I really thought these were photographs

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by casioculture@gmail.com, Sep 15, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
    and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
    these

    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg

    Or the light in these

    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg

    Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
    evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
    that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
    decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
    interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
    curiosity.

    We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
    capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
    such appreciation may only come with hindsight.

    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
    , Sep 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Heslop Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
    > and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
    > these
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
    >
    > Or the light in these
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
    >

    this is super-realism, it's not new, by any means, but incredibly spot
    on.

    http://www.yoshiyuki-fukui.com/english-site/super-real/s.html

    --
    Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Sep 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert C. Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
    > and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
    > these
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
    >
    > Or the light in these
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
    >
    > Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
    > evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
    > that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
    > decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
    > interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
    > curiosity.
    >
    > We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
    > capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
    > such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
    >


    What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
    the artist did a superb job.

    --
    ~Robert C.
    Robert C., Sep 15, 2005
    #3
  4. Dave the Guy Guest

    Very cool idea!

    I've seen a lot of photo-realism paintings in the past decade and they
    all look stunning from some distance away. You would be surprised at
    how different these look when even moderately close, even up to 5-10
    feet.
    Dave the Guy, Sep 15, 2005
    #4
  5. Guest

    Robert C. wrote:
    > > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
    > >

    >
    > What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
    > the artist did a superb job.
    >
    > --
    > ~Robert C.


    This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989

    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg

    But apparently it wasn't all he was working on, as he did plenty of
    others in the 1980s, such as those in 1985 and 1986, respectivly

    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg
    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/321cntrygirl-dner85.jpg

    What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
    shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
    those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
    time one feels impatient.
    , Sep 15, 2005
    #5
  6. Guest

    Robert C. wrote:
    > > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
    > >

    >
    > What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
    > the artist did a superb job.
    >
    > --
    > ~Robert C.


    This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989

    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg

    But apparently it wasn't all he was working on, as he did plenty of
    others in the 1980s, such as those in 1985 and 1986, respectivly

    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg
    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/321cntrygirl-dner85.jpg

    What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
    shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
    those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
    time one feels impatient.
    , Sep 15, 2005
    #6
  7. Robert C. Guest

    > What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
    > shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
    > those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
    > time one feels impatient.
    >


    Exactly.
    Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
    (paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn out
    as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
    "manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
    photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2, a
    Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.
    Robert C., Sep 15, 2005
    #7
  8. Guest

    Robert C. wrote:
    > > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
    > >

    >
    > What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
    > the artist did a superb job.
    >
    > --
    > ~Robert C.


    This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989

    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg

    But apparently it wasn't all he was working on, as he did plenty of
    others in the 1980s, such as those in 1985 and 1986, respectivly

    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg
    http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/321cntrygirl-dner85.jpg

    What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
    shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
    those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
    time one feels impatient.
    , Sep 15, 2005
    #8
  9. Colin D Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
    > and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
    > these
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
    >
    > Or the light in these
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
    >
    > Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
    > evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
    > that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
    > decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
    > interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
    > curiosity.
    >
    > We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
    > capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
    > such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/


    About the only thing I could find that gave away that they were
    paintings is the lack of out-of-focus areas in the 'close-ups' of the
    pepper, salt, and sauce images. Infinite depth of field doesn't look
    quite right to a photog.

    Colin D.
    Colin D, Sep 15, 2005
    #9
  10. But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
    paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
    not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?

    --
    Thanks,
    Gene Palmiter
    (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
    freebridge design group
    www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
    > and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
    > these
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
    >
    > Or the light in these
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
    >
    > Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
    > evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
    > that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
    > decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
    > interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
    > curiosity.
    >
    > We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
    > capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
    > such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
    >
    > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
    >
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 15, 2005
    #10
  11. Mark² Guest

    Gene Palmiter wrote:
    > But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
    > like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
    > photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
    > technique...what message?


    I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
    -That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and studying.
    Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean REALLY looked?
    Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely gained an
    appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design. All photogs would
    do well to paint a bit, because it makes you notice things we tend to miss.
    Most are too quick, or in too big a hurry to think about it, but try
    studying even a dinner fork sometime. A great many of them are truly works
    of art!
    -That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this fact--rather our
    attention simply dwindles until we only notice the spectacular. That's a
    bad habit I often fall into as well.

