Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mort, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    >I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both the
    >Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever could
    >discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the thought of
    >going through all that processing for each and every image I shot at a
    >wedding.



    One of the greatest challenges in photography is making images of a
    traditional wedding that retain detail in the shadows (groom's dark
    suit) as well as in the bride's all-important white dress.

    In film days, it was essential to use low contrast film which offered
    the maximum dynamic range from a single shot.

    Similarly, with digital it is essential to choose a camera whose
    sensor offers the maximum dynamic range from a single shot. The best
    offer around 14 stops of dynamic range. But the JPEGs from all
    cameras offer 1-1.5 stops less. The only way to obtain every last
    tenth of a stop is to shoot RAW, expose the image with care and post
    process the RAW image to obtain the optimal amount of detail in the
    highlights and shadows.

    I know there are wedding photographers who don't bother with this and
    instead just shoot JPEGs. They are hacks and their technique (or lack
    of it) is not worthy of discussion by intelligent people.
    Anthony Polson, Dec 1, 2012
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:

    >But you guys haven't been able to show me an example
    >of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
    >superiority of image.



    If you aren't willing to make the small effort to find such
    comparisons on the web, and learn from them, why do you expect other
    people to do it for you?

    I think you are probably afraid of what you might find, and are too
    darn lazy to make even the smallest effort. Instead, you proclaim
    both your ignorance and your stubborn pride in your lack of knowledge,
    judgment and ability.
    Anthony Polson, Dec 1, 2012
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/30/2012 10:49 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    > news:50b91d06$0$10847$-secrets.com...
    >> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    >>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:301120121053428284%...
    >>>> In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >>>>>>> intuitive and
    >>>>>>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No real improvement?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
    >>>>> have
    >>>>> an
    >>>>> example?
    >>>>
    >>>> then you're doing something wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    >>>> recovering shadow detail. there are many others.
    >>>
    >>> I agree.
    >>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
    >> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.

    >
    > You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.
    >


    If you are happy with the results, fine. If you cannot see the
    difference, fine. I create images for my enjoyment and hate JPEG
    artifacts. In my workflow, RAW is better. If you prefer JPEG, so be it.
    Far be it for me to dictate your taste.

    If you have the need to get snippy about it, then you have other issues,
    which I will not get involved with. I only say what I do and why. Enjoy
    your images.

    Hey, many people are happy working in an sRGB color space. I am not.
    I frequently do my color adjustments using LAB, and will make 12 x 18
    images of a portion of the image. While you can also do color
    adjustments in the RGB color space, for me, it's easier in LAB. You
    obviously do not feel the need to do make the type of images I do. There
    is simply not enough information in a JPEG file. If I am wrong, and you
    care to share, I am all ears.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #43
  4. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/1/2012 12:41 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:301120122336432516%...
    >> In article <j6fus.520024$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
    >>>> ones,
    >>>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
    >>>
    >>> You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.

    >>
    >> except that jpeg is already destructive.
    >>
    >> you can edit non-destructively from that point on, but you can't undo
    >> what was done to make the jpeg.

    >
    > Interesting you said that - I stumbled upon a function of Elements that
    > sorta converted any JPG into a RAW file and allowed you to edit it the same
    > as any RAW image. Do you know what I mean?
    >

    Any missing information from the JPEG, that is attempted to be
    reconstructed is, of necessity, through some interpolation algorithm. By
    definition interpolation is a guess. That's like saying after converting
    to an sRGB color space, you can convert back to RGB, or ProPhotoRGB.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #44
  5. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/30/2012 10:58 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
    >> <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
    >>> an
    >>> example?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!
    >>
    >> It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
    >> camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
    >> every
    >> single pic I took...
    >>
    >> My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
    >> advantage to
    >> using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
    >> with the
    >> extra light range that RAW gives you.
    >>
    >> The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with
    >> the
    >> camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or
    >> something
    >> to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw
    >> can
    >> be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).
    >>
    >> Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
    >> over-expose
    >> digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you
    >> don't
    >> shoot raw, you can't do either.

    >
    > I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both the
    > Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever could
    > discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the thought of
    > going through all that processing for each and every image I shot at a
    > wedding. I do process all of the JPGs, but it is a lot easier than going
    > through all that RAW rigamarole.
    >

    Sounds like you are going through a lot of extra effort.
    In CS6, the development module in Lightroom and ACR are identical. IOW
    anything that tan be done in one program, can be done in another. For
    wedding photography, if your captures are spot on, you may get away with
    JPEG. But. Well... you have been previously informed.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #45
  6. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/1/2012 5:10 AM, Anthony Polson wrote:
    > "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    >> I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both the
    >> Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever could
    >> discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the thought of
    >> going through all that processing for each and every image I shot at a
    >> wedding.

