Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 8, 2013.

  1. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2013 1:44 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <518fba73$0$10768$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > says...
    >> Last November I was looking for a new lightweight computer.
    >> At the Apple store they advised me that their was no Apple product that
    >> would meet my needs.
    >> I wound up with my Lenovo.

    >
    > I was looking for an upgrade for my Lenovo X200 and found the X230.
    > Almost ok, if it were not for the fact that it only takes HDDs with a
    > 7mm height. These come in a maximum size of 500GB. Already now the 1TB
    > drive in my X200 is almost full. After I discovering that I was tempted
    > for a while to write Lenovo a letter full of insults. What a bunch of
    > clowns. They make a business notebook, but downgrade the max. HDD size.
    >
    > Oh, by the way, also all those ultrabooks are out of scope. You can't
    > change the battery and they do not take large HDDs.
    >
    > At the moment the only Lenovo unit which might be sort of suitable would
    > be the X200, which however Lenovo have discontinued.
    >


    I agree with you about the Ultrabook. i have a T430. This internal drive
    is large enough, since it is not my main machine. For travelling a carry
    two portable iT drives, with USB3. That configuration is fast enough to
    allow be to do rough editing on the road, and get a pretty good idea
    which images are not keepers.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 14, 2013
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, says...
    >
    > In article <>,
    > "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, says...
    > > >
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > notbob <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > On 2013-05-12, android <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > >> In article <>, says...
    > > > >
    > > > > >> > http://www.modbook.com/
    > > > >
    > > > > >> Which is not made by Apple.
    > > > >
    > > > > > Nooo... It''s a third party modification of an Apple product...
    > > > >
    > > > > ....and it's a damn sight far away from being affordable!
    > > > >
    > > > > <http://www.powerbookmedic.com/Modbook-Pro-23GHZ-Core-i5-120GB-SSD-4GB-RAM
    > > > > -p-2
    > > > > 5898.html>
    > > > >
    > > > > I'll jes buy a used intuos 3 fer $150 and run it on my linux desktop,
    > > > > thank you very much.
    > > > >
    > > > > nb
    > > >
    > > > I'm not selling it. It's there if you need/want it. Some folks pay
    > > > premium for tools that make them more productive.

    > >
    > > The argument presented was that Macs have lots of functionality that PCs
    > > lack. I pointed out an example where they don't. You pointed out that
    > > a third party kluges Macs to provide a keyboardless tablet, voiding the
    > > Apple warranty in the process. If you are willing to go with something
    > > that is hacked up by a third party and unsupported by Apple, then I can
    > > just put OSX on my Thinkpad and end up with a more satisfactory result.

    >
    > Well, OSX on a Thinkpad tablet wouldn't be very hardware optimized at
    > all, would it.


    Why not, it's the same processor and chipest that Apple uses.

    > Whatever... I'm sure some Hackintosh site would be happy
    > happy to post your howto...


    Don't need to post a howto. My machine is one of the ideal Hackintosh
    targets and the howto has been there for years.
     
    J. Clarke, May 14, 2013
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:04:44 PM UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:29:33 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >> >> And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who

    >
    > >> >> determines what they will offer?

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >features do, not the logo on the box.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Bizarre. Who determines what the features will be if not the people

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> in the company whose logo it is? Features don't make any decisions.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> They are the result of decisions.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >What features can be offered is determined by price.

    >
    >
    >
    > That's a chicken-or-the-egg question.


    And we all know the egg came first because it's breakfast.

    > What features can be offered is
    >
    > determined by the price, or, what price can be offered is determined
    >
    > by the features.


    But Apple know what features they can provide at a particular price point, as the costs come down the features increase and the price stays pretty much the same. Hard drive and memeory capacitys increase as their prices drop for both Mac and PC shifters.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 14, 2013
    #63
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:58:37 -0400, "Mayayana" <>
    wrote:
    : | Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
    : | fee to "rent" its use.
    :
    : I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
    : across it at TheRegister:
    :
    : "One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
    : your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
    : files."
    :
    : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/13/adobe_cloud_pricing/
    :
    : As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
    : "in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
    : Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
    : process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
    : as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
    : a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
    : their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
    : on all content.
    :
    : The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
    : accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
    : online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
    : to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
    : only Photoshop can open.

    At least that's one question I'll never have to answer. The probability that
    I'll ever use any piece of Adobe photo editing software is now as near zero as
    real-world probabilities ever get.

