipline yourself
    >> to understand light metering and no matter
    >> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    >> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    >> you never know what you are looking at, is
    >> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    >> version.
    >> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    >> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >>
    >> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    >> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    >> there is conversion in the camera program )
    >>
    >> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    >> is not what you see.
    >> Every picture I take I do not want to display
    >> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    >> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.

    >
    > I am no longer in the business of creating commercial images - I just
    > do it for the love of photography. But I still shoot RAW about 99.9% of
    > the time.
    >
    > It's not cheating. You get about a stop more dynamic range and have
    > more control over the final image. It's like sending your film to some
    > amateur lab for processing or doing it yourself.
    >
    > As when I did photography for a living, I want the best quality
    > possible. Can't do that shooting JPG.


    Would you say that most people who take pictures
    take them in RAW? I think only a small fraction do.

    Denny B
    Denny B, Oct 30, 2006
    #12
  13. Denny B

    All_Thumbs Guest

    "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote in message
    news:45454d9e$0$88632$...
    >
    > "All_Thumbs" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "Andy Hewitt" <> wrote in message
    >> news:1hnzuqm.dk36gw9fljpqN%...
    >>> Denny B <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You don't have to do any more messing around in Photoshop (I actually
    >>> use Apple Aperture myself, which is even less destructive) than before.
    >>> However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
    >>> as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
    >>> exposure for the final image gives much better detail.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Andy Hewitt
    >>> <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

    >>
    >> "However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
    >> as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
    >> exposure for the final image gives much better detail."
    >>
    >> You might want to check on that more closely.

    >
    >
    > Yes. I shoot about 1/3 over and let ACR recover the highlights. Under
    > exposing on my 1D is an invitation to noise.
    >

    Exactly my point.
    All_Thumbs, Oct 30, 2006
    #13
  14. Denny B

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    All_Thumbs <> wrote:

    > "Andy Hewitt" <> wrote in message
    > news:1hnzuqm.dk36gw9fljpqN%...
    > > Denny B <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > You don't have to do any more messing around in Photoshop (I actually
    > > use Apple Aperture myself, which is even less destructive) than before.
    > > However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
    > > as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
    > > exposure for the final image gives much better detail.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Andy Hewitt
    > > <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

    >
    > "However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW, as
    > you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in exposure for
    > the final image gives much better detail."
    >
    > You might want to check on that more closely.


    Beg your pardon (although quoting my misquote twice was rather
    unnecessary). I was of course thinking of the 'expose right' technique,
    and got the exposure mixed up with the actual viewing of a RAW files
    (which 'appears' under exposed). You do of course use the histogram to
    nudge the data to the right edge (checking carefully that you don't blow
    the highlights).

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
    Andy Hewitt, Oct 30, 2006
    #14
  15. Denny B

    just bob Guest

    "Denny B" <> wrote in message
    news:B8c1h.35387$H7.31842@edtnps82...
    > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >> In article <vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82>, Denny B <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    >>> you did not train and discipline yourself
    >>> to understand light metering and no matter
    >>> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    >>> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    >>> you never know what you are looking at, is
    >>> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    >>> version.
    >>> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    >>> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >>>
    >>> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    >>> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    >>> there is conversion in the camera program )
    >>>
    >>> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    >>> is not what you see.
    >>> Every picture I take I do not want to display
    >>> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    >>> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.

    >>
    >> I am no longer in the business of creating commercial images - I just
    >> do it for the love of photography. But I still shoot RAW about 99.9% of
    >> the time.
    >>
    >> It's not cheating. You get about a stop more dynamic range and have
    >> more control over the final image. It's like sending your film to some
    >> amateur lab for processing or doing it yourself.
    >>
    >> As when I did photography for a living, I want the best quality
    >> possible. Can't do that shooting JPG.

    >
    > Would you say that most people who take pictures
    > take them in RAW? I think only a small fraction do.


