<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: a digital post</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scottwyden.com/a-digital-post/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scottwyden.com/a-digital-post/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-digital-post</link>
	<description>New Jersey Photographer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:16:38 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://scottwyden.com/a-digital-post/#comment-10723</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 10:40:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottwyden.com/blog/?p=3#comment-10723</guid>
		<description>Khurt,

This was my first blog article ever - strange coming back to it.

The statement is being compared to the darkroom.   A photo can be processed in Photoshop or the Darkroom without too much effort.  Heck, a photo can be processed without Photoshop (or Lightroom or Aperture) completely.  But there is a big difference between (in my opinion) between a photo that has been cared for, toned, tweaked and processed to the fullest extent and a photo that has been shared right out of the camera.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Khurt,</p>
<p>This was my first blog article ever &#8211; strange coming back to it.</p>
<p>The statement is being compared to the darkroom.   A photo can be processed in Photoshop or the Darkroom without too much effort.  Heck, a photo can be processed without Photoshop (or Lightroom or Aperture) completely.  But there is a big difference between (in my opinion) between a photo that has been cared for, toned, tweaked and processed to the fullest extent and a photo that has been shared right out of the camera.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Khürt L Williams</title>
		<link>http://scottwyden.com/a-digital-post/#comment-10722</link>
		<dc:creator>Khürt L Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 10:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottwyden.com/blog/?p=3#comment-10722</guid>
		<description>&quot;It is true that most of what people do in Photoshop can also be done in the darkroom but most Photoshop users know that most great photo work needs a lot of skill in Photoshop.&quot;

I agree with the first part of the sentence but not the second.  Are you suggesting that great photo work can&#039;t be done without an expensive piece of software like Photoshop?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It is true that most of what people do in Photoshop can also be done in the darkroom but most Photoshop users know that most great photo work needs a lot of skill in Photoshop.&#8221;</p>
<p>I agree with the first part of the sentence but not the second.  Are you suggesting that great photo work can&#8217;t be done without an expensive piece of software like Photoshop?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Served from: scottwyden.com @ 2012-02-08 21:55:06 by W3 Total Cache -->
