- Become a better photographer today!
remember me:     

Photography QnA: All About Photography

Browse by Category | All New Questions | All New Responses | Q&A Home

Category: All About Photography

Interested in learning art photography? Want to become a master photographer? The following questions and answers are divided into two main groups - digital imaging and traditional, film-based photography. Learn the techniques of both here. If you want to learn more about how to make great photos take Jed Manwaring's Getting Started: How to Make Great Photographs online photography course.

Page 3 : 21 -30 of 15096 questions

<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...1510
Next 10  >>
Photography Question 
Corky J. Dehorty
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Corky
Corky's Gallery

member since: 12/20/2007
  21 .  File Size
I am told when needing to resize an image it is best not to resample. So, how then is the best way to resize an image so it's not so large when transferring to an email?

10/16/2013 9:16:42 AM

  It is best not to resize *if possible*. Different media requires different resolutions. Monitors run from about 72ppi to 120ppi (with exceptions). Home printers will require somewhere between 180ppi and 240ppi. Offset magazine printing around 305ppi. If you have an image going to print on the cover of a 12x9 magazine, you are going to need 3660 x 2745 pixels (about 10mp). You put that same image on the web or in an email without sizing and it will be at least 30.5 inches, and likely more. Clearly over-kill.

What I try to get people to do is NEVER resize an original, but make purposed images from the original, saved as a separate file. This way, you always have the original full resolution image to make other images from -- and those images can be resized for their purpose. Once you drop them in an email, toss the copies! Otherwise you'll just collect repeats and make a mess and have bunches of files floating around.

As you will likely be sizing down significantly (depends on the original resolution), you want to use a resizing method that incorporates some sharpening or sharpen separately. Think 72ppi. 720x576 will pretty much add up to an 8x10... But you'll want to consider the purpose and the person you are sending to as well.

I hope that helps!

10/16/2013 10:18:22 AM

  I do usually keep my original, but what I have been doing is resampling a copy and then using that. What do you mean by making a purposed image? Is that what I'm doing when I resample a copy? But still, I'm resampling ... is there any other way to reduce the size?

10/16/2013 10:22:26 AM

  If you are trying to accomplish something specific like sending a smaller file through the Internet to a service for printing so it gets to the destination with full resolution, you have choices to make with compression and file type, etc. If you are casually exchanging an email with a friend, your choices might be quicker and easier.

How exactly do you want to reduce the size? Dimension in pixels? In inches? File size? I've written chapters of books on the subject of file size, resolution, file type, compression... I'm sure we can sort it out.

Tell me exactly what you are trying to accomplish.


10/16/2013 1:07:01 PM

  I'm talking about resizing to send to friends in email, or making the file smaller, for instance, for Better Photo when I need to submit a picture for my portfolio or a class. I don't have a preference as to what to reduce it to, i.e. resolution, file type or compression. I just want it smaller with good clarity for the reasons mentioned above.

10/16/2013 1:13:37 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/11/2003
  If you want to make it quicker to send in an email, and also when the receiver opens the file to have it about the size of what you see in anyone's gallery, then you would resample. If you had a 6000x4000 original you wanted to send, you would go to image size and with resample, change to 600x400. This would reduce the file size from a bunch of Mb to kb. Making it quicker for slow internet connections. It would also reduce the image size, so the whole thing fits on their screen.
However, you could reduce file size without resample by saving a copy of it at a lower setting. Instead of highest quality of 10 save as a 4. But if you didn't do anything with the image size, that 6000x4000 would may now be a kb file, but the dimensions wouldn't change, and the receiver may be scrolling back and forth to see the whole image on their screen.
Like Eric, I mean Richard said, for viewing on your screen, you don't need too high resolution for a good image.

10/16/2013 4:56:52 PM

  "I'm talking about resizing to send to friends in email, or making the file smaller, for instance, for Better Photo when I need to submit a picture for my portfolio or a class... I just want it smaller with good clarity for the reasons mentioned above."

That was what I assumed in the first answer. If you have an image that is big and you want to make it smaller at the same resolution, you have to resample (technically called 'decimation').