    Yes, only a small fraction care. But the ones that do care, care.
    just bob, Oct 30, 2006
    #15
  16. Denny B

    Jim Guest

    "Denny B" <> wrote in message
    news:vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82...
    > Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    > you did not train and discipline yourself
    > to understand light metering and no matter
    > how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    > always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    > you never know what you are looking at, is
    > what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    > version.
    > I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    > never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >

    All you are doing is letting the camera convert from the raw output of the
    sensor to JPEG. Personally, I prefer to let my computer perform the
    conversion because it has far more processing power than any digital
    computer.

    Jim
    Jim, Oct 30, 2006
    #16
  17. Denny B

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Denny B" <> wrote in message
    news:vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82...
    > Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    > you did not train and discipline yourself
    > to understand light metering and no matter
    > how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    > always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    > you never know what you are looking at, is
    > what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    > version.
    > I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    > never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >
    > I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    > just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    > there is conversion in the camera program )
    >
    > Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    > is not what you see.
    > Every picture I take I do not want to display
    > in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    > prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
    >
    > Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
    > do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
    > is only good enough after it has been doctored
    > using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
    > other doctoring software.
    >
    > Your opinions are awaited.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    > Denny B


    RAW gives you extra dynamic range that might represent the original subject
    truer and it often allows a bit extra resolution to be obtained. It is not
    cheating, but is simply a more direct representation to the camera's
    capability. In a sense, it is like using a higher quality film and
    developing it yourself with careful attention. It does require the extra
    effort in post processing that you may or may not wish to invest time in.
    Many photogs do spend time getting the shot right, and edit little. They use
    RAW simply for the previously mentioned benefits.
    John
    JohnR66, Oct 30, 2006
    #17
  18. Denny B

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Denny B wrote:
    >
    > I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    > never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >
    > I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    > just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    > there is conversion in the camera program )


    Denny, could you provide a link to some of your untouched photos ...
    always a treat to see photos from people who get everything right
    in-camera ...

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 30, 2006
    #18
  19. Denny B

    frederick Guest

    just bob wrote:
    > "Denny B" <> wrote in message
    > news:B8c1h.35387$H7.31842@edtnps82...
    >> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >>> In article <vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82>, Denny B <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
    >>>> you did not train and discipline yourself
    >>>> to understand light metering and no matter
    >>>> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
    >>>> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
    >>>> you never know what you are looking at, is
    >>>> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
    >>>> version.
    >>>> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
    >>>> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
    >>>> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
    >>>> there is conversion in the camera program )
    >>>>
    >>>> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
    >>>> is not what you see.
    >>>> Every picture I take I do not want to display
    >>>> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
    >>>> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
    >>> I am no longer in the business of creating commercial images - I just
    >>> do it for the love of photography. But I still shoot RAW about 99.9% of
    >>> the time.
    >>>
    >>> It's not cheating. You get about a stop more dynamic range and have
    >>> more control over the final image. It's like sending your film to some
    >>> amateur lab for processing or doing it yourself.
    >>>
    >>> As when I did photography for a living, I want the best quality
    >>> possible. Can't do that shooting JPG.

    >> Would you say that most people who take pictures
    >> take them in RAW? I think only a small fraction do.

    >
    > Yes, only a small fraction care. But the ones that do care, care.
    >
    >

    D70 / 70s users should care. In-camera jpeg rendering isn't the best
    even on fine/large, and in-camera noise reduction is pretty poor.
    frederick, Oct 30, 2006
    #19
  20. Denny B

    bmoag Guest

    Whirr: the sound of Ansel Adams spinning in his grave.
    bmoag, Oct 30, 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. qwerty
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    7,177
    Sam Lowry
    Jan 7, 2004
  2. Ryan Bygland
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    971
    MarkĀ²
    Jan 14, 2007
  3. Ed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    539
    Toolman Tim
    Mar 2, 2006
  4. M-M

    Photoshop is NOT cheating!

    M-M, Mar 12, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    684
    C J Campbell
    Mar 14, 2007
  5. Braindumps are not cheating!

    , Aug 23, 2004, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,066
Loading...

Share This Page