Reading mode: Light Dark

One thing is clear: it is not your photo

Go to last post
gollywop

gollywop

Veteran Member
Messages
8,301
Solutions
1
Reaction score
5,628
Location
United States
Well, I normally wouldn't do this, but dear Aur has impugned my integrity and accused me of being evil. He did so in a post in the thread that topped-out before I could reply. So please excuse me this indulgence.

In that post he said:
Member said:
Aur wrote:

19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262


I get it, you have absolutely no idea that Galyna Andrushko took it do you gollywop, she didn't take it at all did she.

You pretended to know who took it to make me say "Yes, I have no idea what she felt...."

Assuming I would never check if she took it or not, because I would be unable to find out since the picture was from google.

You're a pretty evil person.
Click to expand...
But indeed I do know that Galyna Andrushko took the shot. Please check the copyright at:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-52825579/stock-photo-zebra.html?src=PS5DwrRy6S3EBRIUs8iKRA-1-1

I pretended nothing, and the authorship is very easy to check.

It may well be that I am an evil person. I am, however, an honest person, and I don't make a habit of posting stuff about which I know little-to-nothing.

So indeed that is not your shot, and indeed it is Galyna Andrushko's. And you have no idea what thought went into the shot or its processing. So stop giving us other people's work and show us some of your own.

Thus, I ask you once again that you post some of your own work to demonstrate your claimed prowess with both exposure and WB, and that you make sincere efforts to overcome the dumbness that seems to have plagued your ability to explain just what it is that you profess to be doing. Surely someone who is so cocksure in his techniques, so against random eyeballing, would relish the opportunity to inform the world of what he knows. Or is it a trade secret that you hesitate to give up for fear of diluting the value of your photographic oeuvre (which appears to have no known presence in reality)?

--
gollywop
 
gollywop said:
Well, I normally wouldn't do this, but dear Aur has impugned my integrity and accused me of being evil. He did so in a post in the thread that topped-out before I could reply. So please excuse me this indulgence.

In that post he said:
Aur said:
19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262.jpg


I get it, you have absolutely no idea that Galyna Andrushko took it do you gollywop, she didn't take it at all did she.

You pretended to know who took it to make me say "Yes, I have no idea what she felt...."

Assuming I would never check if she took it or not, because I would be unable to find out since the picture was from google.

You're a pretty evil person.
Click to expand...
But indeed I do know that Galyna Andrushko took the shot. Please check the copyright at:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-52825579/stock-photo-zebra.html?src=PS5DwrRy6S3EBRIUs8iKRA-1-1

I pretended nothing, and the authorship is very easy to check.

It may well be that I am an evil person. I am, however, an honest person, and I don't make a habit of posting stuff about which I know little-to-nothing.

So indeed that is not your shot, and indeed it is Galyna Andrushko's. And you have no idea what thought went into the shot or its processing. So stop giving us other people's work and show us some of your own.

Thus, I ask you once again that you post some of your own work to demonstrate your claimed prowess with both exposure and WB, and that you make sincere efforts to overcome the dumbness that seems to have plagued your ability to explain just what it is that you profess to be doing. Surely someone who is so cocksure in his techniques, so against random eyeballing, would relish the opportunity to inform the world of what he knows. Or is it a trade secret that you hesitate to give up for fear of diluting the value of your photographic oeuvre (which appears to have no known presence in reality)?

--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg
Click to expand...
Golly, the oh-so-rich irony here is that the shot is a hoax to begin with. It exists in numerous versions with rather different white balances in each!


Did Aur know this when he posted the shot? If so, what was he trying to prove with respect to "being there" in person to get the right white balance? If he didn't know the truth, what colossal bad luck in picking the worst possible example for trying to prove his point!
 
knickerhawk said:
gollywop said:
Well, I normally wouldn't do this, but dear Aur has impugned my integrity and accused me of being evil. He did so in a post in the thread that topped-out before I could reply. So please excuse me this indulgence.

In that post he said:
Aur said:
19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262.jpg


I get it, you have absolutely no idea that Galyna Andrushko took it do you gollywop, she didn't take it at all did she.

