The Apollo XI One Light Photography Workshop

Updated on July 28, 2009: Updated some of the captions below the moonlanding pictures.

Man my previous post sure generated a lot of traffic. It looks like a lot of people were able to relate to many of the things I discussed there, especially Canon users. And that’s great, because I need the support of all of you to get those fucks in Japan to innovate. Where the fuck is my Eye Control Focus? Every time I send in my god forsaken feedback reports I keep asking for it and yet they seem to totally ignore it in Tokyo. This along with many other things people keep asking me year in and year out. The “good enough” mentality seems to win every time at Canon Inc. It’s the lazy-ass engineering I discussed in the previous post. Well there’s a time when “good enough” just doesn’t cut it anymore, and the issues we’re having with the 5D Mark II autofocus module proves this. It’s a goddamn tragedy that we have to put up with this crap in the technologically advanced time we live in right now. Back in the film days, you could get the EOS-1V with a working 45-point professional autofocus system for $2000. $2000!!!! Today, the EOS 5D Mark II costs almost $3000 and comes with a pathetic 9 point autofocus system that makes my cellphone camera look like a Hasselblad in comparison. And yes, the EOS-1V also had a built-in Eyepiece Shutter. Somehow during the transition from film to digital, the cameras got a lot more primitive at Canon Inc. Being the Technical Advisor at Canon USA, can you imagine in what kind of position I get into when people start pointing this out to me?

If you want another example of lazy-ass engineering at Canon Inc., just take the “‘On-demand’ Viewfinder Gridlines Projection System.” At Nikon it is simply an option in the menu to turn the gridlines inside the viewfinder on or off on demand. Even the fucking Nikon D200 which is now obsolete had this feature. At Canon Inc. you actually have to change the focusing screen inside the camera with one containing the gridlines etched onto them (which you have to buy). If you want to see the entire procedure for doing this, just look here. That’s some kickass 21st century technology, ya gotta admit. You look at that procedure and just marvel at its sheer brilliance. Whoever came up with that probably graduated at MIT at the age of 12. Compare that procedure to the Nikon procedure of a simple menu setting on the Nikon D200/D300/D700 which projects some kind of LCD grid inside the viewfinder. A world of difference. Canon has redefined the word “usability” with their “Eyepiece Closing ‘Mechanism’” and “‘On-demand’ Viewfinder Gridlines Projection System.” Imagine how much more productive this makes photographers using Canon DSLRs. And while changing the focusing screen, you had better pray to God that dust doesn’t end up on top of it, or, heaven forbid, on the exposed prism inside the camera, because then you’re really fucked.

Anyway, with your support I hope we can talk some sense into those morons in Japan. What surprised me though, was that even though the feedback to the previous post was overwhelmingly positive, the gestapo at the DPReview Canon forums went into action again and deleted an entire thread where Canon users were discussing my post. This is not the first time this has happened. Fortunately I was able to save 2 of the 3 pages of the discussion, and you can download a PDF file containing the discussion here: Deleted Thread at DPReview. As you’ll see, about 90% of people there were positive about my post, and yet it had to be deleted. Doesn’t that make you wonder about who exactly is in control over at DPReview? Here is one of the comments in that discussion, which you’ll find in the PDF, that I found interesting:

Should you have to jump all the way to the 1-series to get a high quality comprehensively-featured, no-excuses camera from the world’s larger SLR manufacturer? The 5DII costs more than any film-era 1-series EOS SLR while limping along with a derivative of the 7-point AF system developed for the EOS Elan 7/7E (itself, a derivation of the 5-point AF of the EOS-5/A2/A2E from 1992) and is marketed toward professionals, yet starting with the EOS-1N, those cameras had eyepiece shutters. Of course, all the 1-series cameras have them, so obviously we’re not talking about having to re-invent the wheel to implement the same system in a 5D-level body–the parts already exist. No, it’s just that, in true Canon style–as was the case with even the storied EOS-3, which shared quite a lot, mechanically and electronically, with the 1-series film SLRs–they have chosen to compromise functionality (along with viewfinder quality, build quality, autofocus, environmental sealing, user-configurability and features) for the protecting sales of the 1-series. $2700 should buy you a DSLR you don’t have to make excuses for in terms of its basic functioning: AF and metering. And I’m not willing to give Canon a free pass on the “value” of a full frame sensor this time around, when the 5DII sensor is so clearly a derivation of the existing 1DsIII sensor and they spent, essentially, nothing on AF improvements. It’s infuriating when Nikon and Pentax offer bodies with more comprehensive features and/or superior build quality to the 5DII for significantly less money.