If you think about pixels as lightbulbs... Say you have a bunch of lightbulbs in a 3x3 foot box, you want to put those bulbs in a 1x1 foot box, they are just not going to fit. Some will need to be sacrificed.

Resampling for a purpose is not a sin if you are careful and work from the original. Just don't resize the original, save off a copy, and then -- oops -- resave the original at the smaller size.

As it is an email and not more critical work, my first suggestion is the one to go with. And most of what Gregory said, but you may not want to go as low as 4 on the quality for the jpeg if you are already sensitive about the resizing... stick to 7 or 8. If you view at 100% on your screen (see the viewing % on the image window in photoshop or elements) before you send, you will essentially see what the recipient will...


10/16/2013 9:46:01 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Usman Bajwa
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Usman
Usman's Gallery

member since: 4/11/2006
  22 .  Leaving for London, UK. Need your suggestion.
Hello friends. I'll be off to London UK, early next week for a business visit. Since I would have three days (Thursday to Saturday) free, would love to see your suggestions/pointers on the must-see places to visit/photograph in and around London.

Would very much welcome the opportunity of a photo-shoot together, if you live nearby, are interested and have time.

Thanks in advance for your time.


9/27/2013 5:49:29 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/11/2003
  Ace Cafe in London.

9/27/2013 7:18:28 PM

  Thanks Gregory, will check it out. Any place else you think might be interesting to see there.


9/27/2013 7:21:57 PM

  Wow, Ace sounds like fun, bikes, cars and rock n roll.


9/27/2013 11:58:29 PM

  Lots of fascinating things to see and shoot all over town. I'd focus around the City of London area if you're short of time. Trafalgar Square, Covent Garden, Piccadilly Circus. Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament. London Eye for its vantage point as well as the design elements. Have fun!!

9/28/2013 8:36:35 AM

  Thanks, Martha.


9/28/2013 8:20:23 PM

  I might also hop on a train to Paris. So any guidance on major Paris places which could be done in 1-2 days is also welcomed.


9/28/2013 11:50:28 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Shannon Whit
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2011
  23 .  What lens to carry/use?
Hi All, I'll be traveling to Europe (tomorrow) and want to go on a shooting spree. However, I do not want to carry lenses that I don't need. As you know it is a very picturesque place full of culture, color, insane architecture and gorgeous landscapes. I'll be in Paris, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Brussels. Each place is unique in its own way but quite similar in richness. What lens/es would you suggest I carry with me? Although I've only been shooting for two years, I have several. Thanks for your input.


9/20/2013 4:52:07 AM

  Depends somewhat on what you want to shoot and also what camera you use.

For landscape and architecture, I like my EF 17-40. (I really like the TS/E lenses for but those are pretty specialized lenses ...)

For walking around (culture, people, etc), I like both the EF 20-70 and the EF 70-200. Both are f/2.8, fast, crisp and versatile in an urban setting.

9/20/2013 9:51:17 AM

Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery

member since: 6/11/2005
  Shannon, how many lenses do you want to bring? As RK says, there are several options. If you only want a single lens, then go with something like 24-105mm. It's a bit wide angle, and a bit zoom.

9/20/2013 12:38:28 PM

Shannon Whit
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2011
  Thank you for your input RK and Ken. I appreciate it. I'm carrying a Canon 5d3 and my ultimate goal is to shoot everything pleasing to look at -- architecture, landscapes, street photography, people perhaps, food, and my husband. I thought about carrying my two ir three lenses -- 24-70, 50 (food shots) and maybe the 85 but maybe the 50 will suffice for that. Additionally, the 70-200 crossed my mind. I don't wanna get there (Paris, Amerstam, Rotterdam, and Brussels) and regret not taking something with me. Thanks again!!!

9/20/2013 5:00:29 PM

doug Nelson

member since: 6/14/2001
  You have a 5DIII? Lucky you. The L-series 17-40 would be great for you. Much of your European shooting will be wide-angle because of narrow streets. All wide zooms distort badly at the shortest end, but the 17-40 has little or no distortion at the 24-35 focal lengths you'd use most. I'd add an 85 for people and selecting parts of landscapes and maybe the 50mm macro (light and cheap) for food shots.