You pretended to know who took it to make me say "Yes, I have no idea what she felt...."

Assuming I would never check if she took it or not, because I would be unable to find out since the picture was from google.

You're a pretty evil person.
Click to expand...
But indeed I do know that Galyna Andrushko took the shot. Please check the copyright at:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-52825579/stock-photo-zebra.html?src=PS5DwrRy6S3EBRIUs8iKRA-1-1

I pretended nothing, and the authorship is very easy to check.

It may well be that I am an evil person. I am, however, an honest person, and I don't make a habit of posting stuff about which I know little-to-nothing.

So indeed that is not your shot, and indeed it is Galyna Andrushko's. And you have no idea what thought went into the shot or its processing. So stop giving us other people's work and show us some of your own.

Thus, I ask you once again that you post some of your own work to demonstrate your claimed prowess with both exposure and WB, and that you make sincere efforts to overcome the dumbness that seems to have plagued your ability to explain just what it is that you profess to be doing. Surely someone who is so cocksure in his techniques, so against random eyeballing, would relish the opportunity to inform the world of what he knows. Or is it a trade secret that you hesitate to give up for fear of diluting the value of your photographic oeuvre (which appears to have no known presence in reality)?

--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg
Click to expand...
Golly, the oh-so-rich irony here is that the shot is a hoax to begin with. It exists in numerous versions with rather different white balances in each!

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-46213336/stock-photo-zebra.html
Click to expand...
Did she take the upper or the lower part of that shot? :-)
 
J A C S said:
knickerhawk said:
gollywop said:
Well, I normally wouldn't do this, but dear Aur has impugned my integrity and accused me of being evil. He did so in a post in the thread that topped-out before I could reply. So please excuse me this indulgence.

In that post he said:
Aur said:
19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262.jpg


I get it, you have absolutely no idea that Galyna Andrushko took it do you gollywop, she didn't take it at all did she.

You pretended to know who took it to make me say "Yes, I have no idea what she felt...."

Assuming I would never check if she took it or not, because I would be unable to find out since the picture was from google.

You're a pretty evil person.
Click to expand...
But indeed I do know that Galyna Andrushko took the shot. Please check the copyright at:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-52825579/stock-photo-zebra.html?src=PS5DwrRy6S3EBRIUs8iKRA-1-1

I pretended nothing, and the authorship is very easy to check.

It may well be that I am an evil person. I am, however, an honest person, and I don't make a habit of posting stuff about which I know little-to-nothing.

So indeed that is not your shot, and indeed it is Galyna Andrushko's. And you have no idea what thought went into the shot or its processing. So stop giving us other people's work and show us some of your own.

Thus, I ask you once again that you post some of your own work to demonstrate your claimed prowess with both exposure and WB, and that you make sincere efforts to overcome the dumbness that seems to have plagued your ability to explain just what it is that you profess to be doing. Surely someone who is so cocksure in his techniques, so against random eyeballing, would relish the opportunity to inform the world of what he knows. Or is it a trade secret that you hesitate to give up for fear of diluting the value of your photographic oeuvre (which appears to have no known presence in reality)?

--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg
Click to expand...
Golly, the oh-so-rich irony here is that the shot is a hoax to begin with. It exists in numerous versions with rather different white balances in each!

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-46213336/stock-photo-zebra.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ha! Thanks for that. Now I know what evil really is. :-)
J A C S said:
Did she take the upper or the lower part of that shot? :-)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I had to wonder about that horizon. I could look up, and I could look down. But it was hard to do both.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Aur to post his images. I have this wonderful feeling that, when he does, I will find ultimate fulfillment. This guy has got to have been sent here for a reason. ;-)





--
gollywop
 
This is a perfect example of how art is subjective. I don't actually like the shot, it's completely unnatural. Im guessing it looks the way the shooter wanted it to look, but it's not my thing at all. Best of luck to the owner of that photo and im sure they are more successful than I but this is a perfect example why there are more gear threads in DPR than "art" threads.

