Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 12 Apr 2014 (Saturday) 15:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Renowned Photographer Jeff Mitchum's Masterpiece "Third Day" Sells For $1.8 Million

 
this thread is locked
benji25
Goldmember
Avatar
1,007 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 87
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Apr 30, 2014 16:28 |  #586

Shadowblade wrote in post #16873201 (external link)
Yep - they've got music.

The fact that they have it has had no impact on their civilisation. They're a primitive society with music, and they wouldn't be any more or less primitive without it.

But look at the things they're missing. No electricity, no telecommunications, no automobiles, no clean water on demand, no modern medicine. These are what set them apart from modern societies with these amenities. Not art or music.

Their music has a huge impact on their civilization as it is the entire tradition of their civilization. It is the crux of their being - passing down their traditions.

But you know what? They are happier than us. Once again I bring you back to the subjective point: They like their lives. Not everyone wants the internet and roads and signs and TV. Many people are content with what they have. They do not all want what you want.

This sums it up and is a good read:

The Mexican Fisherman

The American investment banker was at the pier of a
small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with
just one fisherman docked.

Inside the small boat were several large yellow fin tuna.
The American complimented the Mexican on the quality
of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “Only a little while.”

The American then asked, “Why didn’t you stay out longer
and catch more fish?”

The Mexican said, “With this I have more than enough to support my family’s needs.”

The American then asked, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life.”

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing; and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat: With the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the
processor; eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles and eventually New York where you will run your ever-expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15 to 20 years.”

“But what then?” asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said that’s the best part. “When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”

“Millions?…Then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 30, 2014 16:54 |  #587

benji25 wrote in post #16873236 (external link)
How do you define "significance"? Based on what you said earlier I would think you mean "impacts people". But what impacts people is 100% subjective.

Not 'impacts people'. More like 'impacts the development and progression of human society'.

The steam engine and industrialisation impacted society. It increased productivity and increased unemployment among unskilled workers, whose physical labour could be replaced by cheaper and more efficient machines. This contributed towards increased crime in those areas of high unemployment and a subsequent crackdown by the elites, as well as encouraging the diaspora of people from the United Kingdom to seek better opportunities in the colonies of Canada, Africa and Australia (the US having become independent by that stage). The effect of this development affected everyone in those societies (including the indigenous societies which were uprooted to make way for colonists) and changed people's way of living, regardless of whether they worked with steam engines or not, and regardless of whether they found themselves replaced by a steam engine.

Shakespeare's Macbeth had an impact on some viewers who saw it. It entertained them, and maybe a few others. It changed nothing in society. It had no impact at all on those who didn't see it.

A cat with an injured paw also impacts and moves people. No-one would call that a significant historical event or achievement.

You can see clear distinctions in art. Just look at music. It changes about every decade and impacts generations that grow up in those certain decades.

The impact goes the other way. People of a certain generation had an impact on the arts, by creating works that reflected that generation. It was not the arts that changed, thereby causing people to behave differently and have different values.

Just look at rock and roll. It helped define a generation of rebellious teens. Same with Emo music and hippies in the 60's.

That's association, not causation.

Emo music didn't turn people into hippies. It was associated with them, being a reflection of hippie values.

I guess I am missing the point because in my mind they are just two different things. Knowledge impacts us and so does art. knowledge/technology impacts me by providing me tools I can use to make things easier.

It also impacts society, since new inventions frequently cause widespread changes in the way people do things and in the way societies work. The Internet (banking, finance). Ebay. Facebook. Mobile phones. Photoshop. Just a few recent things - and all of them have had great impact on how things are done.

Art helps my understand society and myself and improves my psychology and self awareness.

Which has absolutely no impact on society as a whole.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
17,313 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4381
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Apr 30, 2014 16:56 |  #588

benji25 wrote in post #16873078 (external link)
I have not personally insulted anyone here. All of my statements have been on topic, thought out and reasoned. The quote above really strikes me as a dumb comment. Well maybe not dumb but ignorant. Either way I was calling the statement dumb not the commenter.

