Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing  (Read 46365 times)
Desmond
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2010, 11:40:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Low bit  LUT, sRGB gamut, pseudo white LEd... sounds not quite impressive. But for the price of 27" iMac, what else can be expected? A 24" 96% ARGB 12bit LUT Eizo is more expensive than the 27" iMac.
The current lineup of iMac shall be good enough for all amateur photographers. Even the full ARGB gamut cannot match fully with modern inkjet printers. Images look better on high bit LUT monitor, but one doesn't need that for image editing, so long as the monitor could properly calibrated/ profiled to consistent soft proofing the system is fine to go.
Of course using high end monitor is a pleasure if you can afford it.
Logged

Regards,

Desmond
Dansk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2010, 12:53:25 PM »
ReplyReply


 A little update on the flickering. Apple still will not officially "admit" theres anything wrong with the 27" versions... but they are offering a $300.00 rebate to anyone whos purchased one and has had issues so check it out if you have one at least you can get some dough back. Squeaky wheel gets the oil

http://gizmodo.com/5464288/apple-paying-ou...n-27+inch-imacs


Logged
jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2010, 04:46:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: hsmeets
Hi,

one thing that was not mentioned in previous posts about the 27"panel:

The gamut of the panel itself is sRGB only.

Nothing to be alarmed about. Even the acclaimed Sony Artisan had a gamut similar to sRGB. My Eizo ColorEdge CG21, same thing. Unless you are buying a monitor specifically labeled as Wide Gamut or its specs list a percentage of the AdobeRGB gamut it covers, the monitor will produce a gamut quite similar in size to sRGB.
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2010, 11:25:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjlphoto
Nothing to be alarmed about. Even the acclaimed Sony Artisan had a gamut similar to sRGB.
I agree. I think we could improve the direction of this conversation, at least as far as gamut comparisons go. Simple working space comparisons can be silly since the outer shell of the printer's gamut sometimes exceeds and sometimes recedes the shell of working space gamuts. Instead of asking if the gamut of this display is closer to sRGB or AdobeRGB we should be asking "what are the characteristics of this displays gamut and how useful are they?" One way we can do this is by comparing this display gamut to a  common printing gamut; like Canon's Baryta on an Epson 9900. Another way of doing this would be by comparing it to the previous generation 23"/30" Apple Cinema Display that so many of us know well. Better yet - let's talk about all three at the same time. I've just done just that and here's some observations:

1) The overall gamut volume of the 27"iMac is about 12% larger than the 23"/30" Cinema display.

2) The areas of improved gamut are significant because they allow us to see portions of the printing gamut that the previous generation did not. Gamut improvements relative to this printing space can be seen in the light yellows, reds, dark magentas and dark blues.  There are also some subtle improvements to the greens that's aren't significant realtive to this printing gamut.

3) The green and cyans of this printing gamut are the only significant areas where a larger gamut display might offer greater improvements. One might focus on these colors when comparing the 27" iMac display to more expensive large gamut displays.

4) You might have a different printing gamut that might be more important to your own workflow. This display's improvements aren't significant relative to the SWOP CMYK specification for example, but show minor improvements in the yellows and magentas relative to GRACoL specification. This is certainly an excellent display for those working in prepress.

I've worked on more than a dozen of these 27" iMacs and I've found them all to be impressively consistent across the screen and wonderful to work on as long as the room lighting doesn't allow for glare. When calibrated with excellent software like Color Eyes Display Pro or BasICColor Display, issues like banding that are commonly associated with 8 bit LUT displays are virtually eliminated. These applications also allow the user to raise the black luminance value if it is lower than your printing DMax value (which it can be on this display).

We could spend a lot more money for a different/better system with relatively minor improvements.  In my opinion, the overall value of this iMac to the digital imaging community is quite significant.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2961



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2010, 10:45:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjlphoto
Nothing to be alarmed about. Even the acclaimed Sony Artisan had a gamut similar to sRGB. My Eizo ColorEdge CG21, same thing. Unless you are buying a monitor specifically labeled as Wide Gamut or its specs list a percentage of the AdobeRGB gamut it covers, the monitor will produce a gamut quite similar in size to sRGB.

If you profile the new monitor you find it exceeds sRGB.  Not significantly and no where near other displays that approach AdobeRGB and not significantly in any colors, so this is more of a trivia comment.

But as mentioned a limited monitor gamut doesn't mean it can't be used successfully.  The 27" iMac is really a nice machine to work on.
Logged

Desmond
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2010, 11:56:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Czornyj
27" iMac is 8-bit LUT H-IPS panel ......

Really? I couldn't find from the spec. But from the performance I feel the panel of iMacs look more like  10 bits LUT than 8 bits. Anyone have the answer with certainty?
Logged

Regards,

Desmond
LeroyBrown
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2010, 05:36:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I was so hoping that the 27" iMac would be able to be calibrated to match the output of a calibrated photo printer like either the Epson R1900 or R2880. But being that I'm shooting in Adobe RGB then it looks like I'm going to have to buy a desktop computer and a wide gamut monitor like the Dell U2711 or a NEC SpectraView (26" or 30".

I thought Apple computers were THE computers of choice for graphic design houses still. Or are matching monitors to printers more taxing on Apple computers systems. I realize you could buy an Apple Mac Pro and a wide gamut monitor. I was thinking of going this route till I did the math.
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1449



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 26, 2010, 04:35:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LeroyBrown
I was so hoping that the 27" iMac would be able to be calibrated to match the output of a calibrated photo printer like either the Epson R1900 or R2880. But being that I'm shooting in Adobe RGB then it looks like I'm going to have to buy a desktop computer and a wide gamut monitor like the Dell U2711 or a NEC SpectraView (26" or 30".

I thought Apple computers were THE computers of choice for graphic design houses still. Or are matching monitors to printers more taxing on Apple computers systems. I realize you could buy an Apple Mac Pro and a wide gamut monitor. I was thinking of going this route till I did the math.

Get Mac mini and the magnificient NEC PA271W...
Logged

LeroyBrown
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2010, 09:00:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Czornyj
Get Mac mini and the magnificient NEC PA271W...

Good recommendation on the 27" monitor http://www.directdial.com/PA271W-BK.html). Great reviews. Saves me $40 CAD (JOY) by not getting the 26" 2690 SpectraView version. Although, I'd save a further $800 CAD buying the Dell U2711 27". Very similar monitors. Except the NEC can do portrait mode and doesn't have HDMI input. And a reviewer said the NEC puts out slightly more saturated colors. Or "deeper" was the word. Not sure if it's worth twice as much though.

Mac Mini? Possible. It would work (allowing me to keep my copy of CS4...was going to sell it...because I was thinking of buying a Dell). It's CPU is vaguely faster than my MacBook Pro (2.55 GHz vs the Mini's 2.66 GHz). Which would save me $1000.00 CAD over buying a well outfitted Dell XPS 9000 desktop (twice as fast as a Quad-core Mac Pro running CS4 using only 4GB of RAM...and an i5 CPU? forget...any how I think Anandtech tested this).

Will see when the time comes. Early next year.

UPDATE (27 July 2010): Apple just debuted their QUAD i5 and i7 based iMacs. Apple must have red the review done by Anandtech.  I'm glad I didn't already ordered my 27" iMac. Now there's not much reason to go buy a Window's based desktop. Looks like I'm learning towards getting a 27" iMac again. LOL!
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 09:21:51 AM by LeroyBrown » Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2961



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2010, 01:40:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LeroyBrown
I was so hoping that the 27" iMac would be able to be calibrated to match the output of a calibrated photo printer like either the Epson R1900 or R2880. But being that I'm shooting in Adobe RGB then it looks like I'm going to have to buy a desktop computer and a wide gamut monitor like the Dell U2711 or a NEC SpectraView (26" or 30".

I thought Apple computers were THE computers of choice for graphic design houses still. Or are matching monitors to printers more taxing on Apple computers systems. I realize you could buy an Apple Mac Pro and a wide gamut monitor. I was thinking of going this route till I did the math.

"but being that I'm shooting in AdobeRGB" ... you are shooting AdobeRGB jpegs then?  Not RAW?

Amazing, we've been using non wide gamut displays for years with great results, now suddenly great results can't be obtained without one?  Bull.

If you can't get a decent match between a 27" iMac and output from those two printers, you need to take a look at your viewing conditions and your display profile. How did you calibrate it?  What type of lights are in your viewing station?  The iMac should work fine.  (unless you expect a 100% perfect match.  You aren't literally holding the print up next to the display to compare them are you?)

Logged

k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1492


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2010, 08:27:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
If you can't get a decent match between a 27" iMac and output from those two printers, you need to take a look at your viewing conditions and your display profile. How did you calibrate it?  What type of lights are in your viewing station?  The iMac should work fine.  (unless you expect a 100% perfect match.  You aren't literally holding the print up next to the display to compare them are you?)

