Jim Attfield
Veteran Member
--- SNIP! ---
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Retardation and minutia.
- Thread starter GageFX133521
- Start date
Kevin Trowbridge
Active member
GageFx, when you were describing your levels, custom curves, icorrect pro & multipy meathods you seem much more ahead of the game than myself. Please illuminate us to your experience, trials and errors. I have learnt so much in the last few weeks on this forum, it sometimes seems like I have been shooting blind until now.
My basic workflow is normally shooting in SHQ 1:2.7, normal sharpening, sometimes low contrast when using full power flash or under bright sunlight, but ussually normal contrast to keep saturation up. When flash is needed I am a bounce junky, often including pop-up fill for catch-light. First thing I do in PS7 is levels, either draging in wp/bp or setting it with eyedroppers. I like draging those wp/bp in separate R,G & B modes for more colour control. If the image has exposure problems or limited latitude I go to curves, which I am not that proficient in yet and set a mid-point and ussually set a quarter-point in either the highlight or shadow end depending on, which needs more. These are slight adjustments, but I just learned a little bit more control from DavidM and one of your links to an Apple.com PS tutorial. Sometimes I do cropping if necessary before levels and curves as to only adjust the part of the image I will eventually be using. My next step is cloning and touchups, then I selectivly paint back an unsharp mask and/or a gausian blur using a layer mask function. Done, but never finished! There is no absolute right or wrong.
I have used raw a bit recently, although I have a lot more experimentation to do before I can recommend anything. I need more tips on using Bibble's Oly conversion, PS7 plugins are easy enough, but unreasonably slow when converting 1 by 1. The really awsome thing that Bibble provides is a curves function integrated with a historam so you can see what you're doing to the levels when adjusting the curves. Wow! Why has PS7 not done that yet it would make Levels obsolete, workflow faster, and control and comprehention of what's happening when using curves much easier. How does anyone like Orf Suite? Three different Oly RAW conversion programs; which one to use?
All Opinions and Tips count, so pleaase respond.
Kevin Trowbridge
Kelowna, BC Canada
E10(for 2yrs now), Lipo, FL40, WCON-08B, MCON-35, Epson 2000p, PS7
My basic workflow is normally shooting in SHQ 1:2.7, normal sharpening, sometimes low contrast when using full power flash or under bright sunlight, but ussually normal contrast to keep saturation up. When flash is needed I am a bounce junky, often including pop-up fill for catch-light. First thing I do in PS7 is levels, either draging in wp/bp or setting it with eyedroppers. I like draging those wp/bp in separate R,G & B modes for more colour control. If the image has exposure problems or limited latitude I go to curves, which I am not that proficient in yet and set a mid-point and ussually set a quarter-point in either the highlight or shadow end depending on, which needs more. These are slight adjustments, but I just learned a little bit more control from DavidM and one of your links to an Apple.com PS tutorial. Sometimes I do cropping if necessary before levels and curves as to only adjust the part of the image I will eventually be using. My next step is cloning and touchups, then I selectivly paint back an unsharp mask and/or a gausian blur using a layer mask function. Done, but never finished! There is no absolute right or wrong.
I have used raw a bit recently, although I have a lot more experimentation to do before I can recommend anything. I need more tips on using Bibble's Oly conversion, PS7 plugins are easy enough, but unreasonably slow when converting 1 by 1. The really awsome thing that Bibble provides is a curves function integrated with a historam so you can see what you're doing to the levels when adjusting the curves. Wow! Why has PS7 not done that yet it would make Levels obsolete, workflow faster, and control and comprehention of what's happening when using curves much easier. How does anyone like Orf Suite? Three different Oly RAW conversion programs; which one to use?
All Opinions and Tips count, so pleaase respond.
Kevin Trowbridge
Kelowna, BC Canada
E10(for 2yrs now), Lipo, FL40, WCON-08B, MCON-35, Epson 2000p, PS7
E10(for 2yrs now), Lipo, FL40, WCON-08B, MCON-35, Epson 2000p, PS7
GageFX133521
Senior Member
A few questions. Although I think you are wrong, I certainly leave room for you to explain to me that you are right.
