DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Gack!! Minimal is frustrating!
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 82, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/26/2017 06:52:08 PM · #51
Originally posted by vawendy:

And seriously!? I had 10 minutes. I shot really fast. Did I change to jpeg?

YES!!

But after 9 minutes of my 10 minute shoot.

Gack again. :(

One woman's "Gack" is another man's OMG.
09/26/2017 07:47:33 PM · #52
I hope minimal editing is retained as it is. You train your eye better when you know you can’t crop or adjust contrast. Besides, not everyone has all the software you all seem to have. We can’t all afford a subscription to photoshop, or Lightroom, or any of the fancy plugins such as remask, noise reduction packages, etc. It equals the playing field for those who can’t compete due to lack of resources. I think minimal editing challenges do generate more entries. I wouldn't change a thing.
09/26/2017 08:24:44 PM · #53
*deep sigh* maybe do what some folks do when they're really horny to shoot for a Minimal challenge but don't want to risk a really good image being saved only as a jpg...shoot both RAW and jpg. Then when you've got your Minimal jpg shot, delete all the other jpgs from that shoot and save the RAWs. Easy.
09/26/2017 08:36:26 PM · #54
Originally posted by NikonJeb:


Holy Sh*t!

Barry and I *agree* on something???

Calendar is marked!
09/26/2017 08:37:33 PM · #55
Personally, I have always thought of Minimal Editing as the equivalent of shooting color slides back in the day. You really had to know your stuff to do that well. It was, pun intended, a real challenge. Look at some National Geographics from the Pete Turner days to see what could be done by a brilliant artist with such a limited medium.

I think it's WORTH trying to emulate that process. I think there's intrinsic value in learning to make the most of a specific, and limited, set of tools. When you can consistently go out in the field and come back with perfectly exposed, perfectly framed, punchy color transparencies that can go straight from your editor to his compositor and into the magazine, you have (or had) earned the right to call yourself a "pro".

My only beef with Minimal, really, comes from my SC perspective: it makes me cringe inside seeing how many really nice submissions end up DQd because someone didn't understand how to keep an "unaltered" JPG for backup.

begin digression/

True story: when I sold my large format gear and my business to my former assistant, way back when, I was without camera gear and happy about it for a number of years. When I moved to Cape Cod, I got interested in the rapidly-growing field of digital photography and bought a nifty little Fuji FinePix. I took a LOT of really nice pictures with that camera, but guess what? I had never given a moment's thought to "preserving an original", and I just took those jpgs and stepped all over 'em having fun with Photoshop. Oops. I wish I had a lot of those exposures back :-(

/end digression
09/26/2017 08:58:21 PM · #56
Yep, I still have my little ol Pentax K1000 with its 50mm, and back in my college days I dated someone in the Photography program. We'd go out and shoot and I would take 3x as many pics as him, and as I stumbled across the ones we shot on colour slide film...hell yeah I'm happy with what I shot back then. Just as I am happy with my modelling port pics from those days, cause they were all shot on film.

I guess digital is the ultimate bastardization of photography, as we have so much leeway and now an almost infinite number of pp and filter programs to choose from and use, or abuse, as we see fit. Digital has also seen the rise of *fauxtogs*, people who get a DSLR on Christmas Day and whom 'go pro' by New Year's Eve. They are the ones who shoot weddings on green camera mode (if they even use a camera and not a cellphone) charging $500 for 8 hrs and have a photo business only on FB -

OK time to get off the soapbox and stash it away. Just rambling like always.
09/26/2017 09:09:56 PM · #57
From a forum thread a couple months back ... thought it'd be worth re-posting in here.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Thinking out loud here:

Now that DPC will allow us to enter an oversize image and will automatically resize it to 1200 pixels, maybe we should just eliminate ALL post-processing post-download (no dust cloning, no sharpening, no rotation) and require entry of the actual full-size JPG WITH the EXIF appended :-)

Wait? We could clear dust bunnies in Minimal?

... but otherwise, yep, I'd be for that change. However, it still wouldn't change the fact that we can apply a boatload of in-camera filters, special effects, etc...