Wow, Wayne I totally agree with you. <grin> I get a perfectly decent match between my 3800 and my iMac 27 inch. Anyone who expects an exact match between a transmissive and a reflective image is bound to be disappointed, I suspect. (Kinda like slides versus prints, back in the day.)

[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=LeroyBrown)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (LeroyBrown)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]I thought Apple computers were THE computers of choice for graphic design houses still. Or are matching monitors to printers more taxing on Apple computers systems.[/quote]

They still are. Remember that graphic design houses are outputting to 4-color offset presses using custom profiles. I don't need to see 99.99% of Adobe RGB on my monitor to accurately predict what my photos will look like on press. (Old school color correction was often done with the monitors set to b&w, or intentionally skewed. I can still happily color correct an image "by the numbers" for 4-color offset work. Luckily I don't need to any more, but I can.)[/size]
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
LeroyBrown
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2010, 10:10:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
"but being that I'm shooting in AdobeRGB" ... you are shooting AdobeRGB jpegs then?  Not RAW?

Amazing, we've been using non wide gamut displays for years with great results, now suddenly great results can't be obtained without one?  Bull.

If you can't get a decent match between a 27" iMac and output from those two printers, you need to take a look at your viewing conditions and your display profile. How did you calibrate it?  What type of lights are in your viewing station?  The iMac should work fine.  (unless you expect a 100% perfect match.  You aren't literally holding the print up next to the display to compare them are you?)

What made you think I was not shooting in RAW + Adobe RGB but JPG + Adobe RGB? Which I'm not. But if I was then....?

And if the iMac is a "limited gamut" monitor how is it you're able to get a "decent match" with your printer? Also if it IS possible to get a "decent match" then what is the point of buying a wide gamut monitor (e.g. one that can do "97% of the Adobe RGB color space, 100+ % of the sRGB color space...etc.")? Why make them? Why not just make monitors that can't do 100% sRGB like the ones in the iMacs? Why shoot in Adobe RGB/RAW then if they monitor can't even display full sRGB (unless all you plan to do is post photos on the web and share with friends via email)?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2010, 10:05:30 AM by LeroyBrown » Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1449



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2010, 02:35:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: k bennett
They still are. Remember that graphic design houses are outputting to 4-color offset presses using custom profiles. I don't need to see 99.99% of Adobe RGB on my monitor to accurately predict what my photos will look like on press. (Old school color correction was often done with the monitors set to b&w, or intentionally skewed. I can still happily color correct an image "by the numbers" for 4-color offset work. Luckily I don't need to any more, but I can.)

For the record - AdobeRGB was introduced to cover all colors of SWOP CMYK. We used to edit the images "by the numbers" in medieval times, but now we have open CM systems, softproofing, wide gamut displays, and it's no longer necessary nor right to do it that way.

Quote from: LeroyBrown
And if the iMac is a "limited gamut" monitor how is it you're able to get a "decent match" with your printer? Also if it IS possible to get a "decent match" then what is the point of buying a wide gamut monitor (e.g. one that can do "97% of the Adobe RGB color space, 100+ % of the sRGB color space...etc.")? Why make them? Why not just make monitors that can't do 100% sRGB like the ones in the iMacs? Why shoot in Adobe RGB/RAW then if they monitor can't even display full sRGB (unless all you plan to do is post photos on the web and share with friends via email)?
In many cases you can get a "decent match" on a "limited gamut" display, colors of the images are not exceeding sRGB gamut that often (not to mention B&W images). It only matters when we have a picture that contains saturated greens, aquamarines, cyans, azures, and blues.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2010, 02:43:58 AM by Czornyj » Logged

LeroyBrown
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2010, 08:26:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Czornyj
In many cases you can get a "decent match" on a "limited gamut" display, colors of the images are not exceeding sRGB gamut that often (not to mention B&W images). It only matters when we have a picture that contains saturated greens, aquamarines, cyans, azures, and blues.

I guess you're a working graphic artist. You sound like you've had some experience in the field.

So, if "...it only matters when....contains saturated greens....blues." then is it fair to say you cannot get a "decent match" all the time? I mean as an amateur photographer I'd still like to get a reasonable match between my monitor and print all the time. No matter what kind of photo. Whether it has a lot of saturated green and blue or not. I suppose this is where a wide gamut monitor comes in? Giving us a closer match all the time?

Also, if you have a "limited gamut" monitor like the ones in the iMacs (rated at 70 odd % sRGB), would you not still end up with a print that matched the colors in the original photo (printer calibrated)? Assuming no color post-processing was done. Would you just not see as close a match on your iMac?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2010, 10:22:31 AM by LeroyBrown » Logged
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2010, 08:30:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Czornyj
For the record - AdobeRGB was introduced to cover all colors of SWOP CMYK. We used to edit the images "by the numbers" in medieval times, but now we have open CM systems, softproofing, wide gamut displays, and it's no longer necessary nor right to do it that way.


In many cases you can get a "decent match" on a "limited gamut" display, colors of the images are not exceeding sRGB gamut that often (not to mention B&W images). It only matters when we have a picture that contains saturated greens, aquamarines, cyans, azures, and blues.

Actually I find most of the differences bewtween sRGB and AdobeRGB to be in various yellow-oranges, magentas, deep purples, deep pinks, reds, etc. for all the talk about greens,cyans,azures I find I have a lot less images where that makes a difference. Many flower photos and almost every sunset/sunrise/intense evening lighting shots shows difference sRGB vs. AdobeRGB though. People just think it's the greens/cyans because of the standard slice shown, but AdobeRGB also adds tons of sunset and flower shades.

Often the really intense cloud linings during sunsets disappear into a blandness on sRGB monitors.


And in general, not everything has to end up as a print! Monitors are for viewing too!
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2961



WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2010, 09:30:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LeroyBrown
What made you think I was not shooting in RAW + Adobe RGB but JPG + Adobe RGB? Which I'm not. But if I was then....?
Because you said you are shooting in AdobeRGB.  If you are shooting in RAW, you are not shooting in a color space at all.  The adobeRGB setting on the camera only affects Jpegs. Just because you choose to have the camera render an 8bit AdobeRGB jpg along with storing the raw data while you shoot doesn't mean you are shooting in AdobeRGB.  And if you were then ...  you're pretty much stuck with what the camera firmware decided to do with your raw data, since most of the data no longer exists. meaning post processing will be a crap shoot at best.

Quote
And if the iMac is a "limited gamut" monitor how is it you're able to get a "decent match" with your printer? Also if it IS possible to get a "decent match" then what is the point of buying a wide gamut monitor (e.g. one that can do "97% of the Adobe RGB color space, 100+ % of the sRGB color space...etc.")? Why make them? Why not just make monitors that can't do 100% sRGB like the ones in the iMacs? Why shoot in Adobe RGB/RAW then if they monitor can't even display full sRGB (unless all you plan to do is post photos on the web and share with friends via email)?

All monitors, even the high end ones are gamut limited.  Your 7900 printer exceeds adobeRGB in many colors. If you don't want to limit the colors to your output device, you would need to work in 16bit/ProPhotoRGB (or just use lightroom which is it's built workflow).  But then what do you do? Even a monitor that approaches AdobeRGB can't show you all the colors your printer can print.

You don't need to "see" a color on the screen to be able to judge how it will "look" once printed. You don't see an image in AdobeRGB, or ProPhotoRGB for that matter.  You see the color in the monitors color space.  Those colors have been modified by the color management system to simulate the visual relationships that we expect to see.  When you print the image, they will be modified to that devices color space, and in fact take advantage of the gamut of that space.  Making the mistake that AdobeRGB is a magical space that you capture, see, and print is a wrong understanding of color management.

I have a 27" iMac and numerous printers, including a 3800, 3880, 7900, 11880.  The screen match is no problem.  I also have setup a couple of Eizo's, Apple's 24" LED, and various other monitors. All work fine if profiled correctly.  The 27" iMac exceeds sRGB in every color.  No, it isn't as wide gamut as others, but the results on paper should not be hampered.

Here's a couple of graphs showing the 7900 against AdobeRGB.  Considering that monitors can't show theses colors either, does that mean you just want to clip them with your workflow? Color management just doesn't work that way - in fact this is the very problem it has been engineered to overcome.
[attachment=23357:aRGB_7900EEF_2.jpg][attachment=23358:aRGB_7900EEF.jpg]
(wireframe adobeRGB, solid Epson 7900 on Epson Exhibition Fiber paper)
Logged

LeroyBrown
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2010, 11:36:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
Because you said you are shooting in AdobeRGB.  If you are shooting in RAW, you are not shooting in a color space at all.  The adobeRGB setting on the camera only affects Jpegs. Just because you choose to have the camera render an 8bit AdobeRGB jpg along with storing the raw data while you shoot doesn't mean you are shooting in AdobeRGB.  And if you were then ...  you're pretty much stuck with what the camera firmware decided to do with your raw data, since most of the data no longer exists. meaning post processing will be a crap shoot at best.

