|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2006 03:19:09 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by yanko:
... Black, gray and white are also colors, which was introduced after the fact. Also, if the entire image has color and you turn it all to black and white how is that NOT adding a major element to the photo as you define it? It surely wasn't there to begin with hence it was added. ... |
I think, but won't speak for others, the arguement here is one of definition. :D Each color has a tone and a hue -- desaturation is the removal of the hue value so only the tone is left, while what has been referred to as 'color shifting' is a matter of changing the hue of the color.
Where do I stand? I agree the selective shifting of hue of a portion of an object creates a major element. 'Primary colors' is just one example of this, with it's hue change of selective portions of the intermingled smoke. Changing the hue of an entire object (even drastic changes) I have no problem with -- I see that as no different than changing the tone by lightening or darkening it.
David
/edit: clarity
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 03:20:37.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:32:54 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
but this sort of stuff has been around at one level or another as long as there's been color photography. We used to do all sorts of weird things in color processing and printing. |
I'm not buying this argument. I keep hearing "this effect is possible in the darkroom," but why should that even apply? Certainly there are effects achievable in the traditional darkroom that aren't and shouldn't be allowed on DPC. To say that a processing technique should be allowed on DPC simply because it can be done in the traditional darkroom is just plain silly IMO.
I'm not saying color shifting shouldn't be allowed at all. I just think there should be at least some limits - it should be done within reason and keep with photographic integrity. Certainly, if you want to shift the color of your sky from blue to violet, I have no problem with that. |
But that's not what I'm saying. People keep talking about how we are a "photography" site, not a "digital art" site. I am just pointing out that "photography" has a history that far predates our digital darksrooms, and that in this history such manipulations-of-color have been around for a long time. It seems to me that YOU are trying to redefine what "photography" is to suit YOUR preconceptions of what it ought to be. In my mind, the place to do that is in the voting stage.
It's ridiculous to try to formulate rules that say "You can use technique "X" but you can only go THIS far before it "violates photographic integrity" and becomes illegal." That's simply perpetuating the can of worms we are in the middle of right now. The voters should be the ones that take care of that; if it doesn't work, they'll let you know. If enough people hate the effect, it will bomb.
How can you fairly define "within reason" and "photographic integrity"? As long as we base our rulings on such nebulous concepts, there will be ourged photographers contesting the rulings, and well they should be IMO.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:47:43 AM · #203 |
| DPChallenge = Digital Photography Contest |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:52:20 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by crayon:
DPChallenge = Digital Photography Contest |
Correction: DPChallenge = Digital Photography Challenge
;-) |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 04:24:08 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by crayon:
DPChallenge = Digital Photography Contest |
Correction: DPChallenge = Digital Photography Challenge
;-) |
oops... must be a mistake.
I read it off the logo on the top-left corner of this page :p |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 04:35:16 AM · #206 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
but this sort of stuff has been around at one level or another as long as there's been color photography. We used to do all sorts of weird things in color processing and printing. |
I'm not buying this argument. I keep hearing "this effect is possible in the darkroom," but why should that even apply? Certainly there are effects achievable in the traditional darkroom that aren't and shouldn't be allowed on DPC. To say that a processing technique should be allowed on DPC simply because it can be done in the traditional darkroom is just plain silly IMO.
I'm not saying color shifting shouldn't be allowed at all. I just think there should be at least some limits - it should be done within reason and keep with photographic integrity. Certainly, if you want to shift the color of your sky from blue to violet, I have no problem with that. |
But that's not what I'm saying. People keep talking about how we are a "photography" site, not a "digital art" site. I am just pointing out that "photography" has a history that far predates our digital darksrooms, and that in this history such manipulations-of-color have been around for a long time. It seems to me that YOU are trying to redefine what "photography" is to suit YOUR preconceptions of what it ought to be. In my mind, the place to do that is in the voting stage.