The test is, would you say it if you and the commenter were facing each other over cups of coffee? Well, that's one test. Another test is, was it true? Have you really never heard anything dumber?

Did I ever claim that I didn't? No I did not. I do not see the point of this statement.

Just to show how pervasive this brand- and ad-driven culture is. We're so soaked in sales messages that we don't even notice.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 30, 2014 16:57 |  #589

benji25 wrote in post #16873258 (external link)
Their music has a huge impact on their civilization as it is the entire tradition of their civilization. It is the crux of their being - passing down their traditions.

No, it has no impact on their civilisation. It is a reflection on their civilisation.

What happens in their civilisation influences their music. Their music doesn't actually change their society at all - merely reflects and documents it.

But you know what? They are happier than us. Once again I bring you back to the subjective point: They like their lives. Not everyone wants the internet and roads and signs and TV. Many people are content with what they have. They do not all want what you want.

This sums it up and is a good read:

You're adding a value judgment there.

I never said things are 'better' or people are 'happier'. I said that things changed - and changed dramatically. For better or worse. That's 'impact'.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Goldmember
Avatar
1,007 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 87
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Apr 30, 2014 16:59 |  #590

Shadowblade wrote in post #16873292 (external link)
Not 'impacts people'. More like 'impacts the development and progression of human society'.

The steam engine and industrialisation impacted society. It increased productivity and increased unemployment among unskilled workers, whose physical labour could be replaced by cheaper and more efficient machines.

This is my point - that this improvements that you think are good things, or things you want to have happen are what YOU want to have happen and what YOU think are "good for us". My point is that that is what YOU think. Look at the story I linked. You are the guy with the MBA.

There are a lot of people in many place that like simple lives. They don't need fast cars or the internet or reality TV.

There are no absolute truths. The value you place on technology and innovation is just that - the value YOU place on it.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:01 |  #591

benji25 wrote in post #16873314 (external link)
This is my point - that this improvements that you think are good things, or things you want to have happen are what YOU want to have happen and what YOU think are "good for us". My point is that that is what YOU think. Look at the story I linked. You are the guy with the MBA.

There are a lot of people in many place that like simple lives. They don't need fast cars or the internet or reality TV.

There are no absolute truths. The value you place on technology and innovation is just that - the value YOU place on it.

Again, you're adding value judgments to things that I never asserted.

The point isn't that they improved things or made things worse. It's usually a bit of both anyway. The point is that they changed things - and changed them dramatically.

'Impact' doesn't just mean 'positive impact'.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,213 posts
Likes: 160
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:04 |  #592

Shadowblade wrote in post #16873194 (external link)
The impact and significance of an invention or discovery is evident not only in the changes that occur when the invention/discovery is made or becomes widespread, but also the contrast that can be seen when compared with places where that invention or other creation is not yet widespread.

For instance, vaccination. On one hand, we can see that we are living longer, not dying from certain once-deadly infections and don't have large numbers of people dying before the age of five. On the other hand, travel to Niger or the Central African Republic (only mentioning those two in particular because I have been there and witnessed it) and you see minor cuts becoming a death sentence due to tetanus, most families having lost young children due to vaccine-preventable infections and people who are lame after having survived polio, or skeleton-thin and coughing up blood from untreated tuberculosis.

Or the automobile. You can see it in the roads and freeways of the world's developed nations, and in the sprawling, car-served suburbs of their metropolises. Equally, you can see it in their absence, high in the Himalaya or in the Sahara desert in Mauritania. Cities are small and compact, and even nearby services are a few hours' walk away, not a five-minute car ride. If someone is injured or unwell, they have no way of getting to a hospital or medical clinic, unless someone carries them.

That is why I say these things have real impact. You can see it in the changes that occur when they are introduced, and you can equally see the difference in their absence - both at the societal level and at the level of the individual.

I can't say the same about any artwork, or even any entire school of art.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16872972 (external link)
That's because it was someone else who said it.