Some excellent points in there.

In other news my Tech Tips for July went online a while ago. Very boring as usual, but perhaps there’s something there that might interest you. Nikon also released a fuckup notice for the D5000 last week. It seems that some D5000 bodies don’t turn on after a while due to some problem. At least they’re a lot quicker at Nikon to admit any issues and to offer to fix it. At Canon Inc. they would have first denied that the D5000 had any issues, and after a few months take a look at it anyway and then actually “fix” the same problem a couple of times in the course of 2 years. After that, they’d release a video interview with some unknown Japanese photographer making multiple claims that the D5000 does in fact turn on, mentioning how great that is, and that this is one of its most important features.

Vincent Laforet (left) and Eolake Stobblehouse, separated at birth?

Vincent Laforet (left) and Eolake Stobblehouse, separated at birth?

On a more positive note though, my marketing idea for hiring Arnold Schwarzenneger to promote our DSLRs has been very well received even at Canon. Since Nikon has “ashtonsdslr.com” we’re now in the process of registering the domain “thegovernatorsdslr.com” and have it redirect to our EOS website. We need a totally different approach to marketing when the 1D Mark 4 gets launched. I really hope that Vincent Laforet, peace be with him, will be able to look at the 1D4 and do something really spectacular again so we can seriously start kicking Nikon’s ass. Lord knows we need it.

Okay so you probably saw that this post had a strange title and that’s because I’ve been seeing all the Apollo 11 moonlanding crap all over the place and as I was getting sick and tired of that shit I noticed something strange when I looked at some of the pictures. As the Technical Advisor, or Camera Guru if you prefer, at Canon USA, you know that stupid shit like this is not going to go unnoticed by me. I didn’t become the Technical Advisor around here for nothing.  And instead of just showing you what I mean, I decided to do an online photography workshop instead. Workshops are so hot right now, everyone is doing their own, so I thought why not have one myself?

In this case the workshop is more about lighting. Lighting on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. This is the kind of stuff the Lord of the Speedlights dreams of doing, but can’t, because he’ll probably lose all of his sponsors overnight. Me, I have Canon backing me so I don’t give a flying fuck. Since the astronauts on Apollo 11 didn’t bring any lights of their own, we really only have one light source on the moon: The Sun. So that makes our workshop a One Light workshop, not to be confused with Zack Arias’s One Light Workshop, which doesn’t come even close to what you are about to experience in a moment.

Okay so much for the intro, now let us start by looking at some of the pictures that were taken during the Apollo 11 mission and reverse engineer the light Strobist style:

Moon 1

This is a picture of the moon. It’s important to take note of the fact that the shadows are all pointing in the same direction, and that the shadow areas are pitch black.

Moon 2

Another picture taken by the astronauts shows the extremely dark shadows. Notice how the shadow side of the hills are totally dark. If you’d stand there you wouldn’t see shit in front of you.

Moon 3

Okay now this is the first picture taken by the fucking wankers who call themselves astronauts. In the top picture, notice how the shadow side of the moonlander is lit. Since there’s only one light, the sun, which is coming from the back of the moonlander, the side we’re seeing would be totally dark, just like the shadow side of the hills in the above picture. And yet, that’s not the case. Same with that white thing on the ground. But take a look at the rocks, their shadow sides are totally black. Some will say that the moonlander was lit by the surface of the moon, but why is the surface of the moon able to light the dark shadow side of the moonlander, and not the dark shadow sides of rocks, craters, hills etc.? Below there’s a simulated version of what the picture would have looked like with only the sun as the light source.

Moon 4

Even more bullshit from the motherfuckers who call themselves astronauts. The astronaut is coming out of the moonlander at the shadow side, and yet there ‘s so much light! Now how the hell is that fucking possible? Simple: There had to be more light sources when that picture was taken (red arrows). If you look at the orange structure, clearly there’s light coming from above. Perhaps an Alien craft flying by was giving some assistance? Below is how that picture should have looked like with only the sun as the light source.