9/21/2013 2:57:23 PM

  Everyone's suggestions seem to make sense, and to emphasize, it really has to do with what you expect and your own style.

I know it isn't a terribly popular choice, but I used to do walk-arounds with a Sigma 18-200 DC 3.5-6.3 OS lens on my Sigma SD1... It let me get wide shots and tight without having to change lenses -- and so long as there is daylight the OS (stabilization) didn't lead to much noise or terribly long shutter speeds and blur. That camera is dedicated IR now. I changed up to a Canon 7D and use a set of 2.8 EX lenses (18-50, 70-200) for walking.

If I am going to a special spot, or know I'll be shooting models or macro or infrared, I might consider dragging along something else (monopod, tripod, extension tubes, other lens, etc.), but it really depends on what I expect to shoot as much as my mood -- and how convenient it is. Like a long hike doesn't tend to be good for carrying 3 lenses, 2 cameras, tripod, flash, and etc., but if I expect to have opportunity to use all of it, I make that sacrifice. Like I was at a gorge yesterday where there was a perfect spot for a model shoot...I only brought my IR camera -- which was OK because I intended to shoot IR and didn't have a model -- but I'll be going back to that same spot sometime with a model and hiking some gear there when I go.

Sounds like you're planning on some travel photography and walking, so the 2 lens approach sounds best for your situation.

Have fun with it!


9/23/2013 10:45:24 AM

Shannon Whit
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2011
  Thank you Doug and Richard! Yes, I have a 5D3 but I saved long and hard because I knew I wanted to get the best and not later have tegrets and having to upgrade. I'm learning a lot too! Only shooting for a short time. Richard, thanks. I think I may just carry my 24-70 and 85 and use my IPhone for food shots especially since I'd have to get up from my table or scoot way back to use the 50 of my ordered meals.

Thanks for everyone's input!!!

9/23/2013 3:28:29 PM

  iPhone for food shots is a NEAT idea. why not make something of the great secondary technology you have on your phone? Nice call.


9/23/2013 4:14:06 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Kathy Wesserling
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Kathy
Kathy's Gallery

member since: 4/21/2005
  24 .  Today's POTD (9/12/13)
I'd like some learning time on today's POTD. It was a Finalist in the Catch-All category for July, and I loved it, but was so confused. To me, it looks as though it would have to be a Digital Darkroom piece to achieve those wonderful effects. The settings that were used are available with the image.

Would some of you more knowledgeable photographers look at it, and tell me how it was done? It's so fascinating, but I cannot figure it out (and it's driving me nuts!) Thanks.

9/12/2013 6:46:21 AM

  Like you, Kathy, I think it's beautiful and the joyous energy is incredibly contagious. I don't think it's highly processed - late day light coming through the water spray and a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action and spray would be enough. He might have enhanced the color, too. Look at the nearest figures - they look absolutely "normal".

And there's no restriction on processing in any category at BP that I know of - hasn't been for years. My biggest problem is often that I cannot create an image that has enough over-the-top "darkroom" work on it to qualify for the DD category LOL

9/12/2013 7:19:24 AM

  Here are the settings...
f/11, 1/640 second, ISO: 200, Focal Length: 185mm

Someone else suggested it was back lighting which made a lot of sense. I just couldn't figure it out by myself. I think it was the normalcy of the nearest figures that threw me off - almost like selective coloring.

There are so many photographers (Jessica Jenney is one of them) who uses textures to change camera images into near paintings. Anything like that, I consider DD and have entered a few of my pieces into that category. Maybe, that's why they never get picked - they aren't DD enough.

Thanks for your input, Nikki - it's helped me.

9/12/2013 8:26:42 AM

  It looks to me like there is the possibility that highlights were shifted towards red. That is not at all hard to do with Photoshop and color balance, though it is quite possible that the color was either natural (because of lighting conditions) or simply enhanced (saturation). A variety of simple enhancement techniques can be used to achieve this type of result -- it really depends on what the original image looked like.