One invention or discovery can, and often does, change the world. The bow and arrow. Gunpowder. The fact that the world is round. The theory of evolution. The car. The assembly line. The airplane. The atomic bomb. Spaceflight. The internet.

Even a whole new school of painting or dance - say, the development of Cubism - doesn't do that.

That's because technology drives societal changes (including financial and legal changes), whereas art merely reflects it and, therefore, is subordinate to all of them. The field that's worth understanding is the one that drives societal change or helps you navigate through society, not the one that merely reflects it without impacting on it.

So you can account for how innovation came about in every single case, and that it was all separate of art?

I can tell you right now that propaganda has often relied on art, and propaganda has had immense impact on humanity, for better or worse. Why, because art is a means of communication and commentary, and communication is not a frivolous device of humanity, particularly in regards to effecting change.

How art might inspire and motivate pragmatic innovation might not be measurable, but it would be ludicrous to outright reject such a possible connection. Is science fiction, for example, just for entertainment, or has it actually prompted invention? After all, art stokes imagination, which isn’t exactly a superfluous precursor of invention or innovation.

Could it be possible that Leonardo da Vinci’s artistic acumen contributed to his technological innovation?

Furthermore, you’re speaking of pragmatism as though there is no higher attainment in, let alone aspect of, humanity. You seem to assume that our quality of life and aspirations would be the same if expression was absent, because to you, complete human fulfillment only requires a toilet and phone.

Our ability to create, to express, to identify, to relate, and to simply entertain; all of these are axiomatically important to us as a whole; it helps define ourselves, our culture, and our society, and if they were nonessential, they wouldn’t exists. And yes, art can help change perceptions of ourselves and others, and these perceptions can prove vital in our advancements.

Maybe life would not be boring or empty for you if art did not exists, but again, you have a problem of speaking for everyone else. And please, don’t bring up the grossly specious “if it never existed, we wouldn’t notice” argument—-that’s true of basically anything, including practical inventions.

Your comparison between modern and primitive societies, putting aside the imperialist undertones, overlooks the possibility that perhaps ‘music and dance’ were what was most important to pursue and retain, not frozen dinners and nuclear bombs.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not besmirching technology at all, and yes, the lack of vaccines in impoverished countries is tragic. Of course, technology, that is, the Internet, has done a great job of circulating disinformation about vaccines in a number of industrialized nations, helping to facilitate the return of once eliminated contagions. But that's another issue.

In any case, you're cherry picking priorities that fit your world view, but not the world's view overall. And your whole argument rest on what you subjectively and tendentiously define as important when discussing impact.

Look what you are doing; you’re trying to devalue and trivialize something that, throughout the course of civilization, has been universal and timeless in an arbitrary effort to make that which has been regional and topical all that matters.

You are basically suggesting that any person, culture, or society unaffected by your great technologically inspired changes (cause politics, religion, resources, and ego are also irrelevant in your eyes) is somehow inferior; the “primitives” are not only discounted, but they are also your proof that only people caught in the wake of technological transformation are the only ones who matter when discussing humanity overall. And if I’m wrong about this, then what exactly is your point?

But I agree, I don’t think U2 had a chance of changing the world the way they had initially hoped, but as benji25 noted, it’s art's accumulative affect that needs to be reviewed; and NO, change doesn't have to be dramatic or quick to occur. But more importantly, art is a value within itself, irrespective of its impact on society, since it is, within itself, an important defining component of society.

Music and now photography marked some of the most important interests and pursuits in my life, the source of my passion, and you are not in any position to refute the significance of this to me…it’s not up for debate.

Societal impact is not something that is necessarily more or less important than personal impact, especially given the fact that technological impact is NOT universal.

You have a remarkably narrow view of life that, if true, would certainly prove you right, but undoubtedly, the whole basis of your argument relies on an extremely truncated view of humanity and as to what we consider progress and societal change.