    Sorry if I offend you, nospam, but that's how it is.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 16, 2013
    #64
  5. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:30:19 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:58:37 -0400, "Mayayana" <>
    >wrote:
    >: | Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
    >: | fee to "rent" its use.
    >:
    >: I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
    >: across it at TheRegister:
    >:
    >: "One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
    >: your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
    >: files."
    >:
    >: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/13/adobe_cloud_pricing/
    >:
    >: As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
    >: "in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
    >: Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
    >: process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
    >: as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
    >: a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
    >: their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
    >: on all content.
    >:
    >: The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
    >: accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
    >: online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
    >: to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
    >: only Photoshop can open.
    >
    >At least that's one question I'll never have to answer. The probability that
    >I'll ever use any piece of Adobe photo editing software is now as near zero as
    >real-world probabilities ever get.
    >
    >Sorry if I offend you, nospam, but that's how it is.
    >


    I have no intention to subscribe, but I would still recommend Elements
    to anyone interested in a powerful but inexpensive photo editing
    program. For all but a few amateur photographers, it is as powerful a
    program as the CS versions. The features in CS, but not in Elements,
    are features that almost all amateurs can forego without loss.

    Unlike nospam, I can't infallibly predict the future offerings of
    Adobe, but I think that Adobe will continue to add features to
    Elements. In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
    version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
    Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 16, 2013
    #65
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > At least that's one question I'll never have to answer. The probability that
    > I'll ever use any piece of Adobe photo editing software is now as near zero as
    > real-world probabilities ever get.
    >
    > Sorry if I offend you, nospam, but that's how it is.


    it doesn't offend me in the least.

    use whatever you want.
     
    nospam, May 16, 2013
    #66
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > I have no intention to subscribe, but I would still recommend Elements
    > to anyone interested in a powerful but inexpensive photo editing
    > program. For all but a few amateur photographers, it is as powerful a
    > program as the CS versions. The features in CS, but not in Elements,
    > are features that almost all amateurs can forego without loss.


    that's adobe's strategy. creative cloud for pros and elements for the
    enthusiasts/hobbyist market.

    > Unlike nospam, I can't infallibly predict the future offerings of
    > Adobe,


    more twisting from you.

    i'm not predicting what they'll do nor am i infallible.

    i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
    again, the idea is ludicrous.

    not surprisingly you twist this into something else.

    > but I think that Adobe will continue to add features to
    > Elements.


    of course they will add new features to elements, just as they will add
    new features to the rest of their apps.

    the only one that won't be getting new features is cs6. it is at the
    end of the road. the only changes will be bugfixes and security fixes.

    > In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
    > version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
    > Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.


    what for, when lightroom already exists?

    a more likely path is add a lot of elements functionality to lightroom,
    minimizing the need for a second app.
     
    nospam, May 16, 2013
    #67
  8. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:40:41 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I have no intention to subscribe, but I would still recommend Elements
    >> to anyone interested in a powerful but inexpensive photo editing
    >> program. For all but a few amateur photographers, it is as powerful a
    >> program as the CS versions. The features in CS, but not in Elements,
    >> are features that almost all amateurs can forego without loss.

    >
    >that's adobe's strategy. creative cloud for pros and elements for the
    >enthusiasts/hobbyist market.
    >
    >> Unlike nospam, I can't infallibly predict the future offerings of
    >> Adobe,

    >
    >more twisting from you.
    >
    >i'm not predicting what they'll do nor am i infallible.


    N.S.,S.

    >
    >i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
    >again, the idea is ludicrous.


    You don't predict, but you state that they will not - in the future -
    add ads.
    >
    >not surprisingly you twist this into something else.


    You would make more sense if I *would* twist your words. It's
    repeating what you say, as you said it, that makes you look foolish.

    >
    >> but I think that Adobe will continue to add features to
    >> Elements.

    >
    >of course they will add new features to elements, just as they will add
    >new features to the rest of their apps.
    >
    >the only one that won't be getting new features is cs6. it is at the
    >end of the road. the only changes will be bugfixes and security fixes.
    >
    >> In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
    >> version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
    >> Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.

    >
    >what for, when lightroom already exists?


    Because there are people who like the method of editing offered by
    Elements who would like a better image cataloging/keywording system
    than Organizer provides without using, and buying, two separate
    programs.

    >a more likely path is add a lot of elements functionality to lightroom,
    >minimizing the need for a second app.


    That would, essentially, accomplish the same thing: combining the
    Elements style of editing with the Lightroom cataloging/keywording
    system. Whether they put layers and layer masking, for example, in
    Lightroom or Library in Elements, it's same thing.