As for Aur, he is likely devising a way to avoid losing face.
 
Last edited:
buybuybuy said:
buybuybuy said:
buybuybuy said:
buybuybuy said:
buybuybuy said:
19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Did she take the upper or the lower part of that shot? :-)
Click to expand...
LOL!!!

The lower part has shallow DOF, yet in the top part, infinity is in perfect focus. Some major compositing, perhaps? I'm not even sure this wasn't created entirely in Adobe Illustrator.
Click to expand...
I agree, it looks like it is composed of two different images but there is nothing wrong about it. I do it all the time.

Moti

--
www.musicalpix.com

TERJUN4D : Akses Link Situs Toto Slot 4d Dan Agen Slot Gacor Gampang Menang

TERJUN4d adalah situs toto slot 4d dan agen slot gacor gampang menang yang menyediakan permainan slot terbaik dengan rtp tinggi. Daftar sekarang dan dapatkan kemenangan maksimal hari ini.
www.musicalpix.com www.musicalpix.com
 
Moti said:
buybuybuy said:
Moti said:
Moti said:
Moti said:
Moti said:
19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Did she take the upper or the lower part of that shot? :-)
Click to expand...
LOL!!!

The lower part has shallow DOF, yet in the top part, infinity is in perfect focus. Some major compositing, perhaps? I'm not even sure this wasn't created entirely in Adobe Illustrator.
Click to expand...
I agree, it looks like it is composed of two different images but there is nothing wrong about it. I do it all the time.

Moti
Click to expand...
It definitely is, there is no way to get the sky that dark without severely underexposing the foreground.
 
gollywop said:
Well, I normally wouldn't do this, but dear Aur has impugned my integrity and accused me of being evil. He did so in a post in the thread that topped-out before I could reply. So please excuse me this indulgence.

In that post he said:
Aur said:
19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262.jpg


I get it, you have absolutely no idea that Galyna Andrushko took it do you gollywop, she didn't take it at all did she.

You pretended to know who took it to make me say "Yes, I have no idea what she felt...."

Assuming I would never check if she took it or not, because I would be unable to find out since the picture was from google.

You're a pretty evil person.
Click to expand...
But indeed I do know that Galyna Andrushko took the shot. Please check the copyright at:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-52825579/stock-photo-zebra.html?src=PS5DwrRy6S3EBRIUs8iKRA-1-1

I pretended nothing, and the authorship is very easy to check.

It may well be that I am an evil person. I am, however, an honest person, and I don't make a habit of posting stuff about which I know little-to-nothing.

So indeed that is not your shot, and indeed it is Galyna Andrushko's. And you have no idea what thought went into the shot or its processing. So stop giving us other people's work and show us some of your own.

Thus, I ask you once again that you post some of your own work to demonstrate your claimed prowess with both exposure and WB, and that you make sincere efforts to overcome the dumbness that seems to have plagued your ability to explain just what it is that you profess to be doing. Surely someone who is so cocksure in his techniques, so against random eyeballing, would relish the opportunity to inform the world of what he knows. Or is it a trade secret that you hesitate to give up for fear of diluting the value of your photographic oeuvre (which appears to have no known presence in reality)?
Click to expand...
Thid image is probably composed of two different photos. There is nothing wrong in it and I do it very often. Personally, I'm not crazy about this one as it looks to me too artificial.

As for our friend Aur, it doesn't look like he knows much about photography, to put it mildly and for me, there is nothing worse than an ignorant who doesn't stop arguing about topics he knows nothing about and who isn't even capable to produce his own photos to prove his point.

I also suspect that this guy is lurking around under several different identities and you can clearly see that each of his stupid posts gets immediately two or three likes which are probably given by his other characters.

Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com
 
Last edited:
Neil Holms said:
Moti said:
buybuybuy said:
Neil-H said:
Neil-H said:
Neil-H said:
Neil-H said:
19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Did she take the upper or the lower part of that shot? :-)
Click to expand...
LOL!!!