    I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
    While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a drab,
    colorles rock.
    This is what I got:
    http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original

    It's not spectacular, but it's one of my favorite shots from my recent trip
    (click on the image to see a small gallery of other shots from the same
    trip).
    My "boring" black rock might not be a masterpiece, but it's art--and so is
    that "boring" katsup bottle.
    :)
    -Mark


    >
    >>
    >> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
    >> gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the
    >> composition in these
    >>
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
    >>
    >> Or the light in these
    >>
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
    >>
    >> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
    >> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
    >> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
    >> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
    >> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it
    >> with curiosity.
    >>
    >> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
    >> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
    >> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
    >>
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
    Mark², Sep 15, 2005
    #11
  12. Frank ess Guest

    Gene Palmiter wrote:
    > But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
    > like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
    > photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
    > technique...what message?
    >>
    >> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
    >> gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the
    >> composition in these
    >>
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
    >>
    >> Or the light in these
    >>
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
    >>
    >> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
    >> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was
    >> here
    >> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for
    >> later
    >> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
    >> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it
    >> with curiosity.
    >>
    >> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
    >> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true
    >> that
    >> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
    >>
    >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/


    Gene Palmiter's three questions are three answers to his final
    question.
    Frank ess, Sep 15, 2005
    #12
  13. Colin D Guest

    "Robert C." wrote:
    >
    > > What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
    > > shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
    > > those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
    > > time one feels impatient.
    > >

    >
    > Exactly.
    > Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
    > (paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn out
    > as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
    > "manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
    > photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2, a
    > Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.


    I also learned my photographic skills with manual cameras, a 5x4 Wista
    monorail, Rolleiflex, Horseman and Mamiya MF cameras, and Pentax
    Spotmatic 35mm cameras. I can have 'complete control' over my 300D if I
    choose, and I compose my pictures 'in camera', that is, in the
    viewfinder, just the same as you do with your three cameras.

    Further, I can choose the ISO speed I shoot at for the particular shot,
    which is not within the film photog's camera control without changing
    film or backs.

    The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
    that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
    as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
    thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
    film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
    capabilities.

    Colin D.
    Colin D, Sep 15, 2005
    #13
  14. Paul Heslop Guest

    Gene Palmiter wrote:
    >
    > But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
    > paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
    > not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
    >

    I'm not sure, with super-realism but I think it was part of the
    pop-art movement, and seemed to be a big americana thing. The images I
    recall were always diners and shiny hotrods etc. Then there's the guy
    who makes those 'sculptures' of tourists - Duane Hanson? (correction
    'did' as he's passed on)

    http://www.waloszek.de/f3_kal/02-duane-hanson.jpg

    http://museen.aachen.de/img/lufo/l_sammlungen/hauptwerke/hanson.jpg

    http://www.kunsthal.nl/im/Duane_Hanson.jpg

    http://www.the-artists.org/media-new/hanson-queenie.jpg

    http://tinyurl.com/c3sxr

    http://www.orlandoairports.net/goaa/images/artwork/traveler.jpg


    --
    Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Sep 15, 2005
    #14
  15. Paul Heslop Guest

    "Mark²" wrote:
    >
    > Gene Palmiter wrote:
    > > But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
    > > like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
    > > photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
    > > technique...what message?

    >
    > I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
    > -That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and studying.
    > Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean REALLY looked?
    > Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely gained an
    > appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design. All photogs would
    > do well to paint a bit, because it makes you notice things we tend to miss.
    > Most are too quick, or in too big a hurry to think about it, but try
    > studying even a dinner fork sometime. A great many of them are truly works
    > of art!
    > -That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this fact--rather our
    > attention simply dwindles until we only notice the spectacular. That's a
    > bad habit I often fall into as well.
    >
    > I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
    > While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a drab,
    > colorles rock.
    > This is what I got:
    > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
    >


    :O(

    Pinging www.pbase.com [66.179.240.29]:

    Ping #1: * [No response]
    Ping #2: * [No response]
    Ping #3: * [No response]
    Ping #4: * [No response]

    Done pinging www.pbase.com!


    --
    Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Sep 15, 2005
    #15
  16. In rec.photo.digital Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

    : The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
    : that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
    : as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
    : thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
    : film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
    : capabilities.

    I agree. But I also notice that there are many more people taking digital
    photos than I ever remember taking film photos. So there are likely to be
    many more "snapshot" takers out there. There have always been a percentage
    of photo takers that had no interrest in going through the process of
    getting the best image possible, but simply in capturing the moment how
    ever inexpertly they did so.

    Think of how many people used to swear by the pocket 110, or disk cameras.
    They were not trying to take publishing quality photos, just catch a
    moment. Now there are lots of very good, inexpensive digital cameras
    filling that niche. And with the camera cost being relatively low and the
    processing costs being nil, there may be a higher persentage of picture
    takers who are snapshoters. And there is nothing wrong with that. Even
    now, with a nice camera, and ever increasing equipment, I still can be
    found taking a snapshot from time to time. Hopefully my level of
    experience allows my snapshots to be more effective than the ones taken by
    my 7 yearold nephew, but you never know. :) With film the cost of the film
    and processing tended to be a limiter to how many photos a person would
    feel comfortable taking. And thus many inexperienced (and people with
    tight budgets) picture takers would take fewer photos. A 12 yearold with a
    camera with only 12 images at his disposal was limited to that. But
    digital frees up many people to take hundreds of pictures with the same
    amount of care and thought, at no additional charge. The number of well
    composed images has not increased, but the number of photos has. Thus the
    percentages give the impression of digital being only poor images. But if
    you compare the output of high end enthusiests, you would find that the
    number and quality of each format (film and digital) are very equivalent.

    The advantage of the current crop of digital cameras is that even with low
    cost cameras, people can choose from image to image how much time and
    thought they wish to give to that image. Of course each camera will have
    its strengths and weaknesses and may give more or less control for the
    more serious photographer. But even low end cameras have the potential to
    capture an impressive image.

    So between the better cameras, the higher percentage of inexperienced (and
    not intending to become experienced) shooters the idea that digital
    cameras are capturing more and more images with less and less expertise is
    probably very true. But this has less to do with "digital" vs "film" than
    the picture taking public. :)

    JMHO

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
    Randy Berbaum, Sep 15, 2005
    #16
  17. Chris Brown Guest

    In article <OA6We.6380$XO6.5783@trnddc03>,
    Gene Palmiter <> wrote:
    >But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
    >paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
    >not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?


    Artists have been painting from "photos" for hundreds of years. Indeed, the
    "art" of photography arose from the use of the camera-obscura by the
    portrait painter.
    Chris Brown, Sep 15, 2005
    #17
  18. Tony Polson Guest

    "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote:

    >But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
    >paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
    >not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?



    The message is:

    "Mike Henley has made yet another visit to Pseud's Corner."

    Oh, how the zeitgeist is killing me. It's the new paradigm.

    ;-)
    Tony Polson, Sep 15, 2005
    #18
  19. Robert C. Guest

    "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:43292CB3.89C3708A@killspam.127.0.0.1...
    >
    >
    > "Robert C." wrote:
    >>
    >> > What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
    >> > shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
    >> > those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
    >> > time one feels impatient.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Exactly.
    >> Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
    >> (paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn
    >> out
    >> as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
    >> "manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
    >> photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2,
    >> a
    >> Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.

    >
    > I also learned my photographic skills with manual cameras, a 5x4 Wista
    > monorail, Rolleiflex, Horseman and Mamiya MF cameras, and Pentax
    > Spotmatic 35mm cameras. I can have 'complete control' over my 300D if I
    > choose, and I compose my pictures 'in camera', that is, in the
    > viewfinder, just the same as you do with your three cameras.
    >
    > Further, I can choose the ISO speed I shoot at for the particular shot,
    > which is not within the film photog's camera control without changing
    > film or backs.
    >
    > The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
    > that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
    > as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
    > thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
    > film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
    > capabilities.
    >
    > Colin D.


    I am not saying that there are not some digital photographers that cannot
    take excellent protographs, and I have seen some of the potential of digital
    photography. I have also seen the contrary; like on film too. What I was
    getting at is that is that unlike film, the digital format allows for
    instant delete of unwanted photographs whereas film does not allow for this,
    and this was something that was mentionned on this NG on more than one
    occasion
    Robert C., Sep 15, 2005
    #19
  20. Gene Palmiter wrote:
    > But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
    > paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and
    > why not...he probably painted from photos.


    Indeed the vast majority of photorealistic work is painted from a
    photo.

    Makes it a lot less interesting, IMHO. If painted directly from the
    scene, it is clearly something else than a photograph. Then it is the
    expression of an artist's notion of exact rendition, which may be very
    intresting in itself.

    But I can't see how there is any more originality in painstakingly
    copying a photograph, than it would be to go to the National Museum
    here in Stockholm and painstakingly copy Rembrandt's "The Oath of the
    Batavians".

    In both cases, it's just a painted copy of an original. And
    artistically, you might learn at least as much from copying Rembrandt
    as from copying a photo.

    Jan Böhme
    =?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=, Sep 15, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rifleman
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    980
  2. News Reader
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    725
    Scope
    Nov 26, 2006
  3. 7
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    393
  4. Shel-hed

    What were these books?

    Shel-hed, Dec 19, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    597
    Shel-hed
    Dec 19, 2006
  5. Blinky the Shark

    Undelete Files you thought were gone forever

    Blinky the Shark, Dec 18, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    710
    Blinky the Shark
    Dec 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page