Right, that's my point; that's a hypothetical SOOC ruleset with no wiggle-room: if the EXIF doesn't show any modification, you're good to go.


Perfect! Sign me up.
09/26/2017 11:53:01 PM · #58
Hah, I forgot about that exchange. It's FUN losing a mind, gradually but irrevocably ;-)
09/27/2017 06:58:23 AM · #59
Originally posted by snaffles:

Yep, I still have my little ol Pentax K1000 with its 50mm, and back in my college days I dated someone in the Photography program. We'd go out and shoot and I would take 3x as many pics as him, and as I stumbled across the ones we shot on colour slide film...hell yeah I'm happy with what I shot back then. Just as I am happy with my modelling port pics from those days, cause they were all shot on film.

I guess digital is the ultimate bastardization of photography, as we have so much leeway and now an almost infinite number of pp and filter programs to choose from and use, or abuse, as we see fit. Digital has also seen the rise of *fauxtogs*, people who get a DSLR on Christmas Day and whom 'go pro' by New Year's Eve. They are the ones who shoot weddings on green camera mode (if they even use a camera and not a cellphone) charging $500 for 8 hrs and have a photo business only on FB -

OK time to get off the soapbox and stash it away. Just rambling like always.


I have talked to several pros who say the same thing. Due to cellphones with cameras, people don’t hire a pro photographer like they used to. Now with the cameras on iPhones, and some that are incorporating additional lens capability, it’s just going to get worse. So I now focus on printing. I don’t make much, but I am using many of the new cellulose based papers and pigment inks. My prints are better than most labs, especially when it comes to formal photos.
09/27/2017 07:01:21 AM · #60
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

... Most of the complaints seem to boil down to laziness or inattention. I don't mean that in a bad way but it seems like the extra work the whole way through the process annoys some. ... Minimal makes me work harder, it makes me pay closer attention, it makes me WANT to do better. That in and of itself is justification for my wanting to hang onto it.

There's always room for an additional ruleset with different possibilities, but I truly believe DPC should always have minimal.


Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Personally, I have always thought of Minimal Editing as the equivalent of shooting color slides back in the day.


As everyone might know by now I'm not a big fan of Minimal. Reason is exactly what Bear_Music describes here: it's like shooting for slides back in the day and too often the prints and/or slides that came back from the lab were not meeting the expectations I had. Not that the images were bad, but they really could do with a bit of editing. Boy, I would have loved to have the editing tools I have now to work on those images then. And that's exactly what I think when I see the results of the Minimal Challenges: with exception of a few most images really need some looking after IMHO.

But other than that, what really annoys me is that mantra of the people in favour of Minimal: it makes you a better photographer! When I go out with my camera on my tripod to shoot a landscape (in RAW) I do exactly what they describe: I take time to find the right location and try to get composition and exposure right. I'm not too bothered with the settings in-camera for white balance, saturation, contrast and sharpening because I know I will sort that in post-editing, but does that make me a lesser photographer? And is that laziness? In fact, when shooting my images I try to anticipate the steps I will take in post-editing. When shooting landscapes I often underexpose a little to preserve the details in the sky. I used to use graduated filters but nowadays I find the results of the highlight slider and the graduated filter possibilities in post-editing more satisfying. Again, does that make me a lesser photographer?

In the old days as an amateur photographer I didn't have many possibilities to enhance my images in post-editing. Now, in the digital era we have that possibility. To be honest I think being a photographer doesn't stop with pressing the button; it's only half the job. Post-editing nowadays is as much part of photography as the process of shooting. So putting (a lot of) time in the post-editing-process is IMO another important condition to become a better photographer. And when that (in my case) lead to images that are over-processed and/or over-saturated, please do understand I do that because I like it that way.

And for the question whether there's room for a Minimal ruleset on DPC, the answer is YES. It is good to have different rulesets serving all kind of photographers. Will I participate in Minimal Challenges? NO, not with the current rules. Maybe when the rules will allow for using RAW files with a restriction in adjustments you can make (e.g. only contrast/highlight/shadows/saturation/sharpening sliders in Lightroom or ACR) with sending the sidecar file to proof it, it might be more interesting to participate. But until then I hope we can do without those remarks that we need Minimal to become less lazy and better photographers.