To be sure, technology has been an immense factor in forging such change, but this is really only true for the last 200 years or so, with a few watershed moments before then (wheel, Gutenberg press, etc.). We are not solely utilitarian beings, a fact that effectively unravels the whole foundation of your argument.

"It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough — it's technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing and nowhere is that more true than in these post-PC devices.”

—-Steve Jobs, not exactly an amateur in the world of technology and technological impact.


Summer 2017 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,776 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4472
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:06 |  #593

OhLook wrote in post #16873300 (external link)
The test is, would you say it if you and the commenter were facing each other over cups of coffee? Well, that's one test. Another test is, was it true? Have you really never heard anything dumber?

Just to show how pervasive this brand- and ad-driven culture is. We're so soaked in sales messages that we don't even notice.

Oh Look Sometimes people are really well informed in some areas. And sometimes they are not as well informed and educated in other areas but they think because they are really well versed in A that should carry over to B. Often they are very wrong and usually just a few minutes in a conversation with them will show this as is in this case. It would be like me trying to have a real conversation about certain procedures in medicine. I think it's worth a repost.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=ks072waMayk (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,776 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4472
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:10 |  #594

sjones wrote in post #16873330 (external link)
So you can account for how innovation came about in every single case, and that it was all separate of art?

I can tell you right now that propaganda has often relied on art, and propaganda has had immense impact on humanity, for better or worse. Why, because art is a means of communication and commentary, and communication is not a frivolous device of humanity, particularly in regards to effecting change.

How art might inspire and motivate pragmatic innovation might not be measurable, but it would be ludicrous to outright reject such a possible connection. Is science fiction, for example, just for entertainment, or has it actually prompted invention? After all, art stokes imagination, which isn’t exactly a superfluous precursor of invention or innovation.

Could it be possible that Leonardo da Vinci’s artistic acumen contributed to his technological innovation?

Furthermore, you’re speaking of pragmatism as though there is no higher attainment in, let alone aspect of, humanity. You seem to assume that our quality of life and aspirations would be the same if expression was absent, because to you, complete human fulfillment only requires a toilet and phone.

Our ability to create, to express, to identify, to relate, and to simply entertain; all of these are axiomatically important to us as a whole; it helps define ourselves, our culture, and our society, and if they were nonessential, they wouldn’t exists. And yes, art can help change perceptions of ourselves and others, and these perceptions can prove vital in our advancements.

Maybe life would not be boring or empty for you if art did not exists, but again, you have a problem of speaking for everyone else. And please, don’t bring up the grossly specious “if it never existed, we wouldn’t notice” argument—-that’s true of basically anything, including practical inventions.

Your comparison between modern and primitive societies, putting aside the imperialist undertones, overlooks the possibility that perhaps ‘music and dance’ were what was most important to pursue and retain, not frozen dinners and nuclear bombs.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not besmirching technology at all, and yes, the lack of vaccines in impoverished countries is tragic. Of course, technology, that is, the Internet, has done a great job of circulating disinformation about vaccines in a number of industrialized nations, helping to facilitate the return of once eliminated contagions. But that's another issue.

In any case, you're cherry picking priorities that fit your world view, but not the world's view overall. And your whole argument rest on what you subjectively and tendentiously define as important when discussing impact.

Look what you are doing; you’re trying to devalue and trivialize something that, throughout the course of civilization, has been universal and timeless in an arbitrary effort to make that which has been regional and topical all that matters.

You are basically suggesting that any person, culture, or society unaffected by your great technologically inspired changes (cause politics, religion, resources, and ego are also irrelevant in your eyes) is somehow inferior; the “primitives” are not only discounted, but they are also your proof that only people caught in the wake of technological transformation are the only ones who matter when discussing humanity overall. And if I’m wrong about this, then what exactly is your point?

But I agree, I don’t think U2 had a chance of changing the world the way they had initially hoped, but as benji25 noted, it’s art's accumulative affect that needs to be reviewed; and NO, change doesn't have to be dramatic or quick to occur. But more importantly, art is a value within itself, irrespective of its impact on society, since it is, within itself, an important defining component of society.