What is "TRUE" gamma correction? Not onlyam I not sure what "true gamma correction" is, I dont even know what "gamma correction" is. Now I am aware of "gamma conversion" to allow the image to be viewed properly on different systems, but that doesnt make the original gamma "incorrect". I await a good explanation because I hope to learn something here. I dont profess to know everything, but I will certainly present what I think I know.
I typed "gamma" into help. I found that help.
The "middle slider" is in PS LEVELS. That's not the best way to alter gamma. The best would be in CURVES and gamma altering IS possible.
Finally, if you want to be able to type in a gamma level of "2.2", you can do so in Imageready which has been included with Photoshop since v. 5.5.
Also, here is a quote from the history of Photoshop:
Now, all that said, Photoshop is designed as a PRINT OUTPUT editing application. With the rise of the web, they started including web oriented features as the additional "Imageready', included free since 5.5. Gamma "correction" only has significance to images viewed ONSCREEN. As Photoshop is meant to edit images meant for print, it would make sense if they included NO gamma adjustmentor even just basic, rudimentary adjustment, but they do offer full featured adjustment.
Photoshop does have "Save for Web" in PS and you can use Imageready for more control. PS also lets you select smoothness and gives you 4 comparison windows.
I'm not sure where you cant set your sharpness settings - unless this is a nit with Corel.
What's the problem with "Photoshop standardization"? I dont understand. Is it a PS problem or a problem with Corel? I dont experience ANY problems with Photoshop standardization.
Thanks for clearing these things up.
-GageFX
What is "TRUE" gamma correction? Not onlyam I not sure what "true gamma correction" is, I dont even know what "gamma correction" is. Now I am aware of "gamma conversion" to allow the image to be viewed properly on different systems, but that doesnt make the original gamma "incorrect". I await a good explanation because I hope to learn something here. I dont profess to know everything, but I will certainly present what I think I know.
I typed "gamma" into help. I found that help.
The "middle slider" is in PS LEVELS. That's not the best way to alter gamma. The best would be in CURVES and gamma altering IS possible.
Finally, if you want to be able to type in a gamma level of "2.2", you can do so in Imageready which has been included with Photoshop since v. 5.5.
Also, here is a quote from the history of Photoshop:
So since version 2.5.1, which is what this article was written about, Photoshop, at least for Windows, has implemented the gamma functionality correctly.
Now, all that said, Photoshop is designed as a PRINT OUTPUT editing application. With the rise of the web, they started including web oriented features as the additional "Imageready', included free since 5.5. Gamma "correction" only has significance to images viewed ONSCREEN. As Photoshop is meant to edit images meant for print, it would make sense if they included NO gamma adjustmentor even just basic, rudimentary adjustment, but they do offer full featured adjustment.
Photoshop does have "Save for Web" in PS and you can use Imageready for more control. PS also lets you select smoothness and gives you 4 comparison windows.
I'm not sure where you cant set your sharpness settings - unless this is a nit with Corel.
What's the problem with "Photoshop standardization"? I dont understand. Is it a PS problem or a problem with Corel? I dont experience ANY problems with Photoshop standardization.
Thanks for clearing these things up.
-GageFX
GageFX133521
Senior Member
Hey Kevin, thanks for the response. I will try to get a new method up each night until I have all four up. We'll see.
My biggest problem is I move in cycles and I stick with one method just long enough to forget the previous. To remember the "multiply method" I'll have to play around a little to figure it out again. I even created an action for it but have since built a new computer and all my custom actions were lost. DOH!
For your workflow. Get those sharpen and contrast settings to their lowest. If you are doing ANY PS work, save those adjustments for PS. The in camera settings should only be used for straight from camera shots. You lose image information if you dont have them set to their lowest and you cant get that info back.
As for your flash method, why do you like to bounce? Are you aware that using the built in flash will give you catch lights but will also flatten the lighting? Bounce is good to illuminate the rest of the area, but I HATE onboard flash unless absolutely necessary (run and gun candids).
Anyway, I'll get to those tutorials - thanks for your interest.
-GageFX
My biggest problem is I move in cycles and I stick with one method just long enough to forget the previous. To remember the "multiply method" I'll have to play around a little to figure it out again. I even created an action for it but have since built a new computer and all my custom actions were lost. DOH!