The lower part has shallow DOF, yet in the top part, infinity is in perfect focus. Some major compositing, perhaps? I'm not even sure this wasn't created entirely in Adobe Illustrator.
Click to expand...
I agree, it looks like it is composed of two different images but there is nothing wrong about it. I do it all the time.

Moti
Click to expand...
It definitely is, there is no way to get the sky that dark without severely underexposing the foreground.
Click to expand...
Good point. As is true of most art, composite photos can evoke some strong sentiments; in general, I admire the skill of good compositors. It is a skill I wish I had!
 
gollywop said:
Well, I normally wouldn't do this, but dear Aur has impugned my integrity and accused me of being evil. He did so in a post in the thread that topped-out before I could reply. So please excuse me this indulgence.
Click to expand...
Certainly, as that remark was completely uncalled for.
gollywop said:
Thus, I ask you once again that you post some of your own work to demonstrate your claimed prowess with both exposure and WB, and that you make sincere efforts to overcome the dumbness that seems to have plagued your ability to explain just what it is that you profess to be doing. Surely someone who is so cocksure in his techniques, so against random eyeballing, would relish the opportunity to inform the world of what he knows. Or is it a trade secret that you hesitate to give up for fear of diluting the value of your photographic oeuvre (which appears to have no known presence in reality)?
Click to expand...
I think that Aurs main problem is that is actually trying to do what many other people do - render a scene as he experiences it and not as it actually is, neutral and flat. For doing that he then wants to be at the scene and verify the result immediately, thus JPEG. Which is quite ok.

But he then manages to compound and confound the issue by a) claiming that there is (ought to be?) one, true scientific way of doing that, b) using the completely wrong terminonoloy (eg. accurate instead of perceived), c) coupling that again with a lack of knowledge and - the icing - d) a sheer obstreperous, pig-headed unwillingness to listen to other people.

And then mayhem ensues :-) together with much tilting at windmills.

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.
 
Last edited:
Mike CH said:
gollywop said:
Well, I normally wouldn't do this, but dear Aur has impugned my integrity and accused me of being evil. He did so in a post in the thread that topped-out before I could reply. So please excuse me this indulgence.
Click to expand...
Certainly, as that remark was completely uncalled for.
Mike CH said:
Thus, I ask you once again that you post some of your own work to demonstrate your claimed prowess with both exposure and WB, and that you make sincere efforts to overcome the dumbness that seems to have plagued your ability to explain just what it is that you profess to be doing. Surely someone who is so cocksure in his techniques, so against random eyeballing, would relish the opportunity to inform the world of what he knows. Or is it a trade secret that you hesitate to give up for fear of diluting the value of your photographic oeuvre (which appears to have no known presence in reality)?
Click to expand...
I think that Aurs main problem is that is actually trying to do what many other people do - render a scene as he experiences it and not as it actually is, neutral and flat. For doing that he then wants to be at the scene and verify the result immediately, thus JPEG. Which is quite ok.
Click to expand...
I have been following the discussion in the jpg V raw thread that is now full, because I almost use the same method as Aur does, and it works very well.

The difference is that I do nothing at all in the way of adjustment at the actual scene, that has already been done once and doesn't need to be done again. In other words I calibrate my camera using a known outdoor scene from my house using the available jpg engine adjustments, until I can faithfully reproduce that scene by observion as Aur does, but also color measurment using the eye dropper tool to be sure whether white is accurate, until finally I reach the permanent setting for my camera. This calibration only needs to be done when a new camera is bought, after that its ready to use, same as calibrating a monitor

When I go to a place to take shots I do nothing more, then when I get home I have a faithful image of the scene which I can now alter or tweak in any way I want. Mostly nothing needs to be done, and I can just take any number of images straight out of the camera from a trip to the print shop and come home with great prints.

People should realise that we all don't want to spend our lives in the digital darkroom.