    >
    >
    > One of the greatest challenges in photography is making images of a
    > traditional wedding that retain detail in the shadows (groom's dark
    > suit) as well as in the bride's all-important white dress.
    >
    > In film days, it was essential to use low contrast film which offered
    > the maximum dynamic range from a single shot.
    >
    > Similarly, with digital it is essential to choose a camera whose
    > sensor offers the maximum dynamic range from a single shot. The best
    > offer around 14 stops of dynamic range. But the JPEGs from all
    > cameras offer 1-1.5 stops less. The only way to obtain every last
    > tenth of a stop is to shoot RAW, expose the image with care and post
    > process the RAW image to obtain the optimal amount of detail in the
    > highlights and shadows.
    >
    > I know there are wedding photographers who don't bother with this and
    > instead just shoot JPEGs. They are hacks and their technique (or lack
    > of it) is not worthy of discussion by intelligent people.
    >

    Now we know why you are discussing it.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #46
  7. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/1/2012 12:56 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    > news:k9c06u$eii$...
    >>
    >> "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    >> news:CzAts.676216$A%4...
    >>>
    >>> "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:k94gvl$ih9$...
    >>>
    >>>> Even so, I find a good modern DSLR shooting RAW has just as much
    >>>> lattitude as color neg film by simply dialing down exposure a stop or so
    >>>> to take advantage of the lower noise. Obviously the exposure lattitude
    >>>> favours overexposure for neg film, and underexposure for digital (and
    >>>> slide film)
    >>>
    >>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it.

    >>
    >> Your choice, those of us that did film developing find it FAR easier :)
    >>
    >>
    >>> Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real
    >>> improvement over simpler JPEG.

    >>
    >> Big improvement, like 12-14 bits Vs 8bit files for a start! Jpeg ALWAYS
    >> throws away dynamic range. Just like I don't throw away my film negatives,
    >> I don't throw away the digital "negatives" either. What you choose to do
    >> is is up to you of course.

    >
    > OK, here's the deal. When you shoot RAW, the file is always proprietary for
    > some unknown reason. Every damn camera and every damn maker has to have his
    > own RAW codec. So that means that every single picture I take has to be
    > processed, or converted, to some standard file before I can even begin
    > showing anyone else the proofs. That sucks.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
    >
    >

    which is all done in a few clicks with LR.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #47
  8. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/1/2012 8:47 AM, Savageduck wrote:



    > continue doing things the way he currntly proceeding, but don't tell us
    > that he is able to convert JPEG to RAW, and his JPEG images are better
    > than RAW, because he fines a RAW workflow too bothersome and time
    > consuming. Those of us with a good RAW workflow know better.
    >


    No wonder he uses JPEG He doesn't want to pay the fine imposed on a RAW
    workflows?

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #48
  9. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > But you can't print a RAW image, you have to convert it to 8 bit colour
    > anyway.


    wrong. you can easily print a raw image and you don't have to convert
    it to a jpeg to do it. you can use 16 bit printing if your system
    supports it.

    > Your assumption is that you are better at converting to JPEG
    > than the camera is. That may be the case, but very often, obviously also
    > depending on the camera, the camera is very good as well.


    if you don't make any adjustments, the camera might be as good as a
    default raw conversion on the computer, but once you start adjusting
    things, working with raw will produce better results.
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #49
  10. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David J.
    Littleboy <> wrote:

    > If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
    > In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
    > light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
    > the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
    > light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
    > confuse any AWB system.)


    true, but there are ways to tell the difference.

    for instance, if the light was pink then certain colours won't be
    possible in a scene, and if you see any of those colours anywhere in
    the scene, then you know the light is not pink.

    there is a talk on how awb works somewhere on youtube that goes into
    great detail about it, but i can't find the link.
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #50
  11. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    > My point is that some cameras have very good JPEG engines, i.e. produce
    > very good JPEG output which needs no further optimisation in many cases.
    > Not in all cases obviously, which is why you should shoot RAW+JPEG.


    *if* you got everything right in the camera then you may not notice a
    difference. buy a lottery ticket, while you're at it. you're lucky.

    if you didn't get it perfect in the camera (which most people don't),
    then you'll have to fix it later, even if it's minor, and that's where
    the difference between raw & jpeg matters.
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #51
  12. Mort

    David Taylor Guest

    On 01/12/2012 15:32, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    []
    > I keep asking to see an example of the superiority of RAW. Well, maybe it is
    > not all that obvious in a normal, well-shot image. But would the most
    > critical test be a shot of a smooth gradation from black to white test
    > chart? Anyone have one? RAW should look smoother, JPG should look like it is
    > in steps.
    >
    > Right?
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    So take something which is three or four stops under-exposed, and try to
    recover by increasing the gain of the JPEG image. You should see the
    quantisation steps then. I try to get the exposure right in the camera...
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Dec 1, 2012
    #52
  13. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/1/2012 10:45 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message news:...
    > On 2012.11.30 22:58 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >
    >> I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use
    >> both the Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But
    >> if I ever could discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder
    >> at the thought of going through all that processing for each and
    >> every image I shot at a wedding. I do process all of the JPGs, but it
    >> is a lot easier than going through all that RAW rigamarole.