For your workflow. Get those sharpen and contrast settings to their lowest. If you are doing ANY PS work, save those adjustments for PS. The in camera settings should only be used for straight from camera shots. You lose image information if you dont have them set to their lowest and you cant get that info back.
As for your flash method, why do you like to bounce? Are you aware that using the built in flash will give you catch lights but will also flatten the lighting? Bounce is good to illuminate the rest of the area, but I HATE onboard flash unless absolutely necessary (run and gun candids).
Anyway, I'll get to those tutorials - thanks for your interest.
-GageFX
GageFX133521
Senior Member
Enjoyed your post.Just one clarification: I'm not "gruff". Occasionally grumpy, always opinionated, often straightforward, but not "gruff".
That's possible.
Oh yes. Then throw in day renting studio spcae so the equipment goes from your living room into it;s cases, into the car, over to the studio, out of the cases, setup, torn down, back in the car, then back home, just to set if up to take photos of something to make a point in a silly forum. Grrr. I'm glad I have my own studio now.
What equipment do you have?
This is what you need to do. Go to Zuga and read the free tutorials. Learn where to set the lights and what you are looking for foma proper setup. Practice setting this up, for yourself, without any models. Then when the kids are coming over, have it setup, snap a couple pics, move them a little, take a few more, then call it good. Later, do it again. Take it in small bursts, but learn the lighting and posing BEFORE you get the kids there. And believe me, adults are just as impatient when they are sitting there are you are trying to figure it out.
Here are a couple. Read, read, and reread.
http://www.zuga.net/freelessons/elegantportraiture.shtml
http://www.zuga.net/freelessons/postechs.shtml
These are just basics, but I've found it's easier to start with basics than the complicated stuff.
Ah, stick THIS in your left brain and smoke it: Rule of thirds. That is the easiest way to get out of snapshotville.
There are three things that seperate snapshots from photos. Composition, Lighting, and Exposure. If all three are off, you have a snapshot. You can sometimes get by with only one right, but 2-3 is the best.
Rule of thirds is simple. Divide your viewfinder (the image) into thirds and place your subject on one of the lines, or an intersection. Always have motion moving INTO the frame and not OUT.
Example
Cood comp and lighting. Exposure WAS good but I latered it for effect.
Divided into thirds:
The composition:
The blue circle shows the subject - her face - at the intersection. The blue line at bottom shows what is at that thirds position (or just below).
The green lines show motion. Her body is facing right so that is the main motion direction. Space has been given at the right so we dont feel she is "leaving the picture". Her eyes, looking left, keep us inthe photo without leaving to the right. Both her body and the water line bring us to her eyes which bring us back into the picture. Her body and arms move us through the picture. That's composition. Think of how you would take a picture of a beautiful girl on the beach. Can you picture that? (I take boring snapshots when I'm just snapping. I can picture how I would do it. As a matter of fact, whenever I am planning a shoot, I get very nervous and worried. I picture the location and think "I just cant do it. I'm going to take snapshots." When I get there, the composition, lighting and exposure just take over naturally. I never think about it, but I always get it right. I usually mess up when I do think about it.)
Here are two others:
You see the composition? First: subject facing left so space on left. Eyes facing the camera to keep us from going out of frame. Exposed eyeball at intersection.
Second: Body facing right, space on right. Face at intersection. Eyes bringing us back. Now the eyes can look out to camera right for a different effect, but you'll lose the viewer out that right side. Their eyes will fight to stay in. It all depends on the effect you want.
Then there is lighting and exposure. I tend to like my exposures dark and saturated. My lighting is ALL based on the Monte Zucker lessons at Zuga (actually the live class that I took) but that is where I start. I often move, sometimes quite far for an effect, but this is the basic pattern.
SHQ is fine. For now. Get the other things in order, then move to RAW if you feel you need to.
-Hope I've helped or taught someone something. And rememeber, these are the theories and techniques that I use. They are not for everyone and there are a million ways to do something. Not a million ways to do it RIGHT, though. (But there is more than one.
)-GageFX
Since I'm not one who likes to constantly go into menu settings in-camera, I usually just leave contrast and sharpness levels at Normal. Unless you plan on tweaking each individual image file you capture in Photoshop.