    But, who am I to predict? Obviously, you should be the one to tell us
    what Adobe will and will not do.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 16, 2013
    #68
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
    > >again, the idea is ludicrous.

    >
    > You don't predict, but you state that they will not - in the future -
    > add ads.


    they're not going to put ads in paid software. the idea is ludicrous.
    the backlash would be huge. this is common sense, which you seem to
    lack.

    > >not surprisingly you twist this into something else.

    >
    > You would make more sense if I *would* twist your words. It's
    > repeating what you say, as you said it, that makes you look foolish.


    you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
    so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
    dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.

    > >> In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
    > >> version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
    > >> Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.

    > >
    > >what for, when lightroom already exists?

    >
    > Because there are people who like the method of editing offered by
    > Elements who would like a better image cataloging/keywording system
    > than Organizer provides without using, and buying, two separate
    > programs.
    >
    > >a more likely path is add a lot of elements functionality to lightroom,
    > >minimizing the need for a second app.

    >
    > That would, essentially, accomplish the same thing: combining the
    > Elements style of editing with the Lightroom cataloging/keywording
    > system. Whether they put layers and layer masking, for example, in
    > Lightroom or Library in Elements, it's same thing.
    >
    > But, who am I to predict? Obviously, you should be the one to tell us
    > what Adobe will and will not do.


    there you go twisting things again, which you said you don't do. that
    means you lied.
     
    nospam, May 16, 2013
    #69
  10. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <160520130145457541%>,
    nospam <> wrote:

    > > >i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
    > > >again, the idea is ludicrous.

    > >
    > > You don't predict, but you state that they will not - in the future -
    > > add ads.

    >
    > they're not going to put ads in paid software.


    Prediction one.

    > the idea is ludicrous.


    Subjective opinion.

    > the backlash would be huge.


    Prediction two.

    > this is common sense, which you seem to lack.


    Personal attack.

    > > But, who am I to predict? Obviously, you should be the one to tell us
    > > what Adobe will and will not do.

    >
    > there you go twisting things again, which you said you don't do. that
    > means you lied.


    Only, you *are* predicting what they are doing - regardless of whether
    you think the options to your predictions are "ludicrous" or not.
    Explicitly stating what will happen is by definition a prediction. Even
    if that prediction is something your personally feel is obvious and
    logical.



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 16, 2013
    #70
  11. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:45:45 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >
    >you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
    >so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
    >dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.


    You have informed us that if Ansel Adams was using a camera today it
    would be a digital camera. The only way to know this is if you have
    spoken to Adams at some time since the advent of digital cameras.

    You stated this as a flat declaration of what you know for sure, not
    as an opinion. Therefore, you must have spoken to the dead to know
    it.

    Next séance, check with Niepce and Daguerre. Find out why Eastman
    wasted his time dicking around with film when he could have invented
    the SD card.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 16, 2013
    #71
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
    > >so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
    > >dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.

    >
    > You have informed us that if Ansel Adams was using a camera today it
    > would be a digital camera. The only way to know this is if you have
    > spoken to Adams at some time since the advent of digital cameras.


    no, that's not the only way.

    surprising as it may seem, ansel adams was not a hermit and spoke to
    many people in his lifetime, who have said he would have been very
    excited to use digital had it been available in his lifetime.

    > You stated this as a flat declaration of what you know for sure, not
    > as an opinion. Therefore, you must have spoken to the dead to know
    > it.


    you are a liar.

    > Next séance, check with Niepce and Daguerre. Find out why Eastman
    > wasted his time dicking around with film when he could have invented
    > the SD card.


    straw man, and kodak, the company george eastman founded, invented
    digital photography anyway.
     
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #72
  13. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:17:24 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2013-05-16 15:28:52 -0700, Tony Cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:45:45 -0400, nospam <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
    >>> so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
    >>> dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.

    >>
    >> You have informed us that if Ansel Adams was using a camera today it
    >> would be a digital camera. The only way to know this is if you have
    >> spoken to Adams at some time since the advent of digital cameras.

    >
    >In the last 20 years of his life, Adams worked hand in hand with
    >Hasselblad. They pretty much sponsored him, supplying him with stock
    >and custom built 'blads.
    >Given what Hasselblad is producing today in MF digital cameras, I
    >believe that it would be fair to guess that he would indeed be using
    >one of their fine digital products. Perhaps one of their fine H4D-60's.
    >

    I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital. What
    I can't do, and wouldn't do, though is put words in his mouth and
    declare that *I* know he would be using digital.


