THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 29 Mar 2024, 06:52
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Photoshopped VS Not  (Read 15827 times)

Runs_With_Scissors

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 389
  • Cockslayer!
    • My blog :)
Photoshopped VS Not
« on: 22 Oct 2007, 17:58 »

Stemming from the conversation going on in the photography thread:

Quote
Ally: Is it really a different matter? I'm curious as to what you think. If I show you two photographs, and one is clearly superior but has been modified in photoshop, is it not as good as the film photograph?

Frankly, I'm rather offended that people jump to the conclusion that most photography has been altered or manipulated digitally.
Quote
Anyways: That depends entirely in what way the photo was altered. Firstly, I want to establish I am now talking about photography as an art... and I wish to reference to Khar's post in the "what is art?" thread, where he says that a child's drawing can't be perceived as art, as it had no thought behind the lines it drew on the canvas, it didn't know what it was doing - the painting just ended up that way, by chance, and luck with tools. If you imagine photoshop as the child's brush and the darkroom as a "real" artist's, I think you can see where I'm going with this. Any idiot can tweak a photo in a pirated photoshop, but it takes a modicum of skill and knowledge to achieve the same results in a darkroom. Slight edit, to clarify a bit: I'm not saying all photoshopping is easy, by all means - but nearly everything you can do in a lightroom can be achieved a lot easier in photoshop.

And honestly, I think the only reason people assume photos has been tampered with digitally, is that most of it, in fact, is. There aren't a lot of people still shooting with film out there. One of my favourite portrait photographers, Morten Krogvoll, was extremely persistent with sticking to shooting with film professionally, but he had to switch as he just couldn't compete with the freedom photoshop gives you - practically all photos you see every day are tampered with, so people naturally assume they are until proven otherwise.

So, thoughts everyone? (quotes are there just to get the ball rolling)
Logged
I'm the fucking Han Solo of forum politics.

Mnementh

  • Guest
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #1 on: 22 Oct 2007, 18:18 »

Quote
practically all photos you see every day are tampered with, so people naturally assume they are until proven otherwise.

This is plain wrong.  It makes the assumption that no one ever tampered with photographs before photoshop.  People have been tampering with photos since shortly after the medium was invented.  The reason that people assume that everything is fake now is not because it is anything new, but because the internet allows photos and news of fakery to travel further and quicker.  It also allows people who are skilled at picking up on fakes see more of them.

As for the rest, I find it rather elitist and silly.  By the logic presented there, I suppose an architect could only realize the artististry in his vision if he still had slaves drag massive blocks of stone from quarries hundreds of miles away, instead of using a truck to transport them and a crane to erect them.  Books should still be handwritten and only reproduced by a few learned men in a monastary somewhere.  The darkroom and photoshop don't make the photography art, they are both tools which are means to an end.  They require different skills, but not skills that are better than the other.  To create a perfect altered photo in photoshop takes as much skill as it does in a dark room (the fact that so many people find altered pictures now is a testemant to this). 

All photoshop has done is lowered the barrier for entry, by allowing people who could not afford to build a darkroom access to similar tools. If this is a bad thing, if elitism is what makes photography art, then it's an art I don't particularly want to be associated with.
« Last Edit: 22 Oct 2007, 18:26 by Daniel »
Logged

Emaline

  • Lovecraftian nightmare
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,796
  • Drink, Drank, DRUNK
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #2 on: 22 Oct 2007, 19:44 »

The thing that pisses me off about photoshop is that whenever I'd take an awesome picture, and just leave it as is, people would always ask "So what software did you use for this? What'd you do to this in photoshop?" Nothing! Since when does a picture have to go through photoshop to be good?
Logged
little bitty bird, with the flaxen hair, can i help you with the weight of the cross you bear?

Slick

  • Lovecraftian nightmare
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,788
  • I am become biscuit
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #3 on: 23 Oct 2007, 03:27 »

The thing with that analogy is that the architect will probably find something new and original to impress you again. It is often the case that great works are duplicated, copied, and mimicked, but the great minds behind them will create more things.
Also, say someone had a really interesting way of accelerating and spinning that one drop of water to your insta-grow template that creates unique, intriuging pyramids, then that'd be cool.
Medium, I think, is by and large irrelevant; each work should be evaluated on it's own merits and be able to stand out as such.