It's ridiculous to try to formulate rules that say "You can use technique "X" but you can only go THIS far before it "violates photographic integrity" and becomes illegal." That's simply perpetuating the can of worms we are in the middle of right now. The voters should be the ones that take care of that; if it doesn't work, they'll let you know. If enough people hate the effect, it will bomb.
How can you fairly define "within reason" and "photographic integrity"? As long as we base our rulings on such nebulous concepts, there will be ourged photographers contesting the rulings, and well they should be IMO.
R. |
I agree with both of you in different respects - to say that something should or should not be legal in OUR ruleset just because it is or isn't possible in a darkroom is fairly inappropriate; this site is not Digital-But-Lets-Pretend-Its-Film Photography Challenge, after all. All this reference to photos in the real world is another matter entirely for the same reasons - advertising photographers in real life are allowed to add and remove major elements all they like, doesn't mean we should be allowed to on DPC.
On the other side of things, all this talk of "photographic integrity" seems quite vacuous also. We don't enforce whether the entries meet the challenge, unlike some sites (worth1000 etc)... so why should we try and give the photographer a conscience if they don't already have one in terms of editing? Our rules currently seem largely geared towards preventing (or rather discouraging) photographers from deceiving the voters (by cloning out major elements etc). That is a different kind of integrity from making obvious edits to your photograph such as colour shifting; one it is (arguably) logical to enforce because the voters would have no means to know better, while the other the voters can take care of themselves. The photographer doesn't need to have their creativity limited to some odd standard of site-enforced "integrity", they'll quickly learn that if they go too far the voters will hate it.
(By the way, it's within this framework of preventing deceit rather than enforcing a way of making art that i would suggest photographing photoshopped images on monitors be made illegal in the new ruleset, to maintain consistency)
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 04:43:35 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
but this sort of stuff has been around at one level or another as long as there's been color photography. We used to do all sorts of weird things in color processing and printing. |
I'm not buying this argument. I keep hearing "this effect is possible in the darkroom," but why should that even apply? Certainly there are effects achievable in the traditional darkroom that aren't and shouldn't be allowed on DPC. To say that a processing technique should be allowed on DPC simply because it can be done in the traditional darkroom is just plain silly IMO.
I'm not saying color shifting shouldn't be allowed at all. I just think there should be at least some limits - it should be done within reason and keep with photographic integrity. Certainly, if you want to shift the color of your sky from blue to violet, I have no problem with that. |
But that's not what I'm saying. People keep talking about how we are a "photography" site, not a "digital art" site. I am just pointing out that "photography" has a history that far predates our digital darksrooms, and that in this history such manipulations-of-color have been around for a long time. It seems to me that YOU are trying to redefine what "photography" is to suit YOUR preconceptions of what it ought to be. In my mind, the place to do that is in the voting stage.
It's ridiculous to try to formulate rules that say "You can use technique "X" but you can only go THIS far before it "violates photographic integrity" and becomes illegal." That's simply perpetuating the can of worms we are in the middle of right now. The voters should be the ones that take care of that; if it doesn't work, they'll let you know. If enough people hate the effect, it will bomb.
How can you fairly define "within reason" and "photographic integrity"? As long as we base our rulings on such nebulous concepts, there will be ourged photographers contesting the rulings, and well they should be IMO.
R. |
I fully support what Robert is saying here. Applying RULES to limit the amount of color shift just gets us back into that 'interpretation' problem. The SC would have to decide if someone had stepped over an imaginary line. Its much much better to allow the voters to apply those arbitrary judgements, if they belive the manipulation has gone too far then they vote it down.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 04:46:47 AM · #208 |
I had this thought earlier today: In the forums, many people post photos that they request editing help on and many of the best photogs and skilled post-proc members do their thing on the image to take it from an average or below average snapshot to a beautiful keepsake memory they can frame and hang on the wall. Very often the processes used are illegal under our current advanced editing rules, yet these are what I consider more "real-life", practical applications of digital post processing - why should any of those not be legal?