Brian
 
brianj said:
Mike CH said:
gollywop said:
Well, I normally wouldn't do this, but dear Aur has impugned my integrity and accused me of being evil. He did so in a post in the thread that topped-out before I could reply. So please excuse me this indulgence.
Click to expand...
Certainly, as that remark was completely uncalled for.
brianj said:
Thus, I ask you once again that you post some of your own work to demonstrate your claimed prowess with both exposure and WB, and that you make sincere efforts to overcome the dumbness that seems to have plagued your ability to explain just what it is that you profess to be doing. Surely someone who is so cocksure in his techniques, so against random eyeballing, would relish the opportunity to inform the world of what he knows. Or is it a trade secret that you hesitate to give up for fear of diluting the value of your photographic oeuvre (which appears to have no known presence in reality)?
Click to expand...
I think that Aurs main problem is that is actually trying to do what many other people do - render a scene as he experiences it and not as it actually is, neutral and flat. For doing that he then wants to be at the scene and verify the result immediately, thus JPEG. Which is quite ok.
Click to expand...
I have been following the discussion in the jpg V raw thread that is now full, because I almost use the same method as Aur does, and it works very well.
Click to expand...
For you, right? That does not imply for everybody, right? Because we all have different tastes and needs.

brianj said:
People should realise that we all don't want to spend our lives in the digital darkroom.
Click to expand...
Likewise for the opposite view, right?

I am happy, really, for you to be doing what you want to do. I am happy for everybody who are doing what they want to be doing.

It is, as I have said often enough, not about JPEG or raw being 'rigther' or 'wronger' than the other. It is about realising that they are different and offer different possibilities. What you do then depends on what possibilities you want to exploit.

What I am not happy about is the spreading of misinformation. Eg. that JPEG and raw are the same, that you can do everything in JPEG just the same as in raw, that raw processing is a hoax, that no raw conversion takes place in the camera for OOC JPEG, just to name a few.

Regards, Mike
 
Mike CH said:
brianj said:
Mike CH said:
gollywop said:
Well, I normally wouldn't do this, but dear Aur has impugned my integrity and accused me of being evil. He did so in a post in the thread that topped-out before I could reply. So please excuse me this indulgence.
Click to expand...
Certainly, as that remark was completely uncalled for.
Mike CH said:
Thus, I ask you once again that you post some of your own work to demonstrate your claimed prowess with both exposure and WB, and that you make sincere efforts to overcome the dumbness that seems to have plagued your ability to explain just what it is that you profess to be doing. Surely someone who is so cocksure in his techniques, so against random eyeballing, would relish the opportunity to inform the world of what he knows. Or is it a trade secret that you hesitate to give up for fear of diluting the value of your photographic oeuvre (which appears to have no known presence in reality)?
Click to expand...
I think that Aurs main problem is that is actually trying to do what many other people do - render a scene as he experiences it and not as it actually is, neutral and flat. For doing that he then wants to be at the scene and verify the result immediately, thus JPEG. Which is quite ok.
Click to expand...
I have been following the discussion in the jpg V raw thread that is now full, because I almost use the same method as Aur does, and it works very well.
Click to expand...
For you, right? That does not imply for everybody, right? Because we all have different tastes and needs.
Mike CH said:
People should realise that we all don't want to spend our lives in the digital darkroom.
Click to expand...
Likewise for the opposite view, right?

I am happy, really, for you to be doing what you want to do. I am happy for everybody who are doing what they want to be doing.

It is, as I have said often enough, not about JPEG or raw being 'rigther' or 'wronger' than the other. It is about realising that they are different and offer different possibilities. What you do then depends on what possibilities you want to exploit.

What I am not happy about is the spreading of misinformation. Eg. that JPEG and raw are the same, that you can do everything in JPEG just the same as in raw, that raw processing is a hoax, that no raw conversion takes place in the camera for OOC JPEG, just to name a few.
Click to expand...
I have no arguments with those points.

It would be nice to have a separate thread to be able to discuss the method I outlined, but so few people use it as can be seen by the poll in the other thread, and even if I started a thread it would very quickly go off the rails so I don't bother.

Brian
 
Neil Holms said:
Moti said:
buybuybuy said:
Neil-H said:
Neil-H said:
Neil-H said:
Neil-H said:
19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Did she take the upper or the lower part of that shot? :-)
Click to expand...
LOL!!!

