Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
Some folks yearn for the simpler days when much of the process was out of your hands and you didn't feel compelled to post process. This was especially true for enthusiasts who shot color. The true snapshooters (like my wife) are still perfectly happy, like being able to see the shot right after you take it, and then goes to CVS and makes prints like Ye Olde Days. I really do believe that many who reject PP simply do not want to be bothered and make up pseudo-artistic reasons to support heir lack of interest. On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Doug Franklin jehosep...@mindspring.com Subject: Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image On 2011-02-17 23:59, Ken Waller wrote: I think the real meaning of unmanipulated is snapshot. JMHO, of course. The unmanipulated image is exposed, un processed film or just a bunch of X's O's. For fear of being serious in a joke thread, the only unmanipluated images are the ones you haven't seen yet. So if a tree falls in the woods. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
I like it too... I notice the author is on smugmug , as am I :-) This line particularly struck me as apt (after the author , who shoots in RAW, explains what he did in lightroom) I didn't add anything to the photograph that wasn't already there. I simply brought out what the camera captured. I think unmanipulated photo means to most photographer's and photo editors, that you havent put Jacks head on Jills body, moved the Empire State building to Paris, or turned Angelina Jolie into an anorexic twig - to use some extreme examples. So there is a bit of a semantic game going on. And I like what you wrote, too, Igor - which is why I let the whole of your mail sit in this one :-) ann Igor Roshchin wrote: On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html I like that article. For those people who like to see what an image looks like straight out [of] the camera, just think for a moment how you are going to see it. On a monitor? But that depends on the monitor and its calibration. And even if you used a calibration tool, if you used it on a different monitor (especially a different model), the result won't be exactly the same. Out of a printer? But it will come differently from different printers. Did you say ICC profiles? But that is not much different from a display calibration (see above). Remember that even eye of different people will see the same picture differently. More over, your own eye will see the same picture differently, depending on your condition. Because your eye's ICC that is loaded in your brain can be fooled very easily by many-many factors (light around, your health, mood, etc.). No matter what media you use (film, digital, human eye, ...) - you always have a transfer function that has at least one calibration (e.g. your eye), - and that calibration can depend on many conditions. Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
From: Bruce Walker On 11-02-16 3:52 PM, Christian wrote: On 2/16/2011 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html He expresses that rather well. Most of the comments are ridiculous and miss the point of the article. No surprise there... The SooC believer crowd is very devout. La la la I can't hear you!! The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3448 - Release Date: 02/16/11 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
From: Igor Roshchin On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html I like that article. For those people who like to see what an image looks like straight out [of] the camera, just think for a moment how you are going to see it. If you really want to see what an image looks like straight out [of] the camera, you have to display it with the little TV screen on the back. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3448 - Release Date: 02/16/11 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
I think the real meaning of unmanipulated is snapshot. JMHO, of course. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: From: Igor Roshchin On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html I like that article. For those people who like to see what an image looks like straight out [of] the camera, just think for a moment how you are going to see it. If you really want to see what an image looks like straight out [of] the camera, you have to display it with the little TV screen on the back. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3448 - Release Date: 02/16/11 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I think the real meaning of unmanipulated is snapshot. JMHO, of course. There's no such thing as an unmanimpulated photo, but there sure as hell are overmanipulated photos. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox. I think that deserves a MARK!, even though I kind of disagree with you. Surely the camera is more than just one tool in our toolbox. It's ~the~ tool, isn't it? Without it there's no photograph. No matter what other hardware, software or storage devices you put your images in or through, the camera is the necessary starting point of the photographic process (no, the photographer is not the starting point, because s/he only becomes a photographer when s/he has a camera with him/her). A photographic idea without a camera is still not a photograph, is it? Still, that was a great quote, John. Very pithy. I like pith. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
