Where do you draw the line?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Unclaimed Mysteries, May 23, 2005.

  1. With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
    viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
    "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
    dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
    and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
    the image until ...

    .... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
    image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
    merely raw material?

    Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?


    Corry
    --
    It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

    Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Stacey Guest

    Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:

    >
    > Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    >


    I draw the line when it no longer represents what was in front of the camera
    in the instant the shutter was open.

    As soon as the clone brush comes out to do anything more than clean up some
    dust etc, it's a goner as far as being a "photograph". I've done some
    imaging like this but I don't call them photographs when trees, garbage,
    phone lines etc are removed.. What I've created isn't a realistic
    representation of what was seen through the finder.

    Soften, sharpen, clean up, dodge/burn, contrast and exposure tweaks etc are
    just normal photography tools. As far as the distortion/swirl tools, I
    never saw any use for them in my work, YMMV..
    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, May 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> wrote:
    : With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
    : viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
    : "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
    : dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
    : and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
    : the image until ...

    : ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
    : image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
    : merely raw material?

    : Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?

    I generally don't worry about the distinction. But my personal take is
    that there was always a bit of blurring between "photograph" and "Graphic
    Art". But with the advent of digital photography, the blur has gotten
    wider.

    A photo that has had some color/brightness/contrast adjustment to bring
    the captured image more in tune with what the eye saw (or wished it saw)
    is still photography. Also changing the photo to another color format,
    such as B&W or Sepia can still be photography. But when we start making
    composite photos (layering multiple images) or replacing colors, we are
    getting into the blur. Of course when non photographic elements, such as
    using a paint brush to add color or adding text, we are fully in the range
    of Graphic Art. Of course the lines are very fluid. Sometimes just adding
    some text (like the photographers name for copyright purposes) to a photo
    does not make it less of a photo. I even count stitching together a
    panorama or compositing of a group photo out of a series of individual
    photos to still be a photo. While some special effect images, like making
    a ghost with a long exposure and a moving subject, can be as much Art as
    photo even tho the Art is coming directly out of the camera that way.

    So, as I started out, I generally don't try to delineate which is which.
    As with many pursuits that involve the interpretation by the viewer, I
    know what I like. Or in this case, I know what _I_ would think is the
    divide, but it is more a feeling than a rule. :)

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
     
    Randy Berbaum, May 23, 2005
    #3
  4. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Rick Guest

    > Unclaimed Mysteries
    > <> wrote:
    > : With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
    > : viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
    > : "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
    > : dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
    > : and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
    > : the image until ...
    >
    > : ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
    > : image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
    > : merely raw material?
    >
    > : Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?


    It's not all that complicated. A photograph is what a camera
    produces. Graphic art is what a graphic artist produces.

    I suppose things do get a little blurry when it comes to camera
    hardware and firmware designers, but past that point it's all
    graphic art.

    BTW this isn't a new question with digital photography or
    editing software... Analog is (or was) just a higher resolution
    version of digital, i.e. film grain is the effective resolution of
    analog photography, as opposed to pixel count in digital.
     
    Rick, May 23, 2005
    #4
  5. Stacey wrote:
    > Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    >>

    >
    >
    > I draw the line when it no longer represents what was in front of the camera
    > in the instant the shutter was open.
    >
    > As soon as the clone brush comes out to do anything more than clean up some
    > dust etc, it's a goner as far as being a "photograph". I've done some
    > imaging like this but I don't call them photographs when trees, garbage,
    > phone lines etc are removed.. What I've created isn't a realistic
    > representation of what was seen through the finder.
    >
    > Soften, sharpen, clean up, dodge/burn, contrast and exposure tweaks etc are
    > just normal photography tools.


    Thanks. Interesting take. You insist on the fidelity of the recording of
    the actual objects in the field of view, over the fidelity of their
    outline or colors formed upon the film/sensor. Kind of a journalistic
    perspective, no?

    > As far as the distortion/swirl tools, I
    > never saw any use for them in my work, YMMV..


    So I guess this sensitive, interpretive portrait of Microsoft Chairman
    Steve Ballmer is out of line, eh?

    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/images/redmondian.jpg

    Spoilsport.

    --
    It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 23, 2005
    #5
  6. Unclaimed Mysteries

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Mon, 23 May 2005 03:28:53 -0400, Stacey <> wrote:

    >Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    >>

    >
    >I draw the line when it no longer represents what was in front of the camera
    >in the instant the shutter was open.
    >
    > As soon as the clone brush comes out to do anything more than clean up some
    >dust etc, it's a goner as far as being a "photograph". I've done some
    >imaging like this but I don't call them photographs when trees, garbage,
    >phone lines etc are removed.. What I've created isn't a realistic
    >representation of what was seen through the finder.