    >> You stated this as a flat declaration of what you know for sure, not
    >> as an opinion. Therefore, you must have spoken to the dead to know
    >> it.
    >>
    >> Next séance, check with Niepce and Daguerre. Find out why Eastman
    >> wasted his time dicking around with film when he could have invented
    >> the SD card.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 17, 2013
    #73
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.


    so you agree with me, yet you argue.
     
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #74
  15. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:28 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.

    >
    >so you agree with me, yet you argue.


    I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    difference is in our positions.

    There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    photograph in color and with a digital camera.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 17, 2013
    #75
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.

    > >
    > >so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >
    > I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    > agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    > do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    > difference is in our positions.


    i most certainly do. i'm just pointing out that you argue for the sake
    of arguing.

    > There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    > black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    > technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    > photograph in color and with a digital camera.


    it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand digital
    technology and think film is better. anything they can do with film can
    be done better with digital (or the same if they like the look), and
    for less money too.
     
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #76
  17. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, tonycooper214
    @gmail.com says...
    >
    > On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:28 -0400, nospam <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > ><> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.

    > >
    > >so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >
    > I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    > agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    > do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    > difference is in our positions.
    >
    > There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    > black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    > technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    > photograph in color and with a digital camera.


    There are rewards to that approach that go beyond the merely
    photographic. I find that I miss the smell of a freshly opened roll of
    film to take one example. And with digital you never get the experience
    of having the hot girl you just shot deciding to follow you into the
    darkroom . . .
     
    J. Clarke, May 17, 2013
    #77
  18. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:17:33 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article <>, tonycooper214
    >
    > @gmail.com says...
    >
    > >

    >
    > > On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:28 -0400, nospam <>

    >
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >In article <>, Tony Cooper

    >
    > > ><> wrote:

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't

    >
    > > agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would

    >
    > > do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the

    >
    > > difference is in our positions.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively

    >
    > > black and white on film out of choice, not because they are

    >
    > > technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to

    >
    > > photograph in color and with a digital camera.

    >
    >
    >
    > There are rewards to that approach that go beyond the merely
    >
    > photographic. I find that I miss the smell of a freshly opened roll of
    >
    > film to take one example. And with digital you never get the experience
    >
    > of having the hot girl you just shot deciding to follow you into the
    >
    > darkroom . . .


    Time for a bevis and butthead snigger ....
    Haven't seen them on TV for some time.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 17, 2013
    #78
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/17/2013 12:44 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.
    >>>
    >>> so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >>
    >> I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    >> agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    >> do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    >> difference is in our positions.

    >
    > i most certainly do. i'm just pointing out that you argue for the sake
    > of arguing.
    >
    >> There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    >> black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    >> technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    >> photograph in color and with a digital camera.

    >
    > it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand digital
    > technology and think film is better. anything they can do with film can
    > be done better with digital (or the same if they like the look), and
    > for less money too.
    >


    You sound like a Roy Larsen, without intellect.
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2013
    #79
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/17/2013 8:17 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article <>, tonycooper214
    > @gmail.com says...
    >>
    >> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:28 -0400, nospam <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <>, Tony Cooper
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.
    >>>
    >>> so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >>
    >> I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    >> agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    >> do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    >> difference is in our positions.
    >>
    >> There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    >> black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    >> technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    >> photograph in color and with a digital camera.

    >
    > There are rewards to that approach that go beyond the merely
    > photographic. I find that I miss the smell of a freshly opened roll of
    > film to take one example. And with digital you never get the experience
    > of having the hot girl you just shot deciding to follow you into the
    > darkroom . . .
    >


    There are those who go to a brothel for sexual satisfaction, because the
    result is almost certain, and probably less bother.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2013
    #80
    1. Advertisements

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Zogby
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    4,516
    Rowdy Yates
    Aug 15, 2004
  2. One-Shot Scot

    Rental DVDs: "Rental Only - Not For Resale."

    One-Shot Scot, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,858
    One-Shot Scot
    Sep 11, 2004
  3. hdtv?
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,518
    Rick Merrill
    Oct 18, 2006
  4. Go GO GO !!go to shopping

    , Jan 14, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    941
  5. Go GO GO !!go to shopping

    , Jan 14, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    693
  6. Devvie Nuis
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    4,685
  7. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    372
    Sandman
    Sep 2, 2013
  8. RichA

    Apple's foray into the "service/rental economy"

    RichA, Jun 3, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    4,773
    Whisky-dave
    Jun 17, 2014
Loading...