9/14/2013 11:22:37 AM

  I think it was confusing because the two foremost figures have different colors and tones than all the rest. I just couldn't figure out how the tonality was achieved.

Thanks for chiming in, Richard... I still have so much to learn.

9/14/2013 11:40:15 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/11/2003
  Back light, late day orange tint, and lots of water reflecting and refracting.
He may have used curves to clear some washed out haze you can get from back lighting. To make it look clearer. Like how you can use them to make the bars disappear on zoo shots.
But the two kids in front are on the outside edge of the water spray. Or just closer to the camera. Fog looks thickest away from you. So there's nothing unusual about them appearing clearer.
And everything you don't see about the location is playing a part in adding fill, adding color, providing a dark background.

9/15/2013 8:27:02 AM

  Again, I'm learning more (that zoo bar reference intrigues me because that's become a more frequent problem.) Focal Length is what you're talking about, Gregory - the two kids opposed to the others?

The more information that you all have added have made this image even more fascinating. There is much to it that I obviously did not comprehend. Thank you.

9/15/2013 9:04:37 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/11/2003
  There's isn't more to it that you wouldn't see in many other outdoor situations. You've seen hazy looking skylines before. There's just as much stuff floating in the air where you are. You're just trying to look through so much of it.

9/15/2013 2:14:16 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Buddy B. Kirby
Contact Buddy
Buddy's Gallery

member since: 8/24/2008
  25 .  Photo Group
I see references to "Photo Group 101". What exactly is this?

9/9/2013 2:46:52 PM

Christopher J. Budny
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/3/2005
  Hi Buddy - "PG101" is simply a subset of BP Members, who convene online through a Yahoo Group. The group sets themed shooting challenges for members throughout the month/year, holds a "Monthly Favorite" members' image contest (voted within Yahoo Groups) in addition to BP's contest & themes, and offers members another forum to talk photography, seek image critiques/constructive feedback, etc. Any BP member can join it, if interested; it just takes another existing PG101 member to initiate the Yahoo Group invite.
Let me know if you're interested, and I'll have a group moderator send you the invite!

9/10/2013 10:37:59 AM

  Yes, I am interested. I have been a BP member for years, and have taken several classes.

9/10/2013 2:09:24 PM

Christopher J. Budny
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/3/2005
  Hi Buddy; no worries -- the group is open to anyone, new or old BP member, with or without classes. Just shoot me your email address you'd like to receive the invite -- you can email me at

9/10/2013 4:19:18 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Harriet Feagin
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Harriet
Harriet's Gallery

member since: 10/25/2011
  26 .  Fall Color In Colorado 2013
Does anyone who is familiar with Colorado know anything about what to expect this year? Based on experience, can anyone predict what kind of fall color will we have? I know it is a crap shoot but I thought I would ask anyway. Thanks,

Harriet Feagin

9/3/2013 9:44:50 AM

  I haven't heard any predictions yet, but I saw some yellow spots in the high country last week. It will probably be a few more weeks until it peaks. This can be a good link for you:
U.S. Forest Service's hotline isn't updated yet for fall colors.
Maybe someone else has better information to bring to you!

9/3/2013 11:49:30 AM

  Thank you. I have a trip planned for the last week this month and your observation has given me hope. Thanks again.

Harriet Feagin

9/3/2013 2:18:20 PM

Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery

member since: 6/11/2005
  I found this link too:

Per their website.....Basically, click on the Colorado map at the locale you want. Select the Conditions tab, check the 'Fall Colors' box, and search. Each park will provide tips on what the colors in their park look like."

9/3/2013 5:58:56 PM

  Thank you, Ken. You have been so much help! If you ever plan on going to Colorado again, I would recommend a guide book written by Andy Cook. He guides photo workshops and I have been on two of his workshops (Tetons and Tennessee). His book is very, very good. With your guide and his, I am getting a good idea of where to go and what time is best. Thanks again.

9/3/2013 6:41:18 PM

Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery

member since: 6/11/2005
  Thanks, Harriet. Here's another e-book, that looked pretty interesting:

I'm sure we'd all love to have a similar photo as on the cover of his book.