    Would it have been acceptable to pick up
    the garbage first, before snapping the
    shutter?

    Apropros phone lines, saw this yesterday
    and didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

    <http://www.crumbmuseum.com/history1.html>


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe bustin, May 23, 2005
    #6
  7. >>But at what point is an image still a photograph and not a graphic
    >>artwork using a photograph as merely raw material?

    I'm not sure how useful it is to draw a line. What's in a name? A rose by
    any other name, etc.

    To my mind, anything which started off as a photographic image is, to some
    extent, still a photograph whatever embelishments you choose to add.

    I guess we've all seen those amusement arcade booths which produce a "sketch
    portrait". By my definition the output from those is still a photograph
    because the image was produced photographically.

    What if I drew some work of art (unlikely, given my lack of talents) and
    then grafted the photographic image of someone's face into a small part of
    it? Is that a photograph? I'm not sure that I care, but maybe it isn't.
    Perhaps I have to modify my previous definition to say that the main image
    must have been photographically produced.

    Keith
     
    Keith Sheppard, May 23, 2005
    #7
  8. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Neil Pugh Guest

    In message <sdfke.6129$>,
    Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> writes
    >With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
    >viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
    >"post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could
    >only dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes,
    >mashups, and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and
    >mutilate the image until ...
    >
    >... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
    >image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph
    >as merely raw material?
    >
    >Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    >
    >
    >Corry


    I'll generally take things out of photographs quite happily,
    particularly things that wouldn't have been there in the first place if
    I'd been able to exclude them by using a different viewpoint or lens, or
    times when I should have had my brain in gear before pressing the
    button!

    I rarely add things into photographs, occasionally interesting sky &
    clouds when I have a washed out, blank sky.

    I think many of the original old masters you mention above did a lot of
    modifications in their black and white darkrooms, it was only with the
    advent of colour (chemical) photography that we generally lost the
    ability to manipulate the image, now that we have digital we've got that
    ability back again.

    Does anybody remember the sheer unadulterated hell of trying to get a
    Cibachrome print from a slide in an amateur darkroom? Huge waterbaths,
    trying to maintain the temperature to within a degree or two,
    condensation and sweat trickling down every surface, and then the print
    had such weird colour casts that the only place for it was the bin. Not
    to mention the cost. Happy days.
    --
    Neil Pugh
     
    Neil Pugh, May 23, 2005
    #8
  9. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Guest

    No line required, I just want the TRUTH!

    Maybe I'm odd, but the process is *important*. So if you lay face down
    in the icy mud for hours, over many days, waiting for that grizzly bear
    to walk in front of that sunset-lit tree and you finally nailed it,
    then say so. I respect those sort of images greatly.

    But if you just photoshop a couple of images together, and then instead
    of saying that, you PRETEND that you did all of the above in order to
    gain some sort of twisted respect... then you're going to *hell*, I
    reckon.. (O;

    Sadly I see this type of behaviour all too often on some photography
    sites, and there are some very notable examples where it all ended in
    tears...

    (O;

    Don't get me wrong, I'll photoshop it with the best of them, but I
    don't hide it. And I have no problem with
    color/saturation/contrast/dust removal, and even a bit of garbage
    removal without admission. But anything much beyond that (eg removing
    telephone or power lines) and I think you should come clean. Unless it
    so bleedingly obvious that no sane person could believe it...
     
    , May 23, 2005
    #9
  10. On Mon, 23 May 2005 07:01:44 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    >


    For those that care about the distinction between a "photograph" and
    "generated images"/"photographic art" (or whatever it might be called), I'd
    broadly agree with Stacey; if the image still basically represents the
    scene as I did/could have seen it, it's still a photograph.

    Panoramic stitching is fine (it's what we would have seen if we let out
    eyes roam or turn our heads); layering of multiple exposures (e.g. of a
    sunset) is fine (it "mimics" the eye/brain's better ability to adjust
    exposure "on the fly"). A _little_ touching up (e.g. dust/dirt etc.) I
    would still be happy calling a photograph.

    I'd probably not be too unhappy about removing a powerline (I can think of
    it as an extended smear of dirt). However removing "bags of rubbish" or
    the pylons that hold up a powerline I think crosses the line, since you're
    having to "invent" much more of the image. (I'd probably call this a
    "Retouched photograph").

    Starting to use two or more photographs (or other image sources) to make
    composites (putting a person in a scene they never were in; adding an
    interesting looking tree to an otherwise "plain" landscape) are all firmly
    into the "photographic art" or "generated image" categories.