P.S. And wouldn't you just be impressed all to hell by the person to make insta-grow pyramids?
« Last Edit: 23 Oct 2007, 03:32 by Slick »
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

Liz

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,483
  • Nuclear Bomb Tits
    • Last.fm
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #4 on: 23 Oct 2007, 06:57 »

Dude that would kill all. I would totally get one for my campus. Maybe right next the library...
Logged
Quote from: John
Liz is touching me.
Quote from: Bryan
Fuck you, I want him so bad.

Mnementh

  • Guest
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #5 on: 23 Oct 2007, 08:34 »

Daniel, are you just as impressed by every picture where people have been dragging the handles in B/W with no thought behind it whatsoever?

Black and White failed to impress me long before Photoshop came along.  There are a lot of kids out there who think all you need to do to create art was shoot with Tri-X.

Let's imagine the aforementioned architect: He was the first to build a pyramid. A few days after his work was completed, someone invents a way of making them - say, a insta-grow, add-one-drop-of-water pyramid - so absolutely everyone that had access to the materials could build one, without any effort at all. Ten thousand pyraminds of the exact same kind popped up all over the world. Would you be equally impressed when you saw a pyramid built with the new method? Instead of going "goddamn, you built that?" the way you did when you saw the original pyramid, wouldn't you be going "Oh. You added a drop of water, just like everyone else."? I know I would. I'm not saying you have to be a creative genius who knows his trade inside-out to be a good photographer, I'm just saying it's not as impressive when what you've done has been done thousands of times before, and you didn't actually know what the fuck you were doing when you were editing it.

You're vastly overstating the skill it takes in the darkroom or underestimating the skill it takes in photoshop (probably the later) to alter a photograph in a decent fashion.  It's pretentious and insulting.

As for tampering with images: If you can find one single professional photographer that doesn't edit his pictures in some way, post-photoshop transition, I'd love to see those pics. I've not seen any the four years I've been interested in photography. I'm not talking adding elements or things like that, just tuning contrasts, black/white-transition, levels adjustments.

You completely missed my point.  I wasn't saying no one tampers, I was saying that everyone has been tampering a lot longer than you think.  I'm not sure what relevance the fact that you've been shooting for four years has, but if we're going to play that game, in the fifteen years I've been shooting I've never met anyone who hasn't done some sort of fine tuning in the lab.  I fail to see your point.
« Last Edit: 23 Oct 2007, 08:37 by Daniel »
Logged

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #6 on: 23 Oct 2007, 08:36 »

This is my deal with photoshop - for those of us (including me) who have no idea whatsoever about how to go about developing film (never had time to take a photography class), photoshop is a useful tool. I am so much more impressed by people who can make manipulations in a darkroom (Jerry Uelsmann is one of my favorite photographers who is a perfect example of this), but I am well aware of the skill it takes to use photoshop as I've been using it for the past few years. To make an image not look like it's been manipulated on the computer takes quite a bit of skill. The processes are just different. One of the reasons I respect traditional photography more is because I can't do it. (That's not the only reason, but it's one of them.) However, I do know the skill levels to take both kinds of photographs requires skill. People using photoshop are basically doing the same thing as people in a darkroom - you have a raw image and you "develop" it to the way you see fit, editing contrast, saturation, etc. One just happens to involve film and chemicals and the other jpegs and a computer. The ability to manipulate photographs is still there, it has just progresed further with technology, just everything to do with photography (and every other art form) has since it came about.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #7 on: 23 Oct 2007, 09:28 »

If you don't know the first thing about darkrooms then I don't really see your point. I don't see why a photo that is edited slightly on a computer has to be valued less than a photo edited with chemicals. If you get a completely traditional photographer together with a completely digital photographer, I'm sure both would be interested in how the other comes about getting their images. It's like debating whether painting with natural or synthetic paint is superior to the other. Maybe one has better color, but the other certainly give more variety.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #8 on: 23 Oct 2007, 10:06 »

So it's the journey to the end result that interests you. Makes more sense now, thanks. 