9/4/2013 5:07:52 AM

  John Fielder's Best of Colorado has also been a very helpful book for me.

9/4/2013 6:30:42 AM

Rene Asmussen
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/13/2001
  I love the colours in autumn :-) I enjoy them :-)

made this one :


9/8/2013 5:34:32 AM

Angela Morgan
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/2/2013
  i found this link too

12/30/2013 5:45:55 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Pamela K. Barrett
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Pamela
Pamela's Gallery

member since: 2/26/2007
  27 .  Unsharp Mask vs High Pass Filter
I've learned 2 different techniques for sharpening. The Unsharp Mask and the High Pass Filter. I was wondering which one is better or is it just personal preference? It seems to me the results are the same and Unsharp Mask is a bit of a more simple process. What are the opinions of others on these two techniques?

8/29/2013 8:01:40 AM

  Pamela, I have been using both sharpening techniques on images and don't have a runaway favorite too.

However, I feel that with images having predominantly edgy subjects (like tree leaves against the sky, etc), the High Pass Filter works better as it does not attempt to sharpen the sky part at all and just would sharpen the leaves or the tree trunks.

The difference between these is subtle though, IMHO.


9/3/2013 10:57:50 PM

  There are many sharpening techniques. I assume the method for High Pass that you are using is to run the filter on a new layer stamped visible and apply the layer in Overlay mode? There are other ways people use it.

The method stated above and the Unsharp Mask will end up making very similar results as Usman said, but depending on the settings you use. For example, running Unsharp Mask with a 10 pixel radius and 75% will be close to running High Pass at 10 radius -- depending on the image content. I say close, but you would be able to notice some differences.

Both methods increase edge contrast. It can be helpful to use them with over-all contrast reduction at times, depending on the image (usually images that are already very contrasty before sharpening benefit most). I use something similar to the following:

1. Stamp visible to a new layer.
2. Invert the content (Apple + I / Ctrl + I).
3. Blur the content (Gaussian Blur say 20 pixels -- this will vary depending on the image).
4. Set the layer to softlight mode.
5. Reduce the opacity of the layer to 20-25%.

You can keep the effect limited to the tone by separating out the luminosity...

I hope that helps!


9/12/2013 12:20:51 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Joan E. Herwig

member since: 4/1/2005
  28 .  photo ops in Nashville in early December?
Can anyone recommend good stuff to photograph in Nashville , TN? I am going there only for 5 days in early December (not much time to do my own recon).

8/21/2013 8:13:18 PM

  Gruhns Guitar shop, The Parthenon (its a replica of the real one), Grand Ole Opry, The Nashville Predator hockey team... My sister lives close but I shoot mostly landscapes & critters around her house and the lake near Mt. Juliet. Jim Zuckerman lives there but he is in the Phillipines right now. Maybe email him and ask if he has some ideas :)
Have fun Joan

8/28/2013 4:39:32 AM

Donald R. Curry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/2/2006
  Radner Lake is a beautiful natural area near downtown. It is a great place for wildlife and nature shots.

9/2/2013 1:52:59 PM

Donald R. Curry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/2/2006
  Hey Joan, I lived in Nashville for 20 years. Downtown at night on Broadway is great to photograph. There is also a walking bridge over the Cumberland River near downtown. You can get some great shots of the city and the riverboat from that bridge. If you need any photo supplies Dury's is the place. If you like unique coffee shops try Fido Coffee Shop. It is a great place to people watch. Have fun!!!

9/2/2013 2:23:44 PM

Joan E. Herwig

member since: 4/1/2005
  Thank you both Carlton & Donald for responding and for your very helpful suggestions!

Can either of you tell me what to expect in terms of weather in Nashville December 4- 10?

9/2/2013 5:14:24 PM

Donald R. Curry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/2/2006
  You just never know about weather in Tennessee. It is typically mildly cool in early December. Although, the weather has been cooler and wetter than normal this year, so you should be prepared for cold.

9/3/2013 5:43:14 AM

Joan E. Herwig

member since: 4/1/2005
  Thanks Donald!