(not referring to the extreme photoshop stuff like godzilla that that one guy does) |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 05:00:46 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I had this thought earlier today: In the forums, many people post photos that they request editing help on and many of the best photogs and skilled post-proc members do their thing on the image to take it from an average or below average snapshot to a beautiful keepsake memory they can frame and hang on the wall. Very often the processes used are illegal under our current advanced editing rules, yet these are what I consider more "real-life", practical applications of digital post processing - why should any of those not be legal?
(not referring to the extreme photoshop stuff like godzilla that that one guy does) |
First of all, we know who always does the "godzilla stuff" LMAO! :p
Secondly, yes, I do find it ironic that some stuff are not allowed though they truly enhances a photograph. Maybe it's just too hard to "govern" the rules? |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:53:05 AM · #210 |
In responding to the original question, what rule changes are needed? ...
Does Not Meet Challenge (DNMC)
It's pretty clear from some really blatant ignoring of the Challenge Description that some form of DNMC DQ has to be considered.
This is not a suggestion that DNMC is generally a DQ offence but that some blatant attempts, those that essentially discredit all honest atttempts to meet the challenge, be grounds for a DQ.
Before we're drowned in howls of protest about 'creativity' and 'freedom', may I say this. This is a Challenge site, not a picture contest site without restrictions. So, we have 'freedom' and 'creativity' as long as we answer the challenge.
In just the last 8 weeks some examples have brought the whole Challenge process into disrepute and the survival of DPC depends on us maintaining our difference.
- We have had a 4-5am challenge where a ribbon winner was shot at midday, despite the Challenge Description requiring you to "...Set your alarm, and take a picture between 4:00 and 5:00 AM. ..."
- We had the singled-out challenge where the description required photogs to "...Drop your fear of candids this week and single-out a person in a crowd as your source of composition....". What did we get? A picture of sheep in 56th place!
- There have been many other such examples
These things make a mockery of the site and the challenge process. They severely disadvantage those honest members who try their hardest and suffer the difficulties of properly following the Description requirements. They are not 'subjective', they are blatant. There are 19 members of SC and I for one trust them as grown people with a balanced intelligence to know the difference.
Brett |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:32:03 AM · #211 |
| The more I read this post, it becomes obvious to me just how good the rules are now. I think all that needs to be done is to define more precisely what is a major element. There will be disagreements on individual photos no matter what the rules say. That's just life. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:12:18 AM · #212 |
Yeah I agree, this discussion seems to be headed nowhere.
Take my advice with a grain of salt, but I suggest that the whole 'color-shifting' thing be overlooked. Not only, as Bear mentioned, has the practice been around since long before the digital era, but it creates another set of rules that are open to interpretation, and that's not a good thing, that is what we are trying to eliminate. What constitutes 'major' -- I 'shifted hues' to make my reds redder, now my yellows look almost orange...did I cross the line? How about changing green to pink -- what's the difference between the two?
Anyway, like I said, we can quibble all day long over this or that, and extend that to the following months or years of challenge entries and DQ requests...or we can just make things simpler. The only way to make things simpler is to become more relaxed on what is allowed. We really need to accept what photography is these days and as I mentioned, learn, adapt, and grow. I think the decision to re-write the rules is a big step, but I think it's important that the site council isn't listening to every little arguement or point and turning it into a huge discussion.
For the well-being of this site and this site's members and future members, we need to relax a bit when it comes to the rules. Sure, a couple people will be angry now, but in the long-run, it will be for the better. Either way, good luck...
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:23:39 AM · #213 |
I haven't read through this entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been suggested. (And now that I think of it, it's not really a "rules" thing, but a suggestion to save the SC some headaches).
Rather than give canned reasons for a DQ (i.e. no addition or removal of major elements, blah, blah, blah), give a clear explanation. And to take it a step further, and I don't know if this already exists, only DQ entries that CLEARLY break the rules during the challenge (addition of text, adding Uncle Charlie to the family portrait when he wasn't really there, etc.). Save the JUDGEMENT CALLS until after the the voting is over, the photographer has been notified and they have had the opportunity to appeal their DQ privately, via email with the SC. There are entirely too many "Why was I DQ'd" threads, and they could be cut way back if the photgraphers were given clearer explanaitions and a chance to argue their case.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:26:44 AM · #214 |
This whole business of the rule changes is a joke ! The only thing that needs to be changed is how the SC interprets the rules because the SC interpretation overrules everything.