    I'm not saying I've anything _against_ doing any of these things; just
    where I'd start using different names (off the top of my head; probably not
    exhaustive):

    Photograph (basically exposure tweaks)

    Retouched Photo (aesthetic tweaks; e.g. rubbish-bag removal)

    Photographic Art (essentially composites of photos)

    Generated Image (the photographic starting point is only a minor
    component of the end product)

    Whether I'd be _bothered_ by people not using the "right names" is another
    matter; I don't think I'd like someone trying to "pass off" a heavily
    doctored image as a "real photo"; but I wouldn't get het up if someone
    forgot to mention that they cloned-out a lamppost.


    Regards,
    Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
    --
    There are 10 types of people in the world;
    those that understand binary and those that don't.
     
    Graham Holden, May 23, 2005
    #10
  11. Unclaimed Mysteries

    SimonLW Guest

    I still use Paintshop pro 5. I will clone out dust in film scans. For film
    and digital, I'll crop, adjust contrast & gamma and/or adjust color. That's
    about the extent of it. I try to get everything the best at the original
    exposure (was weaned on film). I don't use unsharp mask unless I resample.
    Psp5 has very limited histogram functions. I'd like something with more
    control over that. I never migrated to Psp7. We got it at work and it was
    very slow.
    -S

    "Unclaimed Mysteries"
    <> wrote in message
    news:sdfke.6129$...
    > With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
    > viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
    > "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
    > dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
    > and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
    > the image until ...
    >
    > ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
    > image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
    > merely raw material?
    >
    > Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    >
    >
    > Corry
    > --
    > It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    > http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
    >
    > Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
     
    SimonLW, May 23, 2005
    #11
  12. On Mon, 23 May 2005 07:01:44 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> wrote:

    >With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
    >viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
    >"post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
    >dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
    >and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
    >the image until ...
    >
    >... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
    >image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
    >merely raw material?
    >
    >Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?


    I don't. Photography is just another way of putting colors on a
    surface.

    I'm not concerned with the technology but rather the emotional impact
    on the person viewing it.

    You are drawing lines in a world where there are no lines.


    ********************************************************

    "The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
    singular, and unsatisfactory."

    Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
    to
    Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
    November 14, 1866
     
    John A. Stovall, May 23, 2005
    #12
  13. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Mon, 23 May 2005 07:01:44 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    > >

    >
    > For those that care about the distinction between a "photograph" and
    > "generated images"/"photographic art" (or whatever it might be called), I'd
    > broadly agree with Stacey; if the image still basically represents the
    > scene as I did/could have seen it, it's still a photograph.
    >
    > Panoramic stitching is fine (it's what we would have seen if we let out
    > eyes roam or turn our heads); layering of multiple exposures (e.g. of a
    > sunset) is fine (it "mimics" the eye/brain's better ability to adjust
    > exposure "on the fly"). A _little_ touching up (e.g. dust/dirt etc.) I
    > would still be happy calling a photograph.
    >
    > I'd probably not be too unhappy about removing a powerline (I can think of
    > it as an extended smear of dirt). However removing "bags of rubbish" or
    > the pylons that hold up a powerline I think crosses the line, since you're
    > having to "invent" much more of the image. (I'd probably call this a
    > "Retouched photograph").
    >
    > Starting to use two or more photographs (or other image sources) to make
    > composites (putting a person in a scene they never were in; adding an
    > interesting looking tree to an otherwise "plain" landscape) are all firmly
    > into the "photographic art" or "generated image" categories.
    >
    > I'm not saying I've anything _against_ doing any of these things; just
    > where I'd start using different names (off the top of my head; probably not
    > exhaustive):
    >
    > Photograph (basically exposure tweaks)
    >
    > Retouched Photo (aesthetic tweaks; e.g. rubbish-bag removal)
    >
    > Photographic Art (essentially composites of photos)
    >
    > Generated Image (the photographic starting point is only a minor
    > component of the end product)
    >
    > Whether I'd be _bothered_ by people not using the "right names" is another
    > matter; I don't think I'd like someone trying to "pass off" a heavily
    > doctored image as a "real photo"; but I wouldn't get het up if someone
    > forgot to mention that they cloned-out a lamppost.
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    > Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)



    I clone out horse manure from my horse show photos all the time.

    Dropping "road apples" is something you cant train a horse not to do.
    If I spend 20 to 30 minutes setting up a posed shot, and in the meantime, the
    horse takes a little "break" I simply clone it out with whatever Im using for
    ground cover. (usually wood shavings).

    I have never considered this a "cheat".

    I have, however, been asked by customers to "fix his ears" or "remove that
    mark", and since these shots are sometimes used to represent the horse in a
    "for sale" add, I refuse to alter the horse in any of my shots. "What he
    looks like, is what you get", and this includes dirt marks, sweat, scars,
    blotches, and whatever else the horse may bring to the posing area. The only
    thing I will alter or remove is what the horse may drop (or spill) while
    posing.

    It takes too long, and its too hard to re-pose a horse while having someone
    clean up.
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, May 23, 2005
    #13
  14. In article <sdfke.6129$>,
    >... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
    >image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
    >merely raw material?
    >
    >Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?


    I draw the line at adding material to a photograph. If you start with a
    photograph and you remove items in the picture you don't like, I would
    still consider it to be a photograph.

    Adding material from another photograph, or if you color a b/w photo
    (not just duo-tone, but coloring selected parts of the image), would make
    it something different.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, May 23, 2005
    #14
  15. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Marvin Guest

    Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
    > With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
    > viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
    > "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
    > dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
    > and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
    > the image until ...
    >
    > ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
    > image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
    > merely raw material?
    >
    > Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    >
    >
    > Corry


    Sometimes I want to represent something accurately. Other times I want a pleasing image.
    Or I may want to represent how a subject would look if some changes were made. I have
    added people to a photo because they couldn't be present at the shoot, but belonged there.
    All the above are legitimate, and there are surely others reasons that are equally
    valid. But I won't deceive for illegal or immoral purposes.
     
    Marvin, May 23, 2005
    #15
  16. John A. Stovall wrote in part:

    > You are drawing lines in a world where there are no lines.
    >


    I just asked the question, dude.

    --
    It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 23, 2005
    #16
  17. On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:39:40 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> wrote:

    >John A. Stovall wrote in part:
    >
    >> You are drawing lines in a world where there are no lines.
    >>

    >
    >I just asked the question, dude.


    A poorly framed question.


    ********************************************************

    "The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
    singular, and unsatisfactory."

    Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
    to
    Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
    November 14, 1866
     
    John A. Stovall, May 23, 2005
    #17
  18. Keith Sheppard wrote in part:

    >
    > To my mind, anything which started off as a photographic image is, to some
    > extent, still a photograph whatever embelishments you choose to add.
    >


    Now we have the other end of the spectrum from Stacey's definition
    staked out.

    Would this definition even include sufficiently detailed camera obscura
    drawings? Instead of film or electronic capture you got <agent86voice>
    yer ol' opto-bio-neural-mechanical-feedback capture trick. </agent86voice>

    What would y'all say about defining what we do as two distinct operations?

    1) Using some kind(s) of optical device(s) to generate the image itself,
    regardless of what it is recorded onto, and

    2) *Everything* else, including capture, darkroom, studio, and/or
    computer manipulation right on up to what you print the thing on for a
    final product.

    Or should I just say fsck it and use the word "photograph" to mean what
    most folks expect when they use it? Yes, maybe go out and take some
    pictures instead, I heard that. Heh.

    --
    It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 23, 2005
    #18
  19. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
    > With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
    > viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
    > "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
    > dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
    > and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
    > the image until ...
    >
    > ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
    > image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
    > merely raw material?
    >
    > Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    >
    >
    > Corry


    It is a matter of personal preference, but unless I am just playing with
    an image, or intend it for artistic expression, I limit changes to those
    that make it look more like what I SAW when I took the picture.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, May 23, 2005
    #19
  20. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Ron Hunter Guest

    rafe bustin wrote:
    > On Mon, 23 May 2005 03:28:53 -0400, Stacey <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
    >>>

    >>
    >>I draw the line when it no longer represents what was in front of the camera
    >>in the instant the shutter was open.
    >>
    >>As soon as the clone brush comes out to do anything more than clean up some
    >>dust etc, it's a goner as far as being a "photograph". I've done some
    >>imaging like this but I don't call them photographs when trees, garbage,
    >>phone lines etc are removed.. What I've created isn't a realistic
    >>representation of what was seen through the finder.

    >
    >
    >
    > Would it have been acceptable to pick up
    > the garbage first, before snapping the
    > shutter?
    >
    > Apropros phone lines, saw this yesterday
    > and didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
    >
    > <http://www.crumbmuseum.com/history1.html>
    >
    >
    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com

    Looks like an argument for underground utilities....


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, May 23, 2005
    #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. mapmaker

    Can't draw new maps

    mapmaker, Oct 22, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    405
    Leonidas Jones
    Oct 22, 2004
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    622
  3. J

    Corel Draw 11 & Windows XP

    J, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,302
  4. Trent C

    COREL DRAW pdf PRINTING problem

    Trent C, Feb 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,563
    Bebop & Rocksteady
    Feb 18, 2004
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Where do we draw the line?

    Dudley Hanks, Apr 14, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,124
    Peter
    Apr 27, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page