Message edited by author 2017-09-27 07:44:56.
09/27/2017 08:03:23 AM · #61
@ Kroburg you have your points but not many are like you.

why not participating? what's to loose?
09/27/2017 09:14:13 AM · #62
Originally posted by Kroburg:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

... Most of the complaints seem to boil down to laziness or inattention. I don't mean that in a bad way but it seems like the extra work the whole way through the process annoys some. ... Minimal makes me work harder, it makes me pay closer attention, it makes me WANT to do better. That in and of itself is justification for my wanting to hang onto it.

There's always room for an additional ruleset with different possibilities, but I truly believe DPC should always have minimal.


Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Personally, I have always thought of Minimal Editing as the equivalent of shooting color slides back in the day.


As everyone might know by now I'm not a big fan of Minimal. Reason is exactly what Bear_Music describes here: it's like shooting for slides back in the day and too often the prints and/or slides that came back from the lab were not meeting the expectations I had. Not that the images were bad, but they really could do with a bit of editing. Boy, I would have loved to have the editing tools I have now to work on those images then. And that's exactly what I think when I see the results of the Minimal Challenges: with exception of a few most images really need some looking after IMHO.

But other than that, what really annoys me is that mantra of the people in favour of Minimal: it makes you a better photographer! When I go out with my camera on my tripod to shoot a landscape (in RAW) I do exactly what they describe: I take time to find the right location and try to get composition and exposure right. I'm not too bothered with the settings in-camera for white balance, saturation, contrast and sharpening because I know I will sort that in post-editing, but does that make me a lesser photographer? And is that laziness? In fact, when shooting my images I try to anticipate the steps I will take in post-editing. When shooting landscapes I often underexpose a little to preserve the details in the sky. I used to use graduated filters but nowadays I find the results of the highlight slider and the graduated filter possibilities in post-editing more satisfying. Again, does that make me a lesser photographer?

In the old days as an amateur photographer I didn't have many possibilities to enhance my images in post-editing. Now, in the digital era we have that possibility. To be honest I think being a photographer doesn't stop with pressing the button; it's only half the job. Post-editing nowadays is as much part of photography as the process of shooting. So putting (a lot of) time in the post-editing-process is IMO another important condition to become a better photographer. And when that (in my case) lead to images that are over-processed and/or over-saturated, please do understand I do that because I like it that way.

And for the question whether there's room for a Minimal ruleset on DPC, the answer is YES. It is good to have different rulesets serving all kind of photographers. Will I participate in Minimal Challenges? NO, not with the current rules. Maybe when the rules will allow for using RAW files with a restriction in adjustments you can make (e.g. only contrast/highlight/shadows/saturation/sharpening sliders in Lightroom or ACR) with sending the sidecar file to proof it, it might be more interesting to participate. But until then I hope we can do without those remarks that we need Minimal to become less lazy and better photographers.


So very well said.
09/27/2017 09:19:08 AM · #63
I think some challenges with Minimal Editing Ruleset (as is) benefit both beginners and veterans. In my location, I have the opportunity to stand next to all kinds of photographers. Most use the "machine gun" theory of quantity over quality. They must think, "If I shoot 800 images at 11 fps, I'll certainly capture something. Furthermore, I can fix it in photoshop later." Sometimes, there are a few pros in the photographer crowd. A Professional stands out from the crowd because they execute many fewer shutter actuations. I call these people the rifle shot sniper experts. They take the time to compose through the viewfinder and move their feet to gain better light and angle. They think about depth-of-field and hyperfocal distance. They wait (or they hurry) for passing clouds to provide magical light. What they don't do is carelessly blast away!

Never would I give up my RAW capture flexibility. And, I capture 12,000 images per year. So, I shoot plenty and I'm just as bad as the amateurs. However, the Minimal Editing Ruleset constraint to get the image right in the camera... and prove it by capturing it in JPG is an exercise in disciplne, concentration and patience. Then, those techniques carry over to the bulk of everyday image captures in a most helpful way. For me, my best images always come from those RAW image captures that require the least post processing.

When I first acquired a digital camera, there were a few photographers doing inspirational things. Jim Brandenburg. Chased by the Light by Jim Brandenburg is a good example. His mission was to capture one image per day limit with film! Wow! I'm not talking about posting one image per day to your Facebook page. Brandenburg did one film exposure per day. Period. Amazing! How far we have traveled in carelessness away from a deliberate, careful life.

Message edited by author 2017-09-27 09:19:30.
09/27/2017 09:20:06 AM · #64
Originally posted by Tiberius:

@ Kroburg you have your points but not many are like you.

why not participating? what's to loose?


I entered because I purposely shot JPG so I could the other day. But the image is under exposed, because like Kroburg I under expose at times to preserve the highlights. I do this because I know in post it's easy to bring up the other aspects of the photo.

Honestly I am looking forward to the next minimal. I am going to use features in my camera that produce a JPG that will met all the requirements for a minimal challenge but have way more post processing down than I would do if I had shot for the challenge in RAW. My Olympus EM1 can do some pretty amazing things in camera that produce a JPG.
09/27/2017 11:56:19 AM · #65
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Paul:

But do you like what ends up on the front page....?

I don't think the mission statement of the site is to provide a superior photo gallery for the public -- it is to help people become "better" photographers by challenging them to do something out of their normal process.

Now, people seem to be complaining that it's too much work to get a beautiful image under the Minimal rule set, not that it's impossible -- but isn't that rather the point of it being a "challenge?" Learning how to exert better control over your equipment, composition and lighting is a bad thing?


BINGO! General you are correct. So much of the digital world is post process. It is nice to see people rely on what they see in the viewfinder over what they can produce in photoshop.
09/27/2017 12:00:54 PM · #66
Originally posted by hahn23:

.... Brandenburg did one film exposure per day. Period. Amazing! How far we have traveled in carelessness away from a deliberate, careful life.


thank you
09/27/2017 12:03:58 PM · #67
I rarely edit my RAW files. PSP has the ability, as does Corels AfterShot, but again, don't go that way very often.

Personally, I like the way Sony cameras process JPG files and that's usually my starting point. I find the RAW files, when I have looked at them, are nowhere close to what the camera produced JPG looks like.

As for what Kroburg mentions ... I'm not familiar with "sidecars" or ACR.

09/27/2017 12:50:11 PM · #68
I make no apologies for liking minimal challenges, however, the subject of the challenge is far more important to me than the ruleset for post-processing. I do, however, get irked when all the naysayers complain repeatedly about minimal challenges as though it was a major inconvenience. You do realise in the history of DPC there have only been 64 challenges with the minimal ruleset? That represents approx 2.55% of the total number of challenges on DPC. There are a number of people on DPC who do still really enjoy minimal challenges, especially if the subject is one that is also popular (Shallow DOF has 70 entries, something not seen for a while).

Since the site started in 2002 there have been 64 Minimal and 165 Expert/Extended challenges. Average number of entries per challenge is 75 for minimal and 60 for Expert/Extended. That includes the extended free study so the expert/extended data is a bit skewed as those challenges get more participation than the regular expert/extended and there is no comparable challenge for minimal.

I can't help thinking we should be advocating an increase in the number of minimal challenges to encourage participation since they do seem to get the numbers up. 2017 has been the best year so far, with 16 minimal challenges (12% of the total challenges offered this year). 23 challenges have been under the extended ruleset (17% of the total).

In 2017 the Average Number of Entries per challenge:
Minimal 47
Standard 58
Extended 39

Surely there's room for all the different editing types? I think it's the variety that makes it interesting and after all it's not compulsory to enter something you don't enjoy

Message edited by author 2017-09-27 12:50:48.
09/27/2017 02:32:30 PM · #69
Originally posted by glad2badad:

I rarely edit my RAW files. PSP has the ability, as does Corels AfterShot, but again, don't go that way very often.

Personally, I like the way Sony cameras process JPG files and that's usually my starting point. I find the RAW files, when I have looked at them, are nowhere close to what the camera produced JPG looks like.

There's no surprise there; an "unedited" RAW file always looks pretty muddy and dull. Every RAW processor I have used has given me the option of using the camera settings themselves to inform the initial display, in which case my RAWs and my JPGs look the same in the Lightroom viewer. But when you want to continue editing, it's MUCH better to be working from the RAW, which allows you to tweak variables in a way you can't with a JPG: most significantly in adjusting white balance, and (more generally) in giving more latitude for the recovery of detail from highlights and shadows both.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

As for what Kroburg mentions ... I'm not familiar with "sidecars" or ACR.

"ACR" is Adobe Camera Raw, the engine used by both Lightroom and Bridge. "Sidecar files" are how all RAW processors store the information that equals the "processing" that you have done. The RAW file can't, itself, be changed. When you move an adjusted RAW file from the RAW processor to your editing program of choice, the editor "reads" the sidecar file and that's how it "learns" what tweaks have been made to the digital negative, the RAW file.
09/27/2017 03:04:37 PM · #70
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

... Most of the complaints seem to boil down to laziness or inattention. I don't mean that in a bad way but it seems like the extra work the whole way through the process annoys some. ... Minimal makes me work harder, it makes me pay closer attention, it makes me WANT to do better. That in and of itself is justification for my wanting to hang onto it.

There's always room for an additional ruleset with different possibilities, but I truly believe DPC should always have minimal.


Originally posted by Kroburg:

As everyone might know by now I'm not a big fan of Minimal. Reason is exactly what Bear_Music describes here: it's like shooting for slides back in the day and too often the prints and/or slides that came back from the lab were not meeting the expectations I had. Not that the images were bad, but they really could do with a bit of editing. Boy, I would have loved to have the editing tools I have now to work on those images then. And that's exactly what I think when I see the results of the Minimal Challenges: with exception of a few most images really need some looking after IMHO.

I see the results a little differently. I love to see what some of us can do in Minimal. I'm usually impressed by quite a few. One of my HMs is in Minimal and I'm as proud of that as my ribbons. Not that I have a lot or all that.

I get what you're saying about the results shooting slides, but with digital, you get to chimp and shoot more, or change things to make it better. Right then and there.
Originally posted by Kroburg:

But other than that, what really annoys me is that mantra of the people in favour of Minimal: it makes you a better photographer! When I go out with my camera on my tripod to shoot a landscape (in RAW) I do exactly what they describe: I take time to find the right location and try to get composition and exposure right. I'm not too bothered with the settings in-camera for white balance, saturation, contrast and sharpening because I know I will sort that in post-editing, but does that make me a lesser photographer? And is that laziness? In fact, when shooting my images I try to anticipate the steps I will take in post-editing. When shooting landscapes I often underexpose a little to preserve the details in the sky. I used to use graduated filters but nowadays I find the results of the highlight slider and the graduated filter possibilities in post-editing more satisfying. Again, does that make me a lesser photographer?

As I said, and just assuming my remark is what didn't sit well, I didn't mean it as a bad thing. I know *I* am to a certain point lazier when I am not required to shoot Minimal. Why not? I have a killer camera & lenses and I can get away with a lot of stuff that is fixed in moments with PS. I crop, use levels, change temp, selectively desat, and other techniques. But..... I am also one who if I can't get what I want inside of 3-5 minutes, I move on to the next image.

As you stated above, you shoot according to how you want to edit it. That's why, to a certain extent I would imagine that Minimal takes you out of your comfort zone. It's *supposed to*! But if it simply doesn't work for you, then take a pass. I don't do Expert because I'm decidedly not a PS adept and I never will be. I simply do not wish to spend the timer necessary to get that good.
Originally posted by Kroburg:

In the old days as an amateur photographer I didn't have many possibilities to enhance my images in post-editing. Now, in the digital era we have that possibility. To be honest I think being a photographer doesn't stop with pressing the button; it's only half the job. Post-editing nowadays is as much part of photography as the process of shooting. So putting (a lot of) time in the post-editing-process is IMO another important condition to become a better photographer. And when that (in my case) lead to images that are over-processed and/or over-saturated, please do understand I do that because I like it that way.

The photography part ceases at the press of the shutter. Being good at post processing does not make you a better photographer. It makes you better at post processing. Yes, you can enhance the image in many ways, and you can certainly improve the final product visually, but all the PP in the world won't fix a bad image. I love what you can do, and I envy some who have invested the time needed to get really good at it. But you still have to have a really good starting point. The better the image is in the first place, as I am sure you know, the better the end result. And that quality image from the camera is what the photography part is all about.
Originally posted by Kroburg:

And for the question whether there's room for a Minimal ruleset on DPC, the answer is YES. It is good to have different rulesets serving all kind of photographers. Will I participate in Minimal Challenges? NO, not with the current rules. Maybe when the rules will allow for using RAW files with a restriction in adjustments you can make (e.g. only contrast/highlight/shadows/saturation/sharpening sliders in Lightroom or ACR) with sending the sidecar file to proof it, it might be more interesting to participate.

You *do* realize that you're no longer talking about the Minimal ruleset if you can doink the adjustments? That's what it's all about. You say that you won't participate with the current ruleset. Okay. The point is that some of us like it, it's in place, it works, why not just leave it be???
Originally posted by Kroburg:

But until then I hope we can do without those remarks that we need Minimal to become less lazy and better photographers.

If it doesn't apply to you, then let it go. If you feel that shooting Minimal brings nothing to you, then don't participate. There are people that do feel challenged and that it does make them better. I'm among them. I also stated that *I'm* much lazier about my initial image creation if I know I can crop and do other doinking in PS later. I'm sure that others mean the same thing. To reiterate, I said that I didn't mean my comment in a bad way. It was more of an expression of personal style. I also shoot in a semi-auto mode most of the time because it serves me pretty well. Because I don't feel like taking the time to decide what are the exact perfect settings for each and every image. 'Cause I'm LAZY. But I have been doing this for a little while and my semi-auto mode is specific to what I shoot most. I also use a 28-300 lens for most of my images. 'Cause I'm LAZY and don't want to spend time swapping out lenses, not to mention the expense.

This place is supposed to be fun and to exchange ideas and help with the community, and to see how your work stacks up with some like-minded folks. Take what you want, be grateful for what you can use, leave the rest behind, and the Hell with anyone who doesn't work for your particular ideals. For the most part, nobody's really here to take potshots at others. And f*ck 'em if they do!

YMMV...
09/27/2017 04:49:04 PM · #71
Anyone remember how the rant column was back in 06?
09/27/2017 05:46:17 PM · #72
Originally posted by coronamv:

Anyone remember how the rant column was back in 06?

This back and forth about minimal in one form or another is prolly the most revisited topic of all time.
09/27/2017 05:53:15 PM · #73
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by coronamv:

Anyone remember how the rant column was back in 06?

This back and forth about minimal in one form or another is prolly the most revisited topic of all time.

Ah, I vote for "voting styles" ... :-)
09/27/2017 06:05:34 PM · #74
Originally posted by coronamv:

Anyone remember how the rant column was back in 06?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

This back and forth about minimal in one form or another is prolly the most revisited topic of all time.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Ah, I vote for "voting styles" ... :-)

Oh, and the "Must leave comment if you vote 1, 2, or 3!" LOL!!!
09/27/2017 07:22:38 PM · #75
Just remember: Photo • graphy comes from the root words for light & writing. It means, literally, to "write with light". So in one, very fundamental, sense the *essence* of *real* photography is to expose a sensitive medium to light and let the light scribe, as it were, whatever it wishes. For me, the reality of photography, the core of photography, has never been that we use light to paint the scene, as it were, but that in a very tangible sense we use the scene to show us the light. This may sound esoteric, but when you think on it, it is a conceptual departure of sorts. Wynn Bullock said it: "Not form rock, not object rock, but the light that is the rock."

This business of Minimal Editing, if it does nothing else, teaches, or OUGHT to be teaching, something we might lamely call the zen of photography. When we separate our egos and our preconceptions and our so-carefully enumerated goals, when we separate all THAT from the act of "taking" photographs and begin to absorb the photograph, BECOME the photograph, BECOME the photograph and the camera both, so there is no separation, THAT is pure Photo • Graphis.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:07:44 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:07:44 AM EDT.