When images have a validation request put on them it’s up to SC to decide how they interpret the rules as long as it’s a majority rule, we don’t even know how many people vote on it, it may be as little as three SC as long as there is a majority and probably the most discerning aspect is that it is not always the same people just whoever is available or whoever shows some interest.
When there is a controversial decision made they all go scurrying for cover and try to absolve themselves in the forums by saying they didn’t vote for it to be DQ, this to me is unacceptable as a member of a Site Council you should stand by the majority rule of the council you belong to for the sake of harmony. If you want to absolve yourself from the decisions made then the whole voting results should be made available to everyone
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 09:12:56 AM · #215 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
This whole business of the rule changes is a joke! |
Thanks for the vote of confidence. :-/ |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 09:19:50 AM · #216 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by keegbow:
This whole business of the rule changes is a joke! |
Thanks for the vote of confidence. :-/ |
I believe in you guys! :)
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 09:40:51 AM · #217 |
Basic - same as is + dodge/burn.
Advanced - allow anything that comes from a single image. Subrule - any element in the photo must come from what is left in the crop. (Thus no holding up a photo of a fire, cropping your hand over a black bkgd, cloning the fire in, and then cropping it away. Can't add elements and then crop them out after cloning).
Reasoning: If people want this to be a digital art site, digital art will win. If people want this to be a photography site, photography will win. Let us get it out of our systems - after a few digital art pieces win, either voters will get sick of it and adjust or they will like it and that's where we're headed. Purists can enter basic, d-artists can enter advanced and the only people not happy are some dpc old timers who never wanted the site to change in the first place.
Basic needs dodge/burn because it's ridiculous to do photography without it. Not to be absolutist, but "basic" photography skills include dodge and burn in the darkroom OR the digital darkroom. Let's quit limiting ourselves to such a low standard. Let's reach UP instead of settling for limits.
Advanced - let us just go to town. Why not? Because "digital art" will rule? If we're the voters, and digital art rules, then WE WANT IT TO. Digital art won't rule over us because we lack a sense of taste and we are stupid. Digital art, if it rules, will rule because we like it better. How can we make the argument "we shouldn't allow that "art" crap because it's better than our photos!"? That's ridiculous! If it's better, why are we wasting our time on regular photography? If it's not better, why are we scared of it?
Plus, under my ruleset, there are very few DQs. In basic, the rules don't change and there's no cloning, healing. You want dust removed, figure out a way to avoid the problem - yes it's difficult but if everyone is under those guidelines, you're not at a disadvantage. Under advanced, the only DQs would be for using more than one image/image composites or cloning elements in.
These rules are easy to follow, make sense, would result in fewer DQs and better photography - right or wrong?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 09:41:38 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by saracat:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Originally posted by gloda:
In this thread we noticed that one and the same effect (duotone) is legal in one program (Photoshop) and illegal in another (Paint Shop Pro).
I suggest that whenever an editing step is legal in one program, it should be legal in any other program as well.
Is that bullet-point compatible? |
I think this is where there is a confusion. Don't use "photoshop" equivalent actions or filters as examples. Stay away from using any computer program as a standard. Use plain 'ol photographic terms as what is allowed and what is not. Far too many different programs and everyone does not know what the equivalent is in photoshop. Yes I use PS CS2 but have no idea what sililar things are in older versions or other programs. |
I agree with Phantom. Using the GIMP is great, but not always equivalent to PS (and others), so I'm often left wondering just what is being talked about. Yeah, I could go out and get PS, but honestly, I can't afford it. And trying to translate PS-speak to GIMP-speak is frustrating at best. |
Suggestions for wording?