The lower part has shallow DOF, yet in the top part, infinity is in perfect focus. Some major compositing, perhaps? I'm not even sure this wasn't created entirely in Adobe Illustrator.
Click to expand...
I agree, it looks like it is composed of two different images but there is nothing wrong about it. I do it all the time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
just because you do it all the time does not make it right for everyone . you are now excluded from certain photographic circles due to excessive manipulation .

but no big deal just don't make the mistake of passing it off as a real photograph in those circles ,otherwise your name will be muddied for an eternity
Neil-H said:
Neil-H said:
Moti
Click to expand...
It definitely is, there is no way to get the sky that dark without severely underexposing the foreground.
Click to expand...
no way ?

how about using a card in front of the lens to split the image and allowing for 2 different exposures within the one frame ?
 
AmbleYonder said:
just because you do it all the time does not make it right for everyone . you are now excluded from certain photographic circles due to excessive manipulation .
Click to expand...
Of course. Just like working in JPEG is not for everyone.

AmbleYonder said:
but no big deal just don't make the mistake of passing it off as a real photograph in those circles ,otherwise your name will be muddied for an eternity
Click to expand...
Let me guess - you missed the part where exactly that photo was held up as something done in camera, with WB done at the scene?


AmbleYonder said:
AmbleYonder said:
AmbleYonder said:
Moti
Click to expand...
It definitely is, there is no way to get the sky that dark without severely underexposing the foreground.
Click to expand...
no way ?

how about using a card in front of the lens to split the image and allowing for 2 different exposures within the one frame ?
Click to expand...
And the differences in focus between lower and upper part? Do you solve them with a card, too? (Yes, I know that you can do that, too - but it does require you to merge two shots :-))

Regards, Mike
 
AmbleYonder said:
Neil Holms said:
Moti said:
buybuybuy said:
AmbleYonder said:
AmbleYonder said:
AmbleYonder said:
AmbleYonder said:
19274d5e10474028a94aebd4ab697262.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Did she take the upper or the lower part of that shot? :-)
Click to expand...
LOL!!!

The lower part has shallow DOF, yet in the top part, infinity is in perfect focus. Some major compositing, perhaps? I'm not even sure this wasn't created entirely in Adobe Illustrator.
Click to expand...
I agree, it looks like it is composed of two different images but there is nothing wrong about it. I do it all the time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
just because you do it all the time does not make it right for everyone .
Click to expand...
Silly comment. Of course it doesn't. Different people can have different styles if you haven't noticed.
AmbleYonder said:
you are now excluded from certain photographic circles due to excessive manipulation .

but no big deal just don't make the mistake of passing it off as a real photograph in those circles ,otherwise your name will be muddied for an eternity.
Click to expand...
I hope that you were joking otherwise that is complete concentrated utter nonsense.

Have a look of this photo series - Wine tasting - a sensory journey All the images are composed and heavily manipulated. According to you, the photographer should now be excluded from certain photographic circles due to excessive manipulation. And yet, these photos have been chosen by the Brittish Media Archives as part of the official UK art collection and are classified under the category photography.

So I would strongly suggest that you start opening your eyes, visit some photography art galleries and get few ideas about contemporary photography to be a bit enlightened. Of course, no one forces you to do anything like that if you prefer to remain ignorant.

oh and let me guess, AmbleYonder = Aur? Most probably.

Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birddogman
**MINI CHALLENGE #791** An artistic presentation of your favorite person, place or thing
2 3
Replies
52
Views
25K
BIJ001
B
O
Photography versus mobile story telling
Replies
6
Views
12K
Ferenc MOGOR
Ferenc MOGOR
M
Nikon user here need info on Imaging Edge Mobile.
Replies
3
Views
5K
ishwanu
I
Jon in Thailand
- Photographers, Disabilities -
2
Replies
28
Views
908
Jon in Thailand
Jon in Thailand
M
What are your photo goals for 2025?
2
Replies
21
Views
5K
left eye
left eye

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top