The results from these settings being left at Normal are just fine in most cases for my tastes. I don't pick all my images apart with a magnifying glass so the results from leaving those settings at Low in-cam and tweaking in PS as opposed to just letting the camera set them at Normal are pretty close. Yes, you'll get more control and finer results from meticulously applying these settings in PS, but I'm also not one for applying lots of post-processing to each and every image and I really find it time consuming anyway.
I'd like to see some really irrefutable evidence of the outstanding benefits of setting these levels individually in PS as opposed to Normal setting in-camera. Perhaps some side by side image comparisons. My bet is that unless the particular image is in need of extraordibnary amounts of tweaking (very low contrast in the details of the image or a problem with sharpness) that the differences are minute and not worth haranguing yourself over.
The above comments are of course not intended towards pro-level work, where each image should be processed absolutely optimally. But even then, I hardly ever see a problem with Normal level settings.
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter
The results from these settings being left at Normal are just fine in most cases for my tastes. I don't pick all my images apart with a magnifying glass so the results from leaving those settings at Low in-cam and tweaking in PS as opposed to just letting the camera set them at Normal are pretty close. Yes, you'll get more control and finer results from meticulously applying these settings in PS, but I'm also not one for applying lots of post-processing to each and every image and I really find it time consuming anyway.
I'd like to see some really irrefutable evidence of the outstanding benefits of setting these levels individually in PS as opposed to Normal setting in-camera. Perhaps some side by side image comparisons. My bet is that unless the particular image is in need of extraordibnary amounts of tweaking (very low contrast in the details of the image or a problem with sharpness) that the differences are minute and not worth haranguing yourself over.
The above comments are of course not intended towards pro-level work, where each image should be processed absolutely optimally. But even then, I hardly ever see a problem with Normal level settings.
--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter
GageFX133521
Senior Member
Normal vs. soft sharpening - a matter of taste. I keep my camera set to "soft" and until recently, I NEVER sharpened photos. NOw I apply a light 50%, .5px, 10th to my images before final save. Very minimal, just used to bring out a little detail. It certainly isnt meticulous.
The highest sharpnening setting, on the other hand, I'm sure throws out alot of good image info. That's what sharpening does. Good for some people though.
Now CONTRAST. It has ben determined (debated, but DETERMINED) that low contrast setting preserves the most dynamic range. As you kick up the contrast, your RECORDED darks will get blacker and your lights will get whiter. Once you've lost a highlight or shadow, it's gone. With the camera set to LOW, you have less chance of losing these levels, even in mild misexposure.
-GageFX
The highest sharpnening setting, on the other hand, I'm sure throws out alot of good image info. That's what sharpening does. Good for some people though.
Now CONTRAST. It has ben determined (debated, but DETERMINED) that low contrast setting preserves the most dynamic range. As you kick up the contrast, your RECORDED darks will get blacker and your lights will get whiter. Once you've lost a highlight or shadow, it's gone. With the camera set to LOW, you have less chance of losing these levels, even in mild misexposure.
-GageFX
GageFX133521
Senior Member
They are. I'm going to mirror those pages just so they dont end up disappearing and then we can start a new one. Not today, mind you, but soon.
-GageFX
markE59102
Veteran Member
O-o-oh...kinda like, "My camera has no FOV"?
Just one clarification: I'm not "gruff". Occasionally grumpy,
always opinionated, often straightforward, but not "gruff".
Gage, that's a great analysis of those photos. Even though I've seen them before, I don't think I've ever heard you explain the process of their composition like that. I don't shoot the same subjects you do, but reading this helps me refresh what to look for in my own images. Thanks.
--
markE
pbase supporter
- Oly E-20, LiPo, TCON300, TCON-14B, WCON, FL-40, Wacom Graphire Canine Stunner II, Epson PS 820,
-Dorothea Lange
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/natural_world
GageFX133521
Senior Member
Have you tried flipping that viewfinder closer switch on the back? It's next to the viewfinder thing. If you cant see that's probably the problem.
(Thanks 'bout that other stuff.)