~Terry |
The old adage states that a picture is worth a thousand words, and on a photography site, they are certainly not in short supply. Examples may be more effective than wording in cases such as this.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 09:48:02 AM · #219 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Basic - same as is + dodge/burn.
Advanced - allow anything that comes from a single image. Subrule - any element in the photo must come from what is left in the crop. (Thus no holding up a photo of a fire, cropping your hand over a black bkgd, cloning the fire in, and then cropping it away. Can't add elements and then crop them out after cloning).
Reasoning: If people want this to be a digital art site, digital art will win. If people want this to be a photography site, photography will win. Let us get it out of our systems - after a few digital art pieces win, either voters will get sick of it and adjust or they will like it and that's where we're headed. Purists can enter basic, d-artists can enter advanced and the only people not happy are some dpc old timers who never wanted the site to change in the first place.
Basic needs dodge/burn because it's ridiculous to do photography without it. Not to be absolutist, but "basic" photography skills include dodge and burn in the darkroom OR the digital darkroom. Let's quit limiting ourselves to such a low standard. Let's reach UP instead of settling for limits.
Advanced - let us just go to town. Why not? Because "digital art" will rule? If we're the voters, and digital art rules, then WE WANT IT TO. Digital art won't rule over us because we lack a sense of taste and we are stupid. Digital art, if it rules, will rule because we like it better. How can we make the argument "we shouldn't allow that "art" crap because it's better than our photos!"? That's ridiculous! If it's better, why are we wasting our time on regular photography? If it's not better, why are we scared of it?
Plus, under my ruleset, there are very few DQs. In basic, the rules don't change and there's no cloning, healing. You want dust removed, figure out a way to avoid the problem - yes it's difficult but if everyone is under those guidelines, you're not at a disadvantage. Under advanced, the only DQs would be for using more than one image/image composites or cloning elements in.
These rules are easy to follow, make sense, would result in fewer DQs and better photography - right or wrong? |
I think you have said in one post what I've been trying to get across in 100's ;-)
I agree - keep it simple, let the community find its own level
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 09:51:20 AM · #220 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
This whole business of the rule changes is a joke ! The only thing that needs to be changed is how the SC interprets the rules because the SC interpretation overrules everything. |
Ultimately, whatever the rules are, and no matter how well written, they will have to be interpreted. One option is to accept what may be the inevitable and make it clear that the application of DQ criteria is subjective. Make it part of the rules that "the SC interpretation overrules everything".
You could do this most clearly and fairly by setting out the terms on which the rules will be interpreted.
For example, this could be done by having a clear statement of the purpose of the rules (to ensure that the competition is focussed on the taking of photographs and their enhancement, not the enhancement itself, or what ever else you decide is the purpose of the rules) and that all of the remaining rules will be interpreted in the light of this stated purpose.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:01:34 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Make it part of the rules that "the SC interpretation overrules everything". |
Kinda like this line, huh?
The Site Council will disqualify any photo it finds violates either the letter or spirit of these rules.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 10:04:42. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:20:20 AM · #222 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Basic - same as is + dodge/burn.
Advanced - allow anything that comes from a single image. Subrule - any element in the photo must come from what is left in the crop. (Thus no holding up a photo of a fire, cropping your hand over a black bkgd, cloning the fire in, and then cropping it away. Can't add elements and then crop them out after cloning).
Reasoning: If people want this to be a digital art site, digital art will win. If people want this to be a photography site, photography will win. Let us get it out of our systems - after a few digital art pieces win, either voters will get sick of it and adjust or they will like it and that's where we're headed. Purists can enter basic, d-artists can enter advanced and the only people not happy are some dpc old timers who never wanted the site to change in the first place.
Basic needs dodge/burn because it's ridiculous to do photography without it. Not to be absolutist, but "basic" photography skills include dodge and burn in the darkroom OR the digital darkroom. Let's quit limiting ourselves to such a low standard. Let's reach UP instead of settling for limits.
Advanced - let us just go to town. Why not? Because "digital art" will rule? If we're the voters, and digital art rules, then WE WANT IT TO. Digital art won't rule over us because we lack a sense of taste and we are stupid. Digital art, if it rules, will rule because we like it better. How can we make the argument "we shouldn't allow that "art" crap because it's better than our photos!"? That's ridiculous! If it's better, why are we wasting our time on regular photography? If it's not better, why are we scared of it?
Plus, under my ruleset, there are very few DQs. In basic, the rules don't change and there's no cloning, healing. You want dust removed, figure out a way to avoid the problem - yes it's difficult but if everyone is under those guidelines, you're not at a disadvantage. Under advanced, the only DQs would be for using more than one image/image composites or cloning elements in.
These rules are easy to follow, make sense, would result in fewer DQs and better photography - right or wrong? |
I think you have said in one post what I've been trying to get across in 100's ;-)
I agree - keep it simple, let the community find its own level |
Thanks Falc - I hope that others who agree will also step forward and be heard - even if it's just "I agree" so that we know where they stand. If people disagree, I also hope they say why - none of this makes any sense without the most community involvement we can get.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:23:32 AM · #223 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Basic - same as is + dodge/burn.
Advanced - allow anything that comes from a single image. Subrule - any element in the photo must come from what is left in the crop. (Thus no holding up a photo of a fire, cropping your hand over a black bkgd, cloning the fire in, and then cropping it away. Can't add elements and then crop them out after cloning).
Reasoning: If people want this to be a digital art site, digital art will win. If people want this to be a photography site, photography will win. Let us get it out of our systems - after a few digital art pieces win, either voters will get sick of it and adjust or they will like it and that's where we're headed. Purists can enter basic, d-artists can enter advanced and the only people not happy are some dpc old timers who never wanted the site to change in the first place.
Basic needs dodge/burn because it's ridiculous to do photography without it. Not to be absolutist, but "basic" photography skills include dodge and burn in the darkroom OR the digital darkroom. Let's quit limiting ourselves to such a low standard. Let's reach UP instead of settling for limits.
Advanced - let us just go to town. Why not? Because "digital art" will rule? If we're the voters, and digital art rules, then WE WANT IT TO. Digital art won't rule over us because we lack a sense of taste and we are stupid. Digital art, if it rules, will rule because we like it better. How can we make the argument "we shouldn't allow that "art" crap because it's better than our photos!"? That's ridiculous! If it's better, why are we wasting our time on regular photography? If it's not better, why are we scared of it?
Plus, under my ruleset, there are very few DQs. In basic, the rules don't change and there's no cloning, healing. You want dust removed, figure out a way to avoid the problem - yes it's difficult but if everyone is under those guidelines, you're not at a disadvantage. Under advanced, the only DQs would be for using more than one image/image composites or cloning elements in.
These rules are easy to follow, make sense, would result in fewer DQs and better photography - right or wrong? |
I think you have said in one post what I've been trying to get across in 100's ;-)
I agree - keep it simple, let the community find its own level |
Thanks Falc - I hope that others who agree will also step forward and be heard - even if it's just "I agree" so that we know where they stand. If people disagree, I also hope they say why - none of this makes any sense without the most community involvement we can get. |
I agree....
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:33:19 AM · #224 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
...
Advanced - let us just go to town. Why not? Because "digital art" will rule? If we're the voters, and digital art rules, then WE WANT IT TO.
... |
I'm not sure this is accurate. Right now, those folks that want more editing freedom move on because that is not what this site is about. If the limits were removed, those folks may stick around - so the "WE" will change and thus the character of the site.
It's the character of the site (its emphasis on photography) which makes it work for me. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:46:45 AM · #225 |
I think it's good as it is now, it's about how good photographer you are, not how good photoshopper. Maybe we can have a few challenges with unlimited editing for members, but this shouldn't be the main path, IMO. Basic Editing is OK, if you want more, pay to be a member. I will do so, as soon as PayPal lets me. :-)
Say I am conservative... to tell the truth, I am. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 04:15:21 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 04:15:21 PM EDT.
|