9/3/2013 10:20:25 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Rajiv Chopra
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Rajiv
Rajiv's Gallery

member since: 12/25/2006
  29 .  Upgrading Photoshop
I have Photoshop CS3, and was thinking of upgrading to CS6. Now, I find that Adobe is pushing the Photoshop Creative Cloud. Which is advisable - upgrading to CS6 or the Creative Cloud?

8/9/2013 11:16:23 AM

  I guess that really depends on whether or not you want to own your software or just rent it for a monthly fee. From what I understand, CS6 is the last of the creative suites, there will be no more upgrades to it. Anyone wanting the latest and greatest upgrades will be forced into using the Creative Cloud. If you can live with CS6 the way it exists now, then upgrade to CS6. If, however, you always want better, then you'll have to get the Creative Cloud.

8/28/2013 6:08:59 PM

  I have read some reviews from unhappy customers regarding CS6. I have CS5 and love it.
Here is 1 review I read:
Once CS6 came out they got rid of the picture packages that thousands of photographers use (according to a recent poll) and they also got rid of the raw and psd review when you click on one of the files. CC never restored those features either further alienating it's customers.

9/11/2013 5:00:39 AM

  To be honest, as a Photoshop user for some 20 years, almost all of what I use was available in CS. Once you got past 16-bit editing and RAW, there were really few 'essential' changes that would redefine the way you enhance an image. I think I could argue positively for the Masks panel in CS4, and I'd be curious about the conditional actions in CC, as I have asked for that feature for umpteen versions now.

My knee-jerk response to someone wanting to upgrade is always an answer to the question "what is it that you don't have now?" And then the followup is whether it is worth the sometimes minimal change in workflow -- or whether it can also be achieved by what you already have in a different and perhaps even better way.

Carlton, as far as removing features, that is not the usual Adobe methodology. I mean it has happened, but usually they have a substitute - or a better way. A quick search suggests people have gotten picture packages to work by just borrowing and installing the old plugin from the previous version. There would also be other options, like scripting, smart objects and actions. I know people get used to their methods, but I think there are ways to get these things done. I hope that helps!

9/16/2013 12:18:18 PM

  Here's a couple more cents on this:

The new features in Camera Raw are interesting to me. CR is now a filter (no more closing an image to open it in Cr) with some neat enhancements. I particularly like Lens Corretion. Any-hoo ...

I use LR extensively but PS only rarely so I was not happy about a $200 PS upgrade. I am also completely uninterested in the $50/mo Creative Cloud -- don't need all the extra stuff.

Adobe has a new offer -- available just today -- called Creative Cloud for Photographers. $10/mo 'forever' price if you have a license for CS3 or better. CC for Photogs includes PS, LR and some cloud space.

After crunching the numbers on what I pay for annual LR upgrades plus occasional PS upgrades it is a no-brainer for me.

9/18/2013 7:28:13 AM

  I still use CS5, and really haven't migrated to the Cloud to upgrade to CS6 for many of the reasons given above. You might consider upgrading to CS5 to update Photoshop, unless you want to pay a monthly fee for the latest version. You might be able to pay a simple upgrade fee to own the CS5 package.

10/5/2013 11:24:17 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
kerby lee pfrangle
BetterPhoto Member
Contact kerby
kerby's Gallery

member since: 4/19/2005
  30 .  Forward I received in an email....
I got this forward in the email and wanted to share....Perfect for Better
Photo member's.

I loved it.

Life is like a camera
Focus on what is important,
Capture the good times,
Develop from the negatives,
And if things don't work out,
Take another shot.

7/28/2013 9:04:17 AM

  That's great, Kerby! Thanks for sharing.

8/1/2013 12:05:53 PM

  This is really cool, Kerby!!! I printed it out to save. Thanks for sharing it with Better Photo members!! I loved it!!

8/4/2013 12:50:30 PM

  Meltdown 2013 0820
Meltdown 2013 0820
Summer Meltdown Festival
“Sometimes I arrive just when God's ready to have somone click the shutter.”
― Ansel Adams

8/28/2013 5:05:28 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...1510
Next 10  >>

Copyright © 1996-2014, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.