-GageFX
Lawrence Keeney
Veteran Member
Thanks for the lesson. I will check out the links you furnished.
I am aware of the rule of thirds and try to follow it when I can. However, I was not aware of the finer points as you indicated by placing the girl's eye at the intersection. I would probably have tried to place the center of her face at the intersection.
By the way, I still like gruff.....)
My equipment is as follows:
E-10
FL-40
Stroboframe
Sekonic L-358 Flashmeter
Cable release
Misc. filters
Homemade 2.8 GHZ PC
1 GB Ram
160 GB main hard drive
40 GB hard drive for virtual memory and print spooler only
CD R/w
21" Viewsonic monitor
Photoshop 7
Qimage Pro
HP Scanner
Monaco EZ Color 2 - profiling software
Monaco Sensor for monitor calibration
Epson 2200 printer
Epson 870 printer
HP 2000C printer
36" wide HP Plotter - B&W only
Wireless network for above computer plus laptop and another computer.
Two Manfroto boom stands with sand bags
Two Alien Bees B400s
Alien Bees B800
Light stands
Large Alien Bees softbox
Umbrellas
JTL backdrop system
Three backdrops; white, hand painted, and black velvet
Two tripods
Logan mat cutter
Boston paper cutter
All this stuff and all I can produce are snapshots.)
--
Lawrence
I am aware of the rule of thirds and try to follow it when I can. However, I was not aware of the finer points as you indicated by placing the girl's eye at the intersection. I would probably have tried to place the center of her face at the intersection.
By the way, I still like gruff.....
)My equipment is as follows:
E-10
FL-40
Stroboframe
Sekonic L-358 Flashmeter
Cable release
Misc. filters
Homemade 2.8 GHZ PC
1 GB Ram
160 GB main hard drive
40 GB hard drive for virtual memory and print spooler only
CD R/w
21" Viewsonic monitor
Photoshop 7
Qimage Pro
HP Scanner
Monaco EZ Color 2 - profiling software
Monaco Sensor for monitor calibration
Epson 2200 printer
Epson 870 printer
HP 2000C printer
36" wide HP Plotter - B&W only
Wireless network for above computer plus laptop and another computer.
Two Manfroto boom stands with sand bags
Two Alien Bees B400s
Alien Bees B800
Light stands
Large Alien Bees softbox
Umbrellas
JTL backdrop system
Three backdrops; white, hand painted, and black velvet
Two tripods
Logan mat cutter
Boston paper cutter
All this stuff and all I can produce are snapshots.
)--
Lawrence
markE59102
Veteran Member
...put a whole new light on things! (yuk, yuk, yuk)
Sorry, this late-winter, cabin fever is turning me to mush.
Mmmm...mush
--
markE
pbase supporter
- Oly E-20, LiPo, TCON300, TCON-14B, WCON, FL-40, Wacom Graphire Canine Stunner II, Epson PS 820,
-Dorothea Lange
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/natural_world
markE59102
Veteran Member
I've played around with different settings. But I keep going back to a soft/low setting. I tweak every photo I use, so I figure as long as I have it open, it doesn't take much more time to make these adjustments in PS.
I am reminded of the past threads of "RAW vs. SHQ: Is it worth it for RAW?"
It seems these personal differences in processing preferences ...LOL, say that 3x real fast!...(in-camera vs. out-camera...RAW vs. SHQ) are largely a matter of how much time we want to spend in PS (speaking genericly here). And with each new level of control we take on in the darkroom, we are allowed the benefit of obtaining the next level of quality, a level that can bring a precious image from not usable to usable.
Ah, and therein lies a significant factor for many of us when it comes to the levels of post-processing time that we want to commit to.
--
markE
pbase supporter
- Oly E-20, LiPo, TCON300, TCON-14B, WCON, FL-40, Wacom Graphire Canine Stunner II, Epson PS 820,
-Dorothea Lange
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/natural_world
markE59102
Veteran Member
--
markE
pbase supporter
- Oly E-20, LiPo, TCON300, TCON-14B, WCON, FL-40, Wacom Graphire Canine Stunner II, Epson PS 820,
-Dorothea Lange
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/natural_world
Judging by the response I got from both you and Gage (and by the way, I do appreciate the responses, because I'm in no way an expert on these things and appreciate the feedback) it seems it really boils down to a matter of objective opinion. Individual taste.