If you were to see a photograph that you thought was absolutely magnificent, but you didn't know what process it was, how would you look at it then? Say the photographer was there and you talked to them about how they came about the image, film or digital, would that change your opinion of it? If beforehand you thought it was tradtional, but it was digital, would you value it less and vice versa. Just curious.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

Scandanavian War Machine

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,159
  • zzzzzzzz
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #9 on: 23 Oct 2007, 11:15 »

why can't you just judge photos by their merit alone and never even bother finding out how it was made? if i see a great photo; i like it because it's good. i'm not interested in how it got that way. good=good, no matter what.

i shoot manually on a 35mm and digitally so maybe i'm just seeing both sides of the issue and am somehow biased towards neutrality. i don't know. i believe i made my point, anyway.
« Last Edit: 23 Oct 2007, 11:18 by Scandanavian War Machine »
Logged
Quote from: KvP
Also I would like to point out that the combination of Sailor Moon and faux-Kerouac / Sonic Youth spelling is perhaps the purest distillation of what this forum is that we have yet been presented with.

Scandanavian War Machine

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,159
  • zzzzzzzz
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #10 on: 23 Oct 2007, 11:37 »

that's fine. think about the subject matter; that's the most important part of a photo. But who cares how the photographer came up with the final image? does it really matter? if it's a good photo then it's still a good photo regardless of process.

what i'm getting at is the subject matter is what's really important. the various processes used to get there are secondary.


edit: after re-reading your post, Anyways, i think we are actually on the same page. maybe not, but i think we are saying the same thing.
« Last Edit: 23 Oct 2007, 11:41 by Scandanavian War Machine »
Logged
Quote from: KvP
Also I would like to point out that the combination of Sailor Moon and faux-Kerouac / Sonic Youth spelling is perhaps the purest distillation of what this forum is that we have yet been presented with.

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #11 on: 23 Oct 2007, 13:15 »

After reading your post about Le baiser..., I don't see why you couldn't be moved by something that is digital that also has meaning behind it. Earlier you were saying that the process itself made it more fascinating, but now it's about subject matter and concept. If an artist chooses to express him/herself in a digital medium, why does it have to diminish his/her work? (We're going in circles, I know, sorry.)

I mean, I can get where it's really insulting to be asked what program you used to manipulate your photo when it was done in a darkroom. Any time I tell someone I'm an artist, they automatically assume I paint and ask me to paint them something, when I can bearly tolerate painting. But that doesn't mean I hold painting at a low standard, I am still fascinated by it, I just don't like doing it nearly as much as I do printing and drawing.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

Scandanavian War Machine

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,159
  • zzzzzzzz
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #12 on: 23 Oct 2007, 14:20 »

I understand what you're saying. that was your best explaination yet. And i do agree that there is an over-saturation of tweenagers turning an okay picture black & white and saying it's art. but that's more a matter of stupid people in the front making the true artists in the back look bad.
these people have given a a negative stigma to something that doesn't deserve it. i used to love black and white photography but lately, as a result of this internet over-saturation i've gotten tired of it because it's all over the place. that's why i, personally decided to start working almost exclusively in color for a while because i was getting sick of my own b/w images just because of how i was beginning to perceive them.

but i don't wanna blame these kids exclusively or give them too much of a hard time because at least more kids are taking an interest in photography and hopefully as they grow up their style will grow with them. it's just a phase and a fad and everything comes and goes so i guess it's nothing to worry too seriously about.

</rant>
Logged
Quote from: KvP
Also I would like to point out that the combination of Sailor Moon and faux-Kerouac / Sonic Youth spelling is perhaps the purest distillation of what this forum is that we have yet been presented with.

Slick

  • Lovecraftian nightmare
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,788
  • I am become biscuit
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #13 on: 23 Oct 2007, 16:01 »

I have been shooting film five years now with my mom's gorgeous old SLR that she gave to me when I moved out. I like being a silly old romantic using film, but that does not mean it is a superior medium. I like getting photos, I like having negatives and hard copies of things I've shot, but I've been into photography long enough to know that there is nothing wrong with digital anymore.

If you're talking about the artistic merits of physical over digital, well, then you really need to talk about people doing interesting things with the process of developing film. If they're not challenging the medium like that, there is nothing that makes the photos inherently better than a digital photo. If someone's not actually using the things that do set film apart from digital, then there's no difference.

After reading this thread, and wanting to reply at points already gone past, it seems like the conclusion is you're being spiteful towards people with photoshop, much in the same way that 'google is ruining everything' by making knowledge accessible to people who don't like to know everything. Any arguments as to the artistic integrity of black & white shots are valid, and I agree with the sentiment that saturation and availability of technology means there's a lot of mediocre amateur art, but to say something is 'meh' before you know it's film is akin to saying a band is 'meh' before you found out they were indie. It makes you look like an elitist prick.

The picture you linked is a nice picture. I'll admit, nothing groundbreaking, but I think it is a good picture. Knowledge that the picture was captured on film and developed does not change my opinion of the picture, but it does make me think that the photographer is a little cooler.

P.S. Following SWM's thought, the black and white pictures of complaint could be like the high-school garage punk rock bands of photos. They're kind of detracting from the value of their parent-genre, and they all sound the same, but some are exceptional, and most will grow up. Everyone starts doing something.
« Last Edit: 23 Oct 2007, 16:03 by Slick »
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

Mnementh

  • Guest
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #14 on: 23 Oct 2007, 16:22 »

You always say things I want to say but so much more eloquently and without sounding like an asshole.  I guess I'm the bad cop.

P.S. Following SWM's thought, the black and white pictures of complaint could be like the high-school garage punk rock bands of photos. They're kind of detracting from the value of their parent-genre, and they all sound the same, but some are exceptional, and most will grow up. Everyone starts doing something.

Oddly, my favorite style of black and white photography is the high contrast street photography that's often associated with early punk.
Logged

Liz

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,483
  • Nuclear Bomb Tits
    • Last.fm
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #15 on: 23 Oct 2007, 18:47 »

Too me a good photo isn't one that is particularily clear or well-shot, it's the one that captures the emotion best. Sometimes putting a picture in black and white can help convey the right emotion.

Also, it doesn't matter whether you use film or digital for your pictures. All that matters is that you know what you're doing and you do it well.
Logged
Quote from: John
Liz is touching me.
Quote from: Bryan
Fuck you, I want him so bad.

Slick

  • Lovecraftian nightmare
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,788
  • I am become biscuit
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #16 on: 24 Oct 2007, 10:26 »

Your argument is still coming through weakly to me. If you're talking about the differences with the film medium, there actually have to be some. Has this person over/under exposed it to get artifacts on the print? Have they toyed with the lens, have they pre-exposed the film briefly to change the quality, have they done anything in the dark room besides just straight-up developing it as per normal, as per routine, as per the way they were shown how to do it in a step-by-step tutorial? Not to diminish that work, but unless they are doing that work artistically, it's not adding to the 'art'.
Unless you can look at a photo and say "Look, I can tell this photo was taken on film because of this, this, and this, and I think that makes it neat because of something, something, and something else", I still think your argument is invalid.

Choice of medium can make a big difference for some things, but I think photography is not one of those. Medium can make an impact on your statement if you're painting in say, period blood, as my friend once wanted to do. But that's drastic and jarring, whereas unless you exploit the fundamental differences in the processes, both film and digital are just tools to capture images.
That is to say, if you're using two very different styles of brush to paint, you can see it in the painting, but if you're using two different brushes that produce the same result, yet one takes more work, I don't see that either is artistically more valid. That's snooty art elitism to claim it is.

Also, I doubt most of these 'hordes' of black and white amateurs are using photoshop tutorials; my money would be on either they pressed a B&W button somewhere else or played around with it until they found out how, which is how most people I know learned photoshop.
Don't hate so much.
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #17 on: 24 Oct 2007, 10:58 »

If you hate the copy/paste kind of "art", then your view is completely valid. Everybody who is interested in art hates cookie cutter art. But if you hate photoshop because of this, that's not a valid point. People can do amazing things with photoshop, as it's just a tool, but hating it just because people don't know how to be creative unless they are told how to pretend to be creative. It's like watching a Bob Ross video - you can either look at what he does and his techniques and use them in your own way, or you can do exactly what he does and have a paint-by-numbers sort of end product. But Bob Ross shouldn't be hated (he's kind of cool and he makes secret trees and rocks and stuff), but the people who copy him should be.

Not every photoshop is the same.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #18 on: 24 Oct 2007, 11:15 »

Because you aren't here to hear it: Imagine a big OHHHH.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

pilsner

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,449
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #19 on: 24 Oct 2007, 11:30 »

The real question is to what extent can you screw with your picture on an online dating site before it becomes immoral.  My litmus test:

-- Removing blemishes: OK
-- Replacing your head with the head of Stephen Colbert: NOT OK

P.S. Photoshop has this tool with some innocent name like the "fade" tool or something but I swear it was developed to remove blemishes from headshots by spotty geeks.  It works too well to be anything else.
« Last Edit: 24 Oct 2007, 11:33 by pilsner »
Logged

Mnementh

  • Guest
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #20 on: 24 Oct 2007, 11:55 »

I get the impression you've chosen the wrong target then.  Digital photography and photoshop are not where your problems lie per se, rather, you take issue with people who are unoriginal, and because digital photography and photoshop, and the internet, has lowered the bar for entry, you get far more people who are simply going to imitate others.

Am I correct?

I can understand that, though I don't think it is anything particularly new.  Everyone goes through that phase where they shoot mostly crappy macro shots of flowers.  Most people grow out of it eventually.
Logged

pilsner

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,449
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #21 on: 24 Oct 2007, 12:51 »

I've never been to the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens Orchid Festival so I'm going to piss on people who take macro shots of flowers because I have never witnessed the awe-inspiring brain-controlling beauty that are rare orchids in a too hot greenhouse.
Logged

Mnementh

  • Guest
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #22 on: 24 Oct 2007, 12:56 »

I didn't say all macro shots of flowers are bad!
Logged

pilsner

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,449
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #23 on: 24 Oct 2007, 13:25 »

My macro shots of flowers are terrible.  And yet I persist.  Because of mind-controlling orchids.
Logged

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #24 on: 24 Oct 2007, 13:32 »

That's because orchids mean SEXY.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

IronOxide

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,429
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #25 on: 24 Oct 2007, 19:58 »

The real question is to what extent can you screw with your picture on an online dating site before it becomes immoral.  My litmus test:

-- Removing blemishes: OK
-- Replacing your head with the head of Stephen Colbert: NOT OK

P.S. Photoshop has this tool with some innocent name like the "fade" tool or something but I swear it was developed to remove blemishes from headshots by spotty geeks.  It works too well to be anything else.

It's called the heal tool, and that's exactly what it's for (well, removing anything from a picture). Compare these that I took after messing up my face last year before and after a five minute GIMP job. (Click to Enlarge)

Before:


After:


I know it's not very good, but it shows what someone with a very base level of competence can do with a single tool.

I don't see anything wrong with if I wanted to do this for some kind of website, although it's not a great picture of me to begin with. It's not quite unrepresentative, it just looks like I don't have serious facial damage.
« Last Edit: 24 Oct 2007, 20:04 by IronOxide »
Logged
Quote from: Wikipedia on Elephant Polo
No matches have been played since February 2007, however, when an elephant, protesting a bad call by the referee, went on a rampage during a game, injuring two players and destroying the Spanish team's minibus

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #26 on: 25 Oct 2007, 13:53 »

I never said that a childs paintings weren't art.

Jesus christ people.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Peet

  • Curry sauce
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • The Second Gabber
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #27 on: 25 Oct 2007, 15:21 »

In Soviet Russia, photo shops you.

()
Logged
Quote from: Slick
I think Astaldo should be the next Dr. Who

CmonMiracle

  • Guest
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #28 on: 27 Oct 2007, 10:15 »

Honestly, I know how to use Photoshop and have developed pictures in a darkroom, but I use them for completely different reasons. (Plus, Photoshop is just cheaper and less time-consuming)
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #29 on: 27 Oct 2007, 15:22 »

This whole thread's bollocks anyway. The camera always lies, and no proffessional photographer still uses a wet darkroom. They're only really useful for art photography, and only necessary for large format work.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Runs_With_Scissors

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 389
  • Cockslayer!
    • My blog :)
Re: Photoshopped VS Not
« Reply #30 on: 27 Oct 2007, 18:26 »

This whole thread's bollocks anyway.

Sorry Khar, but the discussion in the photography thread and it seemed more appropriate to make a new thread instead of jacking that one.

(mods please lock)
« Last Edit: 27 Oct 2007, 18:28 by Runs_With_Scissors »
Logged
I'm the fucking Han Solo of forum politics.
Pages: [1]   Go Up