Moon 5

Even more horseshit from the overpaid nutcases at Nasa. Again, the astronaut is at the shadow side of the moonlander, and lit like a fucking christmas tree. I wonder how sunlight was able to reach the astronaut behind the moonlander. Below is again the simulated version of what that picture should have looked like.

Moon 6

Notice again how the shadow side of the rocks and hills are completely black. Somehow the shadow side of the moonlander and astronaut are very lit. This shit doesn’t even happen at Disney World.

Moon 7

In this picture the shadows look believable, very dark and shadow side of the astronauts and flag are a lot darker, essentially black. But why does one of the astronauts have a much longer shadow? Also, is the surface of the moon gray or brown? Seems to me like the assholes as Nasa can’t decide.

Moon 8

Apparently sunlight really favored the astronauts and the moonlander during the Apollo 11 mission. Notice how the shadow side of the rock is completely black, and yet the shadow side of the moonlander and astronaut look a lot brighter. And where is the flag’s shadow? The cocksuckers at Nasa must think we’re all stupid.

Moon 9

The fucking astronaut is standing in the goddamn shadow of the fucking moonlander, how in God’s name is he visible, when the sun was supposed to be the only light source? Looks to me like those fucks at Nasa used a little fill light.

Moon 10

This picture is just awesome. If they decide to do some lighting workshops at Nasa, I’ll be the first to sign up. Hell, I don’t even care what it costs, I’ll take a second mortgage if I have to. If you can do this, you’ll never need to use a flash ever again. Compare this to the picture above with the 2 astronauts with much darker shadows. And the surface of the moon looks a lot more brown in the reflection. Hmmm…

Moon 11

All of a sudden the shadow side of the moonlander and astronaut look a lot darker. Looks like they moved some of the fill lights for this shot. Also notice how the solar panel is throwing a very dark shadow on the astronaut’s right foot. A small panel is able to black out part of the astronaut’s foot, and yet, when the astronaut stands in the shadow of the big moonlander in previous pictures, he is totally lit!

Moon 12

And this is truly magnificent. Forget Zack Arias, forget the Lord of the Speedlights, hell, forget McNally. Those guys are nothing compared to what Nasa achieved here using just one light source. It looks like the sunlight went in one direction, then actually made a turn and came back in the frame from a different direction. You would have to use String-theory to explain what’s going on in that picture. To keep it simple, I made a lighting diagram below the picture to show you how I think the lighting was set up in this case. Forgive me for spelling errors, I’m tired.

And that concludes this Apollo 11 One Light workshop. I hope you’ve learned something important from all of this and that this will make you a better photographer. For more background information, watch this.

That’s it for now, I need to go look at the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and prepare my feedback for those morons in Japan.

60 thoughts on “The Apollo XI One Light Photography Workshop

  1. Pingback: Twitted by z_sq

  2. Ha, it is hard to tell if this is humor or if the newspeak of Canon engineering (or in this case reverse engineering) has reached Fake Chuck Westfall as well.

  3. NASA really put all photographers to shame. According to wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs

    “The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture.”

    I think we should send all complaining 5DM2 user to NASA, to teach them how to take sharp picture. Ok, maybe it’s a really bad idea. They might be tempted to use a Hasselblad instead.

  4. Fake Chuck… Apollo hoax conspiracies?? Really?? You are a sadistic, trolling-feeding bastard, Chuck.

    I don’t know whether to remove your blog from my feed in outrage or to laugh my ass off.

    But I guess it makes sense, since only Canon-hating trolls (AKA “Nikon users”) and whackos read this blog. ;-)

  5. Tony,
    I’m neither a “whacko” nor a “Nikon user” (yet). I love this blog. Fake Chuck writes what I have been thinking for a long time regarding Canon gear. Keep up the good work Fake Chuck, maybe Canon can get it together before all my gear hits Craigslist, doubt it though.

    • Steven,

      Niether am I (whacko or Nikon user), but I read Fake Chuck religiously, which says something right there.

      My personal belief (Fake Chuck, don’t read this part) is that FCW is potentially doing Canon users a great service by pointing out Canon’s growing ‘issues’, and in an extremely humorous way; but I’m not entirely convinced that he’s not just some Nikon troll somewhere in the Netherlands. As such, I think that we, his readers, should try to keep him just a tiny bit honest. So I don’t mind giving him a load of crap when I think he (she, it, whatever) needs it. But, if for nothing other than the humor factor, FCW remains in my feed reader.

      Still, I’m a pretty creeped out by him saying he loves me.

      • you know, Tony, I actually thought of asking you to FedEx me some of those delicious looking pancakes you’re taking pictures of, but I’d have to disclose my location and that’s a problem.

  6. I thought you would write about Hasselblad cameras which were used and left on the Moon.

    Concerning Canon, I have lost hope in them. They are just a bunch of greedy marketers, and I hope Sony will crush them all. And by that time, I hope selling my Canon system and buy an Hasselblad kit.

    • Wait, you don’t like Canon because they’re greedy marketers so you’re going to go with Sony instead? Are we talking about the same Sony here? They are all greedy marketers, end of story.

      • Okay, fair cop, I just thought it was ironic to say that the marketing giant that is Sony should crush Canon for being greedy marketers.

        That aside, if Canon replaces the current IS with a new IS will that mean there will be a few bargains going as they sell out the old IS, or is that just wishful thinking?

  7. Can’t wait for folks to go back to the moon.
    I hear there is some pretty cheap Hassie gear over there, just waiting for ebay to open their services.

  8. Instead of updating my old 5D I had a look at the Sony A900. Not bad at all. So let’s wait if Canon will improve something. No need for now to spend money on a 5D MKII…

  9. “Back in the film days, you could get the EOS-1V DSLR with a working 45-point professional autofocus system for $2000.”

    SLR yes, DSLR no.

  10. Hi Chuck, the pdf file (dpreview forum posts) you want to share seems damaged… Cannot open it.
    Can you check the file ?
    Best regards

  11. >”Even the fucking Nikon D200 which is now obsolete had [on demand viewfinder grid display].”
    Worse: The D100 from *2002* had this. And they put it in the D70 and up, so you even get it with the lower model cameras.

  12. Pingback: The Apollo XI One Light Photography Workshop - Fake Chuck Westfall @ Photo News Today

  13. Dear Fake Chuck,

    I feel that in all of your rants about the eyepiece cover and focusing screens, you’ve left off another egregious Canon blunder – the tacked-on, garbage looking, shitty feeling battery “grip” for the 5D bodies.

    Remember back in the film days? The EOS 1N or 1V battery grip actually integrated up into the front grip of the camera body itself. When it was attached, it felt fairly seamless and balanced, and looked like it belonged there.

    Obviously the fucks over at Canon have decided that we are merely shutter-clicking neanderthals and won’t notice if they redesign the battery grip to look like a damn 2×4 bolted to the bottom of the camera. Here, just tack this piece of shit on, so it looks like some tacked-on piece of shit. Some say “if you want a camera with a grip, get a 1D series.” Why should I have to do that? What if I don’t want to lug around the weight of a 1D all the time. What if I want to shoot with a more compact package when I don’t need the extra battery power?

    So I’m left with this tacked on garbage on the bottom of my 5D for now. Any thoughts on that, Mr. F. Westfall?

  14. In my opinion the explanation of the Apollo the-shadow-is-too-light issue is very simple: Notice how bright is a single astronaut – he acts as a pretty huge light source (human softbox :) ).

    Because an astronaut operates the camera, it means that one of the lights is always lighting on everything that is close enough.

    This is just my opinion as I said previously, but it could explain plenty of things.

  15. As they say, jealousy makes you nasty! Please Chuck, grow up. Just because NASA shoots Nikon and not Canon, now you have to go pick on them!?! Why don’t you rather get your guys in Japan to make a decent camera for a change? Maybe then NASA will take a Canon up to space instead of the Nikons that they currently use.

    Let’s see: Nikon has NASA. Canon has Tataaa… Taka… Mizutani – some unknown Japanese photographer. LOL.

  16. Sorry, the moon is not in a “one light” situation. there is significant light coming from the earth to illuminate. Interestingly enough, it also moves. Wow.

    • Do not forget all the light bouncing and scattering from the moons surface.

      You can say it like this “if you stand in the shadow on Earth, are you totally black then”?!! The answer is no.

      Reason for the “black shadows” looking really black in the craters are the distance the photos are taken.

      Just as shadows looks daker in a distance compared to when you gets closer and you can start to see stuff and details in the shadows.

      • What about the difference an atmosphere makes?
        At least the blue sky is missing on the moon…

  17. The new Nikon D300s has 51 AF points, the 5D MII has 9, PATHETIC !!! I am so depress reading Nikon’s press releases.

  18. Hi Fake Chuck,
    While I enjoy your blog, I do wish you would eliminate the expletives. I’m no prude by any means, but I like to surf the web at work on my lunch hour (allowed), but can’t because of the content.

    I (think) I see where you are coming from in your frustration with Canon, but please, clean up the language.

  19. I am sure Canon’s profit plunge will be reflected in Nikon’s huge profit gain. Bring on the good news, Mr. Chuck.

  20. Hi Fakey,

    I had high hopes but you disappointed me a bit. This was not your best post, you know. Do you? I mean the 1969 Moon Story – it’s a good story, and after all it does not matter so much if it is true or not. And your arguments – I mean, Sam just totally extinguished the one that you have illustrated so sophisticatedly.
    Anyway, rock on. Like so many now, I like what you’re doing! I hope Maeda will come up with an utterly f#*&ed 1D Mk whatever to give you something to cheer us up. (That’s Us, The Nikon Users.)
    If not – you can still write about assholes like this one: http://www.stuckincustoms.com/
    (cordially recommended by The Great Whore Ken Rockwell) – I mean it all goes to show that it really is the way Ken keeps telling us over and over again: it doesn’t matter at all what camera you use when you’re a totally conventional, brain dead, full-of-yourself D3x user. The D3x “fills his life like a sweet song”! YUCK! And don’t forget to check out that christmas tree “photo”! I’m so sick of …
    – anyway, I just wanted to say I’m glad you don’t post photos. (Except your self portrait of course, which is of course an impeccable masterpiece.)

    Kindest regards!
    Michael

  21. Have to agree with Micheal, this was not funny, you sound like those folks that hang around coast to coast.

    For one I would say that if there was no moon landing, the Russians would have blown the lid of the hoax. At that time there was the whole space race cold war thing happening. Each country was pushing each other in the race.

    So if the Ruskie did not challenge the American of being on the moon it must real, unless there is some comspiracy with the Russians.

    Other than that this site is a good read, and amusing being the owner of 15 DSLR, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax. I have to agree with most of your rant about Canon.

  22. Hey Chuck, did you drop a load in your pants when Nikon announced the Nikon D300s? It looks like a warmed over D300. What about Sony’s new backdoor (exmor) sensor?

    Can these companies brag about their sensors? Seems to me they either know Canon will bring out a lame duck 60D with the same noisy 50D sensor, or that they know they are whipped and are not even trying?

    • …and besides, eye control AF is nothing but a bothersome, never-properly-functioning nuisance anyway. At least I want to feel free to look any where I please without causing little red thingies to creep and jump across my picture.
      A camera in which it would be O.K. to see it though (if they weren’t decades from being able to build that) would be the new Leica S2 with it’s single one lonely AF sensor. Specs are out! Check those out and have a good time, Canonisti. 1 (ONE) AF sensor! No more jumpy red lice on your screen! And close to 0 (ZERO) of these ever disturbing knobs & wheels! Wonder if the thing has a menu or if they managed, right there in Wetzlar or in the sweatshops of Kuala Lumpur, who knows, to get all the settings right for all pictures all the worlds retired dentists, ophtalmologists, pulmologists, and architects are ever going to take. I know this is off topic but I thought it might cheer you up a little.
      regards
      M

  23. Hi Fake. where the hell are your comments about the new Canon products just beeing released? Are you too busy playing? With your balls or with the new Eos 1d Mk IV? Greetz

  24. Wow! Canon is really phucked now! They release a whole bunch of lady cams on August 19th. Lady cams, you know cameras for women! I guess soccer moms will be happy! Bored housewives to…

    Where are the cameras for men, and for photographers? You know, cameras like the 60D, with an improved 15.1 megapixel sensor, full weather sealing. Where is the 7D, the 12 megapixel 2200$ full frame camera that is a “5D improved”.

