<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Hack Photo &#187; Photoshop</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hackphoto.com/category/digital-editing/photoshop/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hackphoto.com</link>
	<description>Camera stuff from around the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:10:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Why stick with 3:2?</title>
		<link>http://www.hackphoto.com/2006/12/26/why-stick-with-32/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hackphoto.com/2006/12/26/why-stick-with-32/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Photoshop]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hackphoto.com/2006/12/26/why-stick-with-32/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just found a pretty interesting article on PhotoCritic.org on why the author prefers a 3:2 proportion for his images.
The argument is that a 3:2 proportion makes for a photo that looks like, well, a photo.   To me that&#8217;s a reason to stay away from 3:2 whenever possible.  Digital imaging makes it easy [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hackphoto.com/2006/12/26/why-stick-with-32/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PSD Template for TAP 4&#215;6V Folio</title>
		<link>http://www.hackphoto.com/2006/06/05/psd-template-for-tap-4x6v-folio/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hackphoto.com/2006/06/05/psd-template-for-tap-4x6v-folio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Photoshop]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hackphoto.com/2006/06/05/psd-template-for-tap-4x6v-folio/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ok, I&#8217;m pretty sure this template is for a TAP folio.  I bought the folio a long time ago from a store that sells mostly TAP album stuff, but pretty much every company makes one similar to this.  Either way, the center panel is 11.1&#8243; wide by 13.2&#8243; tall with a 2 image [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hackphoto.com/2006/06/05/psd-template-for-tap-4x6v-folio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hexidecimal colors in Photoshop</title>
		<link>http://www.hackphoto.com/2005/12/20/hexidecimal-colors-in-photoshop/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hackphoto.com/2005/12/20/hexidecimal-colors-in-photoshop/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:57:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Photoshop]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hackphoto.com/2005/12/20/hexidecimal-colors-in-photoshop/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just a quick tip.  If you look at the bottom of the color dialog in Photoshop, the hex representation of the color is down at the bottom.  Perfect for web site work.  
Look at the highlighted oval.  000000 is the hexidecimal color code for black.

]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hackphoto.com/2005/12/20/hexidecimal-colors-in-photoshop/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