Still, that was a great quote, John. Very pithy. I like pith. I dunno. I'm kind of pithed off. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox. I think that deserves a MARK!, even though I kind of disagree with you. Surely the camera is more than just one tool in our toolbox. It's ~the~ tool, isn't it? Without it there's no photograph. No matter what other hardware, software or storage devices you put your images in or through, the camera is the necessary starting point of the photographic process (no, the photographer is not the starting point, because s/he only becomes a photographer when s/he has a camera with him/her). A photographic idea without a camera is still not a photograph, is it? Still, that was a great quote, John. Very pithy. I like pith. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:11 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox. I think that deserves a MARK!, even though I kind of disagree with you. Surely the camera is more than just one tool in our toolbox. It's ~the~ tool, isn't it? Without it there's no photograph. No matter what other hardware, software or storage devices you put your images in or through, the camera is the necessary starting point of the photographic process (no, the photographer is not the starting point, because s/he only becomes a photographer when s/he has a camera with him/her). A photographic idea without a camera is still not a photograph, is it? I first liked the one tool quote. Then thought Frank had a point. Then realized that that both are correct. It depends upon what your definition of photographer and a photograph is. Vivian Maier was a photographer. She used a camera to make photographs. But she also left a box of film, that never became prints. If a photograph is made when the image is captured (latently) on a medium (in digital form or on film, for example) then you are a photographer the moment you press the shutter button, even if you never produce a single photograph (finished image) for anyone to see, in any form. But I think what John is aluding to is a photographer that completes the process... delivers the goods, so to speak. Puts film in the camera. Develops the film. Makes the print. Post-processed the RAW file. Uploads the jpeg. In that case, the camera was certainly a prerequisite tool (even if it is a lens-less pinhole camera). But it was only one tool needed in that chain from opening the shutter to presenting an image that one can appreciate. Without ANY ONE of those tools, a photographic idea is still not a photograph, is it? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On 11-02-17 4:11 PM, frank theriault wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessomsjsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox. I think that deserves a MARK!, even though I kind of disagree with you. I agree with John. There's no real photography, as a pursuit, without other tools. Surely the camera is more than just one tool in our toolbox. It's ~the~ tool, isn't it? Without it there's no photograph. No matter what other hardware, software or storage devices you put your images in or through, the camera is the necessary starting point of the photographic process (no, the photographer is not the starting point, because s/he only becomes a photographer when s/he has a camera with him/her). A photographic idea without a camera is still not a photograph, is it? Still, that was a great quote, John. Very pithy. I like pith. cheers, frank There's only one very narrowly defined case where the camera is THE tool. If you glue a flash memory card into a camera with one lens permanently attached, then take shots in available light which you only ever view on the 3 LCD on the back -- then yes, that's your only tool. In all other cases your camera forms one part -- albeit an extremely important part -- of your photographic tool chain. You'll most likely also have a computer, software, a viewing screen, a printer or print service, an online service where you share your shots (the PUG counts), additional lenses, lights, reflectors, and so on ... Photographically, Vivian Maier would not have existed if her work had been destroyed after her death. If a shutter clicks in the forest, does it make a picture? -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I think the real meaning of unmanipulated is snapshot. JMHO, of course. There's no such thing as an unmanimpulated photo, but there sure as hell are overmanipulated photos. In truth, there's no such thing as an overmanipulated photo if the result is artful. There are many badly manipulated photos. And, of course, art is in the eye of the beholder. It's all subjective. There's no universally applicable standard. Nor should there be. Paul -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: I first liked the one tool quote. Then thought Frank had a point. Then realized that that both are correct. snip I'm feeling like I'm in an old Wrigley's gum commercial... ;-) cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image I think the real meaning of unmanipulated is snapshot. JMHO, of course. The unmanipulated image is exposed, un processed film or just a bunch of X's O's. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: From: Igor Roshchin On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html I like that article. For those people who like to see what an image looks like straight out [of] the camera, just think for a moment how you are going to see it. If you really want to see what an image looks like straight out [of] the camera, you have to display it with the little TV screen on the back. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
From: Steven Desjardins Still, that was a great quote, John. ?Very pithy. ?I like pith. I dunno. I'm kind of pithed off. Better than being pithed on. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox. I think that deserves a MARK!, even though I kind of disagree with you. Surely the camera is more than just one tool in our toolbox. ?It's ~the~ tool, isn't it? ?Without it there's no photograph. ?No matter what other hardware, software or storage devices you put your images in or through, the camera is the necessary starting point of the photographic process (no, the photographer is not the starting point, because s/he only becomes a photographer when s/he has a camera with him/her). ?A photographic idea without a camera is still not a photograph, is it? Still, that was a great quote, John. ?Very pithy. ?I like pith. cheers, frank - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3448 - Release Date: 02/16/11 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:11 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox. I think that deserves a MARK!, even though I kind of disagree with you. Surely the camera is more than just one tool in our toolbox. It's ~the~ tool, isn't it? Without it there's no photograph. No matter what other hardware, software or storage devices you put your images in or through, the camera is the necessary starting point of the photographic process (no, the photographer is not the starting point, because s/he only becomes a photographer when s/he has a camera with him/her). A photographic idea without a camera is still not a photograph, is it? I first liked the one tool quote. Then thought Frank had a point. Then realized that that both are correct. It depends upon what your definition of photographer and a photograph is. Vivian Maier was a photographer. She used a camera to make photographs. But she also left a box of film, that never became prints. If a photograph is made when the image is captured (latently) on a medium (in digital form or on film, for example) then you are a photographer the moment you press the shutter button, even if you never produce a single photograph (finished image) for anyone to see, in any form. But I think what John is aluding to is a photographer that completes the process... delivers the goods, so to speak. Puts film in the camera. Develops the film. Makes the print. Post-processed the RAW file. Uploads the jpeg. In that case, the camera was certainly a prerequisite tool (even if it is a lens-less pinhole camera). But it was only one tool needed in that chain from opening the shutter to presenting an image that one can appreciate. Without ANY ONE of those tools, a photographic idea is still not a photograph, is it? Quite right. Perhaps I might rephrase it to more fully convey what I meant. The camera is not the only tool in the photographer's toolbox. There is no *ONE* right way for everyone. Each of us has our own right way. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3448 - Release Date: 02/16/11 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
From: Bruce Walker There's only one very narrowly defined case where the camera is THE tool. If you glue a flash memory card into a camera with one lens permanently attached, then take shots in available light which you only ever view on the 3 LCD on the back -- then yes, that's your only tool. In all other cases your camera forms one part -- albeit an extremely important part -- of your photographic tool chain. You'll most likely also have a computer, software, a viewing screen, a printer or print service, an online service where you share your shots (the PUG counts), additional lenses, lights, reflectors, and so on ... Photographically, Vivian Maier would not have existed if her work had been destroyed after her death. If a shutter clicks in the forest, does it make a picture? Depends on whether you remembered to take the lens cap off. 8-D - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3448 - Release Date: 02/16/11 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On 2011-02-17 23:59, Ken Waller wrote: I think the real meaning of unmanipulated is snapshot. JMHO, of course. The unmanipulated image is exposed, un processed film or just a bunch of X's O's. For fear of being serious in a joke thread, the only unmanipluated images are the ones you haven't seen yet. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Doug Franklin jehosep...@mindspring.com Subject: Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image On 2011-02-17 23:59, Ken Waller wrote: I think the real meaning of unmanipulated is snapshot. JMHO, of course. The unmanipulated image is exposed, un processed film or just a bunch of X's O's. For fear of being serious in a joke thread, the only unmanipluated images are the ones you haven't seen yet. So if a tree falls in the woods. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On 2/16/2011 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html Most of the comments are ridiculous and miss the point of the article. No surprise there... -- Christian http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com http://birdofthemoment.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On 11-02-16 3:52 PM, Christian wrote: On 2/16/2011 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html He expresses that rather well. Most of the comments are ridiculous and miss the point of the article. No surprise there... The SooC believer crowd is very devout. La la la I can't hear you!! -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
A well written article and lucid explanation of a truth that makes so many photographers irrationally uncomfortable. Paul On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html I like that article. For those people who like to see what an image looks like straight out [of] the camera, just think for a moment how you are going to see it. On a monitor? But that depends on the monitor and its calibration. And even if you used a calibration tool, if you used it on a different monitor (especially a different model), the result won't be exactly the same. Out of a printer? But it will come differently from different printers. Did you say ICC profiles? But that is not much different from a display calibration (see above). Remember that even eye of different people will see the same picture differently. More over, your own eye will see the same picture differently, depending on your condition. Because your eye's ICC that is loaded in your brain can be fooled very easily by many-many factors (light around, your health, mood, etc.). No matter what media you use (film, digital, human eye, ...) - you always have a transfer function that has at least one calibration (e.g. your eye), - and that calibration can depend on many conditions. Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
The man's right. I think that this whole issue stems from the more general concept. Often we would confuse our personal perception of something with its general counterpart. As a consequence, we would project our own perception and, in this very case, call an image true to life whereas the notion of what is true is different for every single one of us. But without noticing that true to life of mine may be different from that of another person, I would engage myself in a heated debate with them, although in many cases such a debate would be pointless from the beginning. To that end, I can only recall once in a lifetime (so far) experience of visiting a photo exhibition in Chicago with fellow PDMLers. That was a blast in many aspects, including that of being able to actually talk with someone about what I saw knowing that they are a kindred spirit that would most likely understand me better. Boris On 2/16/2011 10:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