    >
    > What rigamarole? You open the raw. Get a raw import screen. Adjust
    > (and for most photos you can "finish" the look right there with 2
    > controls: exposure and black point). "Accept" the changes and you're in
    > your editor for cropping, re-sizing. Done.
    >
    > Better, you can apply the same changes in 1 go to a lot of photos at
    > once. For example, if you took 25 photos in the same lighting
    > conditions but all of them are a little underexposed, need the
    > blackpoint pushed and the saturation boosted a little. "Open" the
    > bunch, select all, make the adjustments (using one as an example), and
    > the changes apply to all the images which are then opened in the editor.
    > (The above is using photoshop).
    >
    > A whole bunch of time saved. Using Lightroom (or aperture or other 3rd
    > party programs) - as a wedding photographer is more likely to use, it
    > would be even easier. Faster.
    >
    > Reward: Time saved, and a consistent look across the set.
    >
    > What rigamarole?
    >
    > Gary, believe me, all the issues you raise were solved a long time ago
    > making raw capture an immense payoff in processing time saved and image
    > quality improved well beyond what in-camera JPEG could ever do.
    >
    > OK OK, you have converted me - maybe. But obviously there is on extra step or set of steps to go through for RAW before you get to Photoshop.
    >
    > Just one teensy simple question - shooting in RAW (and I know I can shoot in RAW + JPG) but in the RAW exposure, what is the difference in the file between shooting with the wrong WB and the correct one? Do you not still have to shoot as good an exposure as humanly possible and get the WB correct? I know, for example, that if I screw up the WB in JPG I can get so far out that it is uncorrectable because the info is just not there to adjust. But how far can you take this with RAW?
    >

    You have LR. Simply correct the WB for all affected images.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #53
  14. On 12/1/2012 4:11 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:>

    > If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work. In principle. It can't
    > tell the difference between a pink shirt in white light and a white shirt in pink light. (More
    > generally, it can't know what the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what
    > the light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will confuse any AWB system.)
    >
    >


    I agree, in principle.

    But ... what about in practice? I have Canon 30D and 7D cameras. I
    shoot exclusively raw, don't save JPEGs. But CR2 format saves the
    info the camera uses for auto white balance, and I have DPP set to
    show that as default. Its damn good ... I would say very excellent.
    ACR also correctly reads this info. I have no idea how it does
    it. I can photograph a white flower in the shade surrounded by
    nothing but green leaves, so the light must be rather green ...
    and the flower comes out looking sort of mild bluish ... just like it should
    in the shade.

    Usually even in ordinary landscape pictures, or people pictures, shot
    in direct sunlight, auto looks better than setting to Daylight, either
    in DPP or ACR.

    So I use auto and adjust to taste starting from there.

    And yes, I have photos where camera .jpg is not adequate. The usual
    reason is that the dynamic range is too large, caused by shooting
    a subject in the shade with backlit clouds against a blue sky in the
    background. Sometimes this needs HDR, but not usually. Usually it
    needs setting the camera JPEg settings to the lowest possible
    contrast and careful manual exposure looking at the histogram
    to get just the tiniest bit
    of cloud silver lining into saturation (since "recover" in ACR
    will fix this up.) There almost always will be enough signal to
    noise in the shadow to fix everything up with skilled use of
    Highlight/Shadow and/or unsharp mask in Photoshop.

    JPEG is not adequate since it generates "toes" and "shoulders"
    for the image, and then reduces to 8 bits. The precision
    of the data in the toe and shoulder is then quite inadequate
    to avoid banding. Of course if JPEG were floating point then
    the only problem would be figuring out exactly how to
    undo the toe and shoulder. Even that's not easy.

    Wedding photographers don't have this problem since even
    outdoors they can use fill flash. This is not possible for landscapes.

    I've had pro photogs look at some of my prints and say "how did you do that?".
    When I say "the same way you get to Carnegie Hall, just practice
    highlight/shadow and unsharp mask instead of violin" they laugh and
    say "thank God I'm not a landscape pro".

    Somebody wanted such a picture ... here's one.