Didn't know that. So when shooting in RAW then I should leave the camera in the sRGB color space. I've been shooting in Adobe RGB because I read in Joe McNally's "Hot Shoe Diaries" that he prefers to shoot in Adobe RGB and in RAW. I assumed at the same time.

Quote from: Wayne Fox
You don't need to "see" a color on the screen to be able to judge how it will "look" once printed. You don't see an image in AdobeRGB, or ProPhotoRGB for that matter.  You see the color in the monitors color space.  Those colors have been modified by the color management system to simulate the visual relationships that we expect to see.  When you print the image, they will be modified to that devices color space, and in fact take advantage of the gamut of that space.  Making the mistake that AdobeRGB is a magical space that you capture, see, and print is a wrong understanding of color management.

News to me. And this why I'm here.

But one question remains. At least for me. Which is...if the 27" iMac is sufficient for a good match then why would we need wide gamut monitors? Which I realize are just less gamut limited. Why bother?

In any case the 27" iMac is back on my short list of paths to take (vs. going with a Windows based desktop & wide gamut monitor). Thanks for correcting some of my misconceptions.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 09:40:53 AM by LeroyBrown » Logged
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2010, 12:31:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LeroyBrown
Didn't know that. So when shooting in RAW then I should leave the camera in the sRGB color space. I've been shooting in Adobe RGB because I read in Joe McNally's "Hot Shoe Diaries" that he prefers to shoot in Adobe RGB and in RAW. I assumed at the same time.



News to me. And this why I'm here.

But one question remains. At least for me. Which is...if the 27" iMac is sufficient for a good match then why would we need wide gamut monitors? Which I realize are just less gamut limited. Why bother?

In any case the 27" iMac is back on my short list of paths to take (vs. going with a Windows based desktop). Thanks for correcting some of my misconceptions.


1. you can shoot the jpgs as either sRGB or AdobeRGB. If you plan to use them or more than quick, instant preview then it matters more. If you shoot sunsets, sunrises, intense blue-green water, neon colors, really brilliant flowes, really intensely saturated deep pink/purple flowers, in super golden evening lighting and along those lines it's better to have the jpgs in AdobeRGB so you don't miss out on important shades. For everything else it's a little bit better to just use sRGB since there is no point using a larger gamut in a small 8bit per channel format when you won't use the extra colors.

2. We might still want to have wide gamut monitors because:
a. they do cover more of the printer gamut than sRGB, sometimes even all, although sometimes lacking certain big chunks (while also allowing many shades that can't be printed to be displayed too, even sRGB has shades that can't be printed on some printers) and it never hurts to see more of what you are printing even if it's not crucial by any means

b. it can make editing certain images easier, someimages simply won't show correctly on sRGB and you can go crazy trying to make the deep purple petunia look as it did or the bright glowing highlights to the clouds during sunset or the bright and light but deeply saturated golden tone on ice or a rock look as it did and you'll never get there and maybe think you exposed it wrong or something and maybe you will go crazy with contrast of saturation trying to bring the look back and damage other parts of the photo; i mean obvious many people edit in sRGB though so it is not the end of the world, but it was interesting to see what I hadn't been seeing and realizing before.

c. displays have deeper blacks and better contrast ratio and can do things print's can't, it's cheap to and quick to view on screen compared to a print; so lots of people also like to view images on screen and a print is not always the only thing that counts
Logged
LeroyBrown
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2010, 09:38:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Larry for your comment.

WHen you shoot in RAW what color space setting do you leave your camera set in? sRGB? Adobe RGB? Do you ever shoot in Adobe RGB + JPG?

If you are using a wide gamut monitor I'm assuming you have to in Adobe RGB mode?  Then calibrated with some colorimeter like a Colormunki Photo?
Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2010, 12:49:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LeroyBrown
WHen you shoot in RAW what color space setting do you leave your camera set in? sRGB? Adobe RGB? Do you ever shoot in Adobe RGB + JPG?

Hi Leroy,

Raw is color space independent so it doesn't matter which color space you set your camera to. You select the color space you want when you convert your photograph. I personally prefer to use a wide color space such as ProPhoto.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 12:52:00 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad