<?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: Buffalo, NY</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fakeconomy.com/2009/12/buffalo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fakeconomy.com/2009/12/buffalo/</link>
	<description>Stories, pictures and insights from your target demographic: a 25-30 year old male</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:59:58 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://fakeconomy.com/2009/12/buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-440</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fakeconomy.com/?p=534#comment-440</guid>
		<description>Yes I use Lightroom2 to process all of my pictures, even with the most advance/expensive camera you will want to use a image processing software to improve your pictures.  I would recommend Lightroom because it is easy to use and batch process works great (saving you time editing multiple similar pictures).  I&#039;d also recommend Google&#039;s Picassa if you don&#039;t want to pay the money to buy Lightroom.  Photoshop can do everything that Lightroom can (and much more) but the problem is that it can do so much that it often can hinder you from taking the time needed to edit your photos.

About photoprocessing... In the film camera days photographers would spend hours in the darkroom to make their pictures look their best, these days the computer has replaced the darkroom and all those chemicals.  The point is that taking the picture is only half of making a good picture, the other part is the time you spend to edit it (cropping, correcting distortion, white-balance, saturation, etc).  Of course it is important to take a good picture in the first place but keep in mind that this only reduces the time you need to spend later (it never completely gets rid of the editing time) - you still need to edit photos to make them look the best.  A picture that is shot well to begin with will reduce the time you need to take to make it look it&#039;s best, but it will never completely eliminate the time you will spend in image editing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes I use Lightroom2 to process all of my pictures, even with the most advance/expensive camera you will want to use a image processing software to improve your pictures.  I would recommend Lightroom because it is easy to use and batch process works great (saving you time editing multiple similar pictures).  I&#8217;d also recommend Google&#8217;s Picassa if you don&#8217;t want to pay the money to buy Lightroom.  Photoshop can do everything that Lightroom can (and much more) but the problem is that it can do so much that it often can hinder you from taking the time needed to edit your photos.</p>
<p>About photoprocessing&#8230; In the film camera days photographers would spend hours in the darkroom to make their pictures look their best, these days the computer has replaced the darkroom and all those chemicals.  The point is that taking the picture is only half of making a good picture, the other part is the time you spend to edit it (cropping, correcting distortion, white-balance, saturation, etc).  Of course it is important to take a good picture in the first place but keep in mind that this only reduces the time you need to spend later (it never completely gets rid of the editing time) &#8211; you still need to edit photos to make them look the best.  A picture that is shot well to begin with will reduce the time you need to take to make it look it&#8217;s best, but it will never completely eliminate the time you will spend in image editing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hidayah</title>
		<link>http://fakeconomy.com/2009/12/buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-434</link>
		<dc:creator>hidayah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:12:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fakeconomy.com/?p=534#comment-434</guid>
		<description>hye there.. just want to ask you, your image of s90 is quite clear and bright, by any chance did you do some editing on it?

or you use any specs of s90?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hye there.. just want to ask you, your image of s90 is quite clear and bright, by any chance did you do some editing on it?</p>
<p>or you use any specs of s90?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Canon PowerShot S90 Review</title>
		<link>http://fakeconomy.com/2009/12/buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-131</link>
		<dc:creator>Canon PowerShot S90 Review</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fakeconomy.com/?p=534#comment-131</guid>
		<description>[...] If you want to read about the trip, and find out who this &#8220;Tron&#8221; character is, then click here to read the post (with all the pics from the trip &#8211; all taken with the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] If you want to read about the trip, and find out who this &#8220;Tron&#8221; character is, then click here to read the post (with all the pics from the trip &#8211; all taken with the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