    Canon is on life support. If they do not release similar cameras as the ones in my post (up there), they wll be fucked (fucked with an F).

    Get your shit together Canon! And, I feel like being greedy: I also want an EFs 16-75 2.8 L is, or a 24-105 2.8 L IS. If you build it, I WILL FUCKIN buy it!

    Richard (call me Dick).

  25. Fake Chuck,
    Where have you gone Fake Chuck? Your public is getting antsy waiting to hear your latest views and rants. In the meantime I was forced to go get a D700. Wow!, nice camera. Hopefully Canon doesn’t pull something out of their ass and make me regret spending all that loot. Not likely, they seem to be more concerned with creating foo foo cameras.

    Regards,

    Stephen

  26. Yeah fake chuck. Where are you?
    By the way a fuXXXing nice camera the new Sony Alpha 850 with its fullframe sensor. As it is very cheap in price I have to buy it as soon as it is available here in germany. I guess Sony’s quality control is much better than Canon’s, is it?!
    Greetings and stop playing with your balls and write some more stories here.
    Thank you fake!

      • Chuck, stop messing with Twitter and get posting. All we get is press releases from Canon – we need to know what the hell is going on.

        The 7D looks like a nice toy and obviously Canon’s answer to the Nikon D300. I can see that you are trying hard to catch up with Nikon, but you are going to have to try harder. It is especially disappointing to hear Rob Galbraith say that the 7D still cannot accurately focus the large aperture lenses (like the 85mm f/1.2). But the real challenge of course is matching the Nikon D700, ie a FF camera that also has decent AF. This is the camera we are waiting for. Please don’t tell me Canon has given up on this?

  27. Chuck, get off your damn lazy ass, forget fucking moon landing conspiracies (seriously, really, seriously??), and get the fuck back to blogging about Canon. I blog every fucking day, whether I want to or not. Where the hell are you, Chuck??

    And I mean all that in the nicest possible way. :)

  28. Oh common Chuck! We miss your posts. 7D is out and you are not bragging about anything. They still have that hi tech eyecup system. =)

  29. Love your blog Fake Chuck, but the moon landing photo analysis is flawed. Since nobody else has bothered to mention this, and since you genuinely seem to believe what you wrote in this case (or maybe I am embarrassingly naive, and your analysis was a “fake” too?), I thought I should point out one important fact…

    I believe you are making the incorrect assumption that the moon’s surface is actually bright white, how it appears to us visually in the night sky, and similar to the astronaut’s space suits. The moon’s actual albedo (reflectivity) is approximately 12% though, so in fact 30% darker even than an 18% exposure grey card. The space-suits are indeed fairly bright white however. Hold up a grey card to a white piece of paper to see the approximate difference. Please re-analyze the photos again, bearing that in mind, to see what conclusions you come to, with respect to how bright the shaded areas of the white space suits are, how dark the lunar surface shadows are in comparison, etc…

    Oh, and the differing lengths of the astronauts shadows in the one photo? Well, the ground seems to start sloping up to the left, roughly where the right hand astronaut’s shadow ends – you can see the lunar regolith brightening there with the change in angle. What will that upward slope do to the shadow from the astronaut on the left? (hint: make it seem shorter) Okay, the white-balance does seem fucked in that film scan (or the film stock has gone wonky with age), I’ll concede that much!

    Cheers, and keep up the good work otherwise!

    -Mike

    • Okay, too funny. I just saw the link to the MythBusters episode now and watched it. Wasted my breath…

      (my references did indicate a brighter 12% albedo though)

      -Mike

  30. This blog fucking blows. In the rare occasion that you do publish, it’s unoriginal and not funny. I guess with the introduction of the 7D, maybe you don’t have too much shit to talk about. Canon is far from perfect, but maybe the company isn’t nearly as bad as you make it out to be. Your whole moon landing bullshit was stupid, too. If it WAS a joke, it wasn’t funny, and if you were serious, you’re an even dumber mother fucker than I thought.

  31. Pingback: On Canon Taking Down Nocturne « Fake Chuck Westfall

  32. Pingback: The Apollo XI One Light Photography Workshop RELOADED | Fake Chuck Westfall

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s