<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Photo Book Reviews #4 &#8211; Photography Essentials</title>
	<atom:link href="http://photofocus.com/2008/04/27/twip-photo-book-reviews-4-photography-essentials/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://photofocus.com/2008/04/27/twip-photo-book-reviews-4-photography-essentials/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:39:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://photofocus.com/2008/04/27/twip-photo-book-reviews-4-photography-essentials/#comment-1677</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twipphoto.com/index.php/archives/300#comment-1677</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I dont believe that anyone is that good in regards to the dynamic range of light. I have spent years with 4x5 and 120, and the range does not exist like he claims. That being said, I don&#039;t think there is a problem with using photoshop to make the image look better, whether he used several exposures to make one final image or not. Landscape photography seem to carry the burden of &quot;you can&#039;t use photoshop to make it look better&quot;.... well why not, who cares, aren&#039;t we artists. I have been to many galleries, and they all make the claim of zero manipulation, and they all would be fibbing. I say admit it, and let&#039;s all embrace the idea that it is perfectly fine to do this. Shooting landscapes in the right light is a tough enough proposition even with many exposures, you still have to shoot at the right moment. I vote we stop whining about it.....]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I dont believe that anyone is that good in regards to the dynamic range of light. I have spent years with 4&#215;5 and 120, and the range does not exist like he claims. That being said, I don&#8217;t think there is a problem with using photoshop to make the image look better, whether he used several exposures to make one final image or not. Landscape photography seem to carry the burden of &#8220;you can&#8217;t use photoshop to make it look better&#8221;&#8230;. well why not, who cares, aren&#8217;t we artists. I have been to many galleries, and they all make the claim of zero manipulation, and they all would be fibbing. I say admit it, and let&#8217;s all embrace the idea that it is perfectly fine to do this. Shooting landscapes in the right light is a tough enough proposition even with many exposures, you still have to shoot at the right moment. I vote we stop whining about it&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Memnon</title>
		<link>http://photofocus.com/2008/04/27/twip-photo-book-reviews-4-photography-essentials/#comment-1675</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Memnon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twipphoto.com/index.php/archives/300#comment-1675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Still waiting for my copy. Noton is maybe my favorite landscape photographer. Love his work (and his articles in Practical Photography magazine).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Still waiting for my copy. Noton is maybe my favorite landscape photographer. Love his work (and his articles in Practical Photography magazine).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