Music and now photography marked some of the most important interests and pursuits in my life, the source of my passion, and you are not in any position to refute the significance of this to me…it’s not up for debate.

Societal impact is not something that is necessarily more or less important than personal impact, especially given the fact that technological impact is NOT universal.

You have a remarkably narrow view of life that, if true, would certainly prove you right, but undoubtedly, the whole basis of your argument relies on an extremely truncated view of humanity and as to what we consider progress and societal change.

To be sure, technology has been an immense factor in forging such change, but this is really only true for the last 200 years or so, with a few watershed moments before then (wheel, Gutenberg press, etc.). We are not solely utilitarian beings, a fact that effectively unravels the whole foundation of your argument.

"It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough — it's technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing and nowhere is that more true than in these post-PC devices.”

—-Steve Jobs, not exactly an amateur in the world of technology and technological impact.

+++++1

sjones I brought up the propaganda idea a few pages back where it was immediately dismissed. ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:14 |  #595

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16873338 (external link)
Oh Look Sometimes people are really well informed in some areas. And sometimes they are not as well informed and educated in other areas but they think because they are really well versed in A that should carry over to B. Often they are very wrong and usually just a few minutes in a conversation with then will show this as is in this case. It would be like me trying to have a real conversation about certain procedures in medicine. I think it's worth a repost.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=ks072waMayk (external link)

I'm not saying that I know anything about art or that other people don't know much more about art than me.

My argument is that the entire field of 'art knowledge' is completely irrelevant, with no practical value, and an utter waste of time except for personal interest, akin to knowledge of Star Wars trivia or ancient Tibetan, because art itself is something that reflects, rather than impacts, human society.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:15 |  #596

sjones wrote in post #16873330 (external link)
So you can account for how innovation came about in every single case, and that it was all separate of art?

Writing a point-by-point rebuttal to this massive post. Will post when complete.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,213 posts
Likes: 160
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:16 |  #597

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16873346 (external link)
+++++1

sjones I brought up the propaganda idea a few pages back where it was immediately dismissed. ;)

Haven't read all of the stuff, so didn't see it.

Not surprised it was dismissed, given all of the self-serving, myopic assertions being made.

There are things other than technological advancement (for better or worse) that are important to life, and for many people, not all, art is one of them. What else is there to argue.


Summer 2017 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,213 posts
Likes: 160
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:18 |  #598

Shadowblade wrote in post #16873359 (external link)
Writing a point-by-point rebuttal to this massive post. Will post when complete.

Save it, there isn't a point by point rebuttal...I'm tired of this nonsense that you're spitting out. And again, any attempt to tell me what I think is important is futile.

You're wrong, I'm right. It's that simple.

I'm out.


Summer 2017 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:19 |  #599

sjones wrote in post #16873363 (external link)
Haven't read all of the stuff, so didn't see it.

Not surprised it was dismissed, given all of the self-serving, myopic assertions being made.

There are things other than technological advancement (for better or worse) that are important to life, and for many people, not all, art is one of them. What else is there to argue.

'Important to individuals' is different from 'significant to society' or 'important in human history.'

Catching a bullet in the brain is very important to the individual concerned. Unless that individual was a prominent member of society, it has no significance to society whatsoever.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 30, 2014 17:20 |  #600

sjones wrote in post #16873366 (external link)
Save it, there isn't a point by point rebuttal...I'm tired of this nonsense that you're spitting out. And again, any attempt to tell me what I think is important is futile.

You're wrong, I'm right. It's that simple.

I'm out.

It's not about what any one person thinks is important. It's about what actually is important - as in, had far-reaching impact on society, beyond any one, or any small number of individuals.

Also, reported for personal abuse.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

46,927 views & 0 likes for this thread
Renowned Photographer Jeff Mitchum's Masterpiece "Third Day" Sells For $1.8 Million
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is cutiedmt
714 guests, 331 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.