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/5310360/IMG_8081g.jpg

    In the original 16 bit ACR image sent to PS itself there is almost
    nothing visible in the shade areas. What you see in this image is what
    I saw when taking the picture. Or rather what I saw 45 seconds earlier
    in the bright salmon area in the center: the picture taken then was the first
    I took and while the shadow and nearby sunlit areas are OK in that image,
    the sky is 90% blown out. The lighting changed in that 45 seconds I needed
    to go to manual exposure, so I
    fixed this image to agree to the older one; its colorimetrically
    accurate! (For a while I thought I'd need to make a composite image,
    but it turned out that that was not necessary.)I should add that this
    image is about as extreme a Photoshop job as I have ever done. If you pixel peep
    you will note the unsharp mask artifacts and a lot of noise in the deep shadows.

    Doug McDonald








    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Dec 1, 2012
    #54
  15. Doug McDonald, Dec 1, 2012
    #55
  16. Mort

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <xc4us.439565$4>,
    says...
    >
    > "Anthony Polson" <> wrote in message
    > news:-September.org...
    > > "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    > >> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real

    > > intuitive and
    > >> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

    > >
    > >
    > > No real improvement?
    > >
    > > Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of
    > > dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

    >
    > I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an
    > example?
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    Gary, here's a set of shots I took with a 30D a while back, all shot raw
    using different EVs.
    <http://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723@N00/sets/72157607585960643/>.
    Note that there is a recognizable image even at EV 400,000. That's
    _one_ think you can't do with JPEG.
    J. Clarke, Dec 1, 2012
    #56
  17. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > My experience is that with some cameras, if you set them up properly,
    > you end up using 60-90% of the JPEGs.
    >
    > In the past I would start processing all RAWs, then when comparing them
    > to the camera JPEGs would notice that the converted RAWs in many cases
    > were not better than the JPEGs, despite all effort put into converting
    > the RAWs, optimising them, choosing the best possible combination of
    > parameters etc.
    >
    > At 1 or 2 minutes per RAW conversion,


    what in the world are you doing?

    processing raw takes no more time than for a jpeg. the difference is
    you get better results with raw.

    > if you process 200 RAW images,
    > it's 3-6 hours of work to process 200 images. It's a tedious time,
    > because you are in front of a computer screen playing around with the
    > sliders, wondering how much you should increase or decrease this or that
    > parameter.


    worst case, click 'auto' which will get you about what you'd get
    compared to jpeg out of the camera, and with no additional time.
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #57
  18. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <EGxus.800515$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > I didn't say that I was "employing " a procedure of going from JPG to RAW
    > and back again. I said that I noticed one time that there was such a
    > function, isn't that interesting.


    there was *never* a function to go back to raw. it's not possible.

    there is a function to process jpegs in camera raw, the same way you
    would process raws, however.
    nospam, Dec 2, 2012
    #58
  19. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <wNxus.482787$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > I think you are the only intelligent one here. As you have pointed out, it
    > has to go back to 8 bit before it becomes a useful image anyway, in which
    > case it would be indistinguishable from th RAW processed image.


    it does not have to go to 8 bit, ever.

    > Perhaps a good analogy would be in the film days advocating always shooting
    > color negative because of the increased latitude you have. Most wedding guys
    > did that of course. But I sometimes shot slides on a vacation and had no
    > problem with exposure if I knew my camera, and to tell me I was crazy not to
    > shoot negative and have it processed to a slide would be the equivalent
    > argument.


    not a good analogy at all.

    a better one would be shooting standard negative film versus shooting
    polaroid and making copies of the prints, which is all you can do since
    there is no negative with polaroid.
    nospam, Dec 2, 2012
    #59
  20. Mort

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:23:26 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    >news:CCDF9BFB.93F73%...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 11/30/12 11:52 PM, in article rWgus.871386$4, "Gary
    >> Eickmeier" <> wrote:

    >
    >>> You're kidding, right? I am ignorant, but you are shooting digital 6
    >>> stops
    >>> off?
    >>>
    >>> Gary Eickmeier
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> And *you* have never misread a meter? Never accidently set the shutter
    >> speed
    >> incorrectly? The aperture always correct? Forgot to set the correct ISO?
    >>
    >> Oh, WAIT: I forgot that doesn't happen when shooting in auto-eveything
    >> mode

    >
    >We're talking digital here. You see your results as soon as you press the
    >button.
    >
    >Gary Eickmeier
    >

    Actually, you don't. You see an approximation of the shot as
    displayed by the camera, but that is not necessarily the way the shot
    will look. Especially, if one shoots RAW.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Dec 2, 2012
    #60
    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. Pat McGroyn

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Pat McGroyn, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    253
    PeterN
    Nov 27, 2012
  2. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    223
    Trevor
    Nov 26, 2012
  3. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    230
    Whisky-dave
    Nov 26, 2012
  4. RichA

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    RichA, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    198
    Anthony Polson
    Nov 25, 2012
  5. Tim Conway

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Tim Conway, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    220
    Tim Conway
    Nov 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page