My individual taste calls for a somewhat higher sharpening level. I like to see alot of detail in an image. As an example, I do alot of digital video. Now, ever since DV came out in the consumer realm (cameras available that were cheaper than 10,000$) there has been a clamoring for the "film look". Alot of people want the softness and saturation of film, in the convenience and resolution of DV, if THAT makes any sense. My taste is that I actually PREFER the look of video.....the higher sharpness and less diffusion the better. I'm not alone. My feeling is that if you really want film look, shoot film.
I don't think it's a matter of taking an image from "inusable" to usable. It's a matter of adjusting each to personal preference.....at least when it comes to this sharpening and contrast area. As far as throwing out image data/detail by using the Normal contrast setting in the E20, I don't see it. I think that's getting really nitpicky.
Half the time I admit I do find myself running alot of images through an Unsharp Mask at 1.0 radius at around 70-150 Amount. If setting the in-camera sharpness level to Low helps the outcome of this filter achieve a better result I will try it again more, though in the past I have not seen it. As far as contrast goes, I find myself actually very rarely needing to run a contrast tweak in Photoshop, and to tell the truth I don't find that particular tweak very useful or desireable anyway. I have actually found that the Brightness/Contrast command in Photoshop HURTS images more than helps them....it's really a rather worthless endeavor. Using Auto Contrast is really no better, along with using Auto ANYTHING in PS!!
The best way to adjust contrast is simply making a decent Levels command tweak. But of course, I find that most of us do that anyway (or Curves) so why worry about contrast?
Anyway, thanks for the responses guys.
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter
My individual taste calls for a somewhat higher sharpening level. I like to see alot of detail in an image. As an example, I do alot of digital video. Now, ever since DV came out in the consumer realm (cameras available that were cheaper than 10,000$) there has been a clamoring for the "film look". Alot of people want the softness and saturation of film, in the convenience and resolution of DV, if THAT makes any sense. My taste is that I actually PREFER the look of video.....the higher sharpness and less diffusion the better. I'm not alone. My feeling is that if you really want film look, shoot film.
I don't think it's a matter of taking an image from "inusable" to usable. It's a matter of adjusting each to personal preference.....at least when it comes to this sharpening and contrast area. As far as throwing out image data/detail by using the Normal contrast setting in the E20, I don't see it. I think that's getting really nitpicky.
Half the time I admit I do find myself running alot of images through an Unsharp Mask at 1.0 radius at around 70-150 Amount. If setting the in-camera sharpness level to Low helps the outcome of this filter achieve a better result I will try it again more, though in the past I have not seen it. As far as contrast goes, I find myself actually very rarely needing to run a contrast tweak in Photoshop, and to tell the truth I don't find that particular tweak very useful or desireable anyway. I have actually found that the Brightness/Contrast command in Photoshop HURTS images more than helps them....it's really a rather worthless endeavor. Using Auto Contrast is really no better, along with using Auto ANYTHING in PS!!
The best way to adjust contrast is simply making a decent Levels command tweak. But of course, I find that most of us do that anyway (or Curves) so why worry about contrast?
Anyway, thanks for the responses guys.
--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter
Great idea Gage, and thanks.
By the way.....anyone remember who "Cody" was? I can't recall seeing her here in the forum. But damn....she's a doll.
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter
By the way.....anyone remember who "Cody" was? I can't recall seeing her here in the forum. But damn....she's a doll.
--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter
GageFX133521
Senior Member
Check your mail.
Great idea Gage, and thanks.
By the way.....anyone remember who "Cody" was? I can't recall
seeing her here in the forum. But damn....she's a doll.
markE59102
Veteran Member
Check your mail?!!! Psst...pssst..pssst...
Are you guys talkin' about her?
--
markE
pbase supporter
- Oly E-20, LiPo, TCON300, TCON-14B, WCON, FL-40, Wacom Graphire Canine Stunner II, Epson PS 820,
-Dorothea Lange
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/natural_world
Shhhhh!!!! It's a SECRET!!
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter
--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter
Similar threads
- Locked
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum