In Full Uniform

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dudley Hanks, Mar 20, 2009.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Went for a walk in the snow and decided to snap a pic of Mich in his
    uniform. When I got home, I printed the image, and was told it looked
    "photoshopped," very 2-dimensional -- like Mich was pasted onto a white
    background.

    What do you think? How is the exposure? Bright enough? Too bright?

    I used my old Canon Speedlite 540ez, in manual mode, on low, to fill in a
    bit. Did the flash hurt or help?


    Mich In Snow:
    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw-small.jpg (BW,
    fast loading)
    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw.jpg (BW, full
    size)
    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour-small.jpg
    (colour, fast loading)
    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour.jpg
    (colour, full size)
    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow.cr2 (Canon RAW)

    BTW, for those who want to contribute to my artistic addiction, you can now
    go to PayPal and transfer funds to either:



    Donations will be greatly appreciated and used to:
    * Upgrade my Canon equipment
    * Venture into the Nikon world
    * Go to exotic locales and snap exotic pics :)

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 20, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > Went for a walk in the snow and decided to snap a pic of Mich in his
    > uniform. When I got home, I printed the image, and was told it looked
    > "photoshopped," very 2-dimensional -- like Mich was pasted onto a white
    > background.
    >
    > What do you think? How is the exposure? Bright enough? Too bright?
    >
    > I used my old Canon Speedlite 540ez, in manual mode, on low, to fill in a
    > bit. Did the flash hurt or help?
    >
    >
    > Mich In Snow:
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw-small.jpg (BW,
    > fast loading)
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw.jpg (BW, full
    > size)
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour-small.jpg
    > (colour, fast loading)
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour.jpg
    > (colour, full size)
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow.cr2 (Canon RAW)
    >
    > BTW, for those who want to contribute to my artistic addiction, you can now
    > go to PayPal and transfer funds to either:
    >
    >
    >
    > Donations will be greatly appreciated and used to:
    > * Upgrade my Canon equipment
    > * Venture into the Nikon world
    > * Go to exotic locales and snap exotic pics :)
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley
    >
    >

    Hi, Dudley.

    First impressions:
    - needs exposure boosted (~1.5 stops) so snow is white, not grey..
    - focus is a little behind Mich by the looks. Not awful, but could be
    better - were you using manual focus, or after a deliberate effect? AF
    should have handled that easily..
    - composition is a bit ordinary - maybe squatting down to his level
    might have worked better?
    - colour version has fairly strong blue/cyan cast.

    And are you *sure* that flash fired? I can't see any eye catchlights,
    or flash shadow.. So the effect is er.. very subtle! Non-existent, I
    would venture to say!
     
    Mark Thomas, Mar 20, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Mark Thomas" <> wrote in message
    news:gpv9sh$453$...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> Went for a walk in the snow and decided to snap a pic of Mich in his
    >> uniform. When I got home, I printed the image, and was told it looked
    >> "photoshopped," very 2-dimensional -- like Mich was pasted onto a white
    >> background.
    >>
    >> What do you think? How is the exposure? Bright enough? Too bright?
    >>
    >> I used my old Canon Speedlite 540ez, in manual mode, on low, to fill in a
    >> bit. Did the flash hurt or help?
    >>
    >>
    >> Mich In Snow:
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw-small.jpg
    >> (BW, fast loading)
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw.jpg (BW,
    >> full size)
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour-small.jpg
    >> (colour, fast loading)
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour.jpg
    >> (colour, full size)
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow.cr2 (Canon
    >> RAW)
    >>
    >> BTW, for those who want to contribute to my artistic addiction, you can
    >> now go to PayPal and transfer funds to either:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Donations will be greatly appreciated and used to:
    >> * Upgrade my Canon equipment
    >> * Venture into the Nikon world
    >> * Go to exotic locales and snap exotic pics :)
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley
    >>
    >>

    > Hi, Dudley.
    >
    > First impressions:
    > - needs exposure boosted (~1.5 stops) so snow is white, not grey..
    > - focus is a little behind Mich by the looks. Not awful, but could be
    > better - were you using manual focus, or after a deliberate effect? AF
    > should have handled that easily..
    > - composition is a bit ordinary - maybe squatting down to his level might
    > have worked better?
    > - colour version has fairly strong blue/cyan cast.
    >
    > And are you *sure* that flash fired? I can't see any eye catchlights, or
    > flash shadow.. So the effect is er.. very subtle! Non-existent, I would
    > venture to say!


    Re: exposure comp., I had it boosted by 1 stop. I guess I'll have to go up
    to +2 stops and see what happens there. Anything more than that, and I'll
    have to go manual because +2 is the limit of the EC facility in the auto
    modes.

    Re: focus, I was using Live View and used the slower, contrast based
    focusing method. I'm finding that this mode doesn't work all that well for
    me; it keeps selecting strange places to focus on. I think I'll set it to
    the quick focus method and see if that makes any difference, since I tend to
    have a bit better luck when I just point and shoot without going into Live
    View.

    Re: composition, indeed, it was quite ordinary. GDB is looking for
    pictures for the 2009 / 2010 calendar, and I'm just doing some test shots to
    get exposure and focusing issue straightened out. While I was happy to get
    Mich roughly where I wanted him, I agree with you a lower angle shot would
    work better. But, I was curious how he'd look against a plain white
    snowscape. It sounds like that idea isn't going to work.

    Re: flash, the EXIF data says it fired, but I probably didn't have it set
    high enough. Earlier in the day, I had done some test shots, inside, with
    it and it seemed to give some nice catch lights on the lowest power setting,
    at about the same distance I was from Mich. I'm guessing it's still a case
    of not over-exposing enough to compensate for snow. The next time, I'll
    either go with a higher setting, or use the 380ex which will work in ETTL
    mode (the 540ez only works in manual).

    The strong colour cast is interesting. I used Canon software to convert the
    CR2 file to a colour JPG file, and this software is really crappy when it
    comes to being usable with a screen reader. Accordingly, my daughter was
    helping me quite a bit, and I'm thinking I might not have set something
    properly, probably should have made sure it was using the daylight white
    balance.

    Oh, well, back to the drawing board...

    Thanks for all the info, Mark, that helps quite a bit. For the calendar
    submission, I'd like to get a lower angle shot, taken more head on. But,
    GDB wants the harness to be clearly visible, so I'm not sure just how much
    lower I can go and still get the harness handle in the shot.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 20, 2009
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > Re: exposure comp., I had it boosted by 1 stop.

    Seems a little strange. The Canon is obviously scared of bright lights!

    But a stop is probably enough - in hindsight, 1.5 is probably a little
    too much.

    > Re: focus, I was using Live View and used the slower, contrast based
    > focusing method. I'm finding that this mode doesn't work all that well for
    > me; it keeps selecting strange places to focus on.

    On the basis of that one and what you have just said, yes, I'd drop the
    Live focusing, unless there are other advantages for the way you have to
    work..

    > Re: composition, indeed, it was quite ordinary. GDB is looking for
    > pictures for the 2009 / 2010 calendar, and I'm just doing some test shots to
    > get exposure and focusing issue straightened out. While I was happy to get
    > Mich roughly where I wanted him, I agree with you a lower angle shot would
    > work better. But, I was curious how he'd look against a plain white
    > snowscape. It sounds like that idea isn't going to work.

    Well, it could work, but there needs to be something to give it a bit of
    life - facial expression, a brightly colored object.. Otherwise it
    looks like you just snapped away to sell him on Ebay... (O:

    It's a pity you couldn't use something a bit more arty, like the one on
    the bus. That was a ripper.

    > Re: flash, the EXIF data says it fired, but I probably didn't have it set
    > high enough.

    I'm not familiar with that equipment and whether the exif is always
    right, but I'm surprised there seems to be no catchlight at all. Even
    at low power there should be a little glint..

    You might need to check your settings very carefully to ensure that the
    camera/flash isn't overriding your desire for it to fire.

    > The strong colour cast is interesting. I used Canon software to convert the
    > CR2 file to a colour JPG file, and this software is really crappy when it
    > comes to being usable with a screen reader. Accordingly, my daughter was
    > helping me quite a bit, and I'm thinking I might not have set something
    > properly, probably should have made sure it was using the daylight white
    > balance.

    I'm not the best one to be teaching you color, as I'm a (very mild)
    protanope.. (O: But I'm pretty good with hue shifts, esp blues! And
    the numbers seem to agree that the snow is rather blue/cyan.

    > Oh, well, back to the drawing board...


    I can tell you that your work is improving in leaps and bounds (pun
    intended), so keep it up. Same dog-channel, same dog-time..

    cheers,

    mt
     
    Mark Thomas, Mar 20, 2009
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Guest

    On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:34:08 -0500, Caesar Romano <>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:59:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    ><> wrote Re In Full Uniform:
    >
    >>What do you think? How is the exposure? Bright enough? Too bright?

    >
    >I would say you need more exposure by about +2 ev. It looks like the
    >snow is being placed in Zone-5 and IMO it needs to be in Zone-7.
    >
    >Just curious: With all due respect and sympathy for your handicap, how
    >does a blind person frame a photo? For that matter, how do you read
    >this NG?



    Software can read messages out loud. Blind does not mean without
    sight, but rather with out enough sight to function normally without
    assistance. I was winging that description, but I believe it is
    close. Many people who are legally blind do have some limited sight
    and can enjoy photography.

    OK I checked dictionary definition:

    1 a (1) : SIGHTLESS (2) : having less than 1/10 of normal vision in
    the more efficient eye when refractive defects are fully corrected by
    lenses
     
    , Mar 20, 2009
    #5
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Caesar Romano" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:27:36 -0400, wrote
    > Re Re: In Full Uniform:
    >
    >> Software can read messages out loud. Blind does not mean without
    >>sight, but rather with out enough sight to function normally without
    >>assistance. I was winging that description, but I believe it is
    >>close. Many people who are legally blind do have some limited sight
    >>and can enjoy photography.

    >



    The last stats I "saw" indicated that about 90% of "blind" people actually
    have some sight. In most countries, the term "legally blind" simply means
    that the individual has 10% or less of normal vision -- either acuity or
    field. Hence, somebody with 20 /200 vision or worse would be "legally
    blind," and somebody who has less than a 20 degree field would also be
    "legally blind."

    Accordingly, somebody with 20 / 20 vision, but with a field of 20 degrees
    would be legally blind, but could function almost normally as a
    photographer.

    In my case, my acuity is such that it can no longer be measured; I see only
    shapes and shadows in very contrasty situations. My field is only about 3
    or 4 degrees. So, the end result is that I can only see extremes of light
    and shade, in only a very small area. I am able to make out some light and
    dark areas in the LCD display of the XSi, by scanning across the display, so
    I can actually do a bit of limited composition (or, at least, I'm
    experimenting with composing images that way). But, my best shots come out
    of situations where I am aware of the physical layout of my surroundings,
    the size of my subject, and the arrangement / layout of background objects.
    My experience with hyperfocal shoots in action settings, back when I had
    vision, enables me to frame such shots and get some semi decent results.
    The biggest obstacle I have in such settings is finding a way to get my
    camera to focus on my subject. In a number of cases, I can use the
    hyperfocal technique to good advantage, assuming I can set the lens to
    hyperfocal. There are a couple of techniques I've discovered, but nothing
    so consistent I can rely on it in all settings.

    But, constant practice is yielding some improved results. I'm hoping to put
    together a small portfolio of some of my better shots and post them on-line
    soon.

    Note, I am not so crazy as to assume I'll be able to function as a
    professional photographer; I simply love the art, and I want to see if I
    can find ways to capture good images with virtually no sight. That's why my
    mantra is: "Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder; it's in the mind."

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 20, 2009
    #6
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Caesar Romano" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:59:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote Re In Full Uniform:
    >
    >>What do you think? How is the exposure? Bright enough? Too bright?

    >
    > I would say you need more exposure by about +2 ev. It looks like the
    > snow is being placed in Zone-5 and IMO it needs to be in Zone-7.
    >
    > Just curious: With all due respect and sympathy for your handicap, how
    > does a blind person frame a photo? For that matter, how do you read
    > this NG?


    As has been pointed out in other responses, most "blind" people have some
    sight. It's not so much what you have, but what you DO with what you
    have...

    In my case, I use a specialized computer application to verbalize the text
    on my computer screen. There are several such programs on the market,
    including the "Narrator" which is built into most versions of Windows.

    Regarding the composition of my shots, a lot depends on what I'm shooting,
    where I'm shooting it, and what the conditions are like.

    In situations where there is a lot of contrast, as in this shot of Mich, I
    am able to make out a fuzzy grey blur on a white background. I can't make
    out eyes and ears, nor even legs and tail, just an amorphous blob of grey
    which I tried to center in the viewfinder. Keep in mind that I cannot make
    out the whole viewfinder without scanning back and forth, as well as up and
    down, in order to place the subject where I want.

    Thus, I work the edges of the display. I scan my eyes in towards the center
    until I start to see the grey area which is my subject. When the distance
    from the edge is roughly the same, or at least in the proportions I think I
    need in order to place the subject where I want it, I take the shot.

    Also, keep in mind that the shot needs to be focused. So, as I am working
    the edges to compose the shot, I press the AE button on the XSi and try to
    focus the shot. This hasn't been all that accurate, so I'm thinking I'll
    change to the quick focus method and try that for a while.

    Unfortunately, this scenario isn't ideal for my particular condition, since
    I have an "easier" time when I have a light subject on a dark background, as
    in a spotlit subject at a concert. In such cases, the procedure is the
    same, but I am able to perform the various steps quite a bit quicker, and
    more accurately.

    When I take a shot, what I "see" is in no way the actual image the viewer
    "sees." But, I often argue that such is the case for all artistic objects.
    It's just that the gap is wider between myself and my viewers. Hence, I
    need to know more about my audience's expectations, and they need to know
    about my approach. I try to avoid the term "limitations," since I don't
    feel limited -- I just function somewhat differently.

    Up until now, I have been mainly doing test shots. A few have turned out,
    most have not. But, My ratio of keepers is slowly getting better.

    The feedback I get from this group, and others like it, is INVALUABLE. The
    "sympathy factor" is difficult to get past when asking for feedback in a
    face to face situation, so I rarely get useful info from people I am closely
    acquainted with, doubly so since most do not have the same level of
    experience and ability as the shooters who post here.

    Having said all that, I'd like to go back to something you wrote, ie. the
    "zones."

    You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
    with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each zone
    would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a latitude
    of 7 zones. Is that correct?

    Thanks for the info,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 20, 2009
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    > the numbers seem to agree that the snow is rather blue/cyan.
    >



    Just had a thought, Mark, could the hue be from UV? And, if so, could that
    be why the snow is going grey? Would Photoshop do a good job of removing
    the hue? Or, would it be better to use a UV filter?

    I wasn't using a UV filter for that shot, as I don't have a good one at the
    moment. (Keep meaning to pick one up, just haven't gotten around to it.)

    Perhaps, a polarizer would be a better choice?

    While I live in Edmonton, in the midst of a lot of snow, I've never shot a
    lot of pics in the white stuf, so definitely have a lot to learn in this
    setting.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 20, 2009
    #8
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> the numbers seem to agree that the snow is rather blue/cyan.

    >
    > Just had a thought, Mark, could the hue be from UV?

    I don't know enough about snow, reflectivity, etc, to answer that -
    (somebody?) Certainly UV (and IR can cause problems with some colours.
    But I would hope that the metering and white balancing would be
    relatively immune from out of visible spectrum stuff.

    > And, if so, could that
    > be why the snow is going grey?

    As above, I don't know for sure, but would doubt it - it's not an issue
    that seems to get much publicity.. Specular highlights, or back/front
    lighting are usually what throws metering systems, imo. (Or being left
    in spot metering mode, but that wouldn't apply here - the problem is the
    wrong way around.)

    > Would Photoshop do a good job of removing
    > the hue? Or, would it be better to use a UV filter?


    Yes, Photoshop. But then I'm known for having an intense dislike for
    putting on extra bits of glass.. With a shot like that, I would simply
    white balance it to a greyish piece of snow (eg grey point eyedropper in
    curves), and then watch the other tones - in your case, perhaps get
    someone to watch what happens..

    > Perhaps, a polarizer would be a better choice?

    Polarizers are the one filter I *do* use a lot.. However, in this case
    I don't think it would help - they aren't much use at all in grey
    skies.. Best used for shooting in the sun around midday, where you want
    deep blue skies, where you wish to control the contrast in a strongly
    sunlit shot, and anything with (non-metallic) reflections, eg river and
    coast scenes.

    However.. you do have to rotate the polariser to get the best effect -
    that may cause you some issues. You could put a little dot/bump on the
    pola, and then use your knowledge of where the light is coming from...
    Let me know if you go down this path and I can elaborate. I've had a
    fair bit of practice with using them.

    > While I live in Edmonton, in the midst of a lot of snow, I've never shot a
    > lot of pics in the white stuf, so definitely have a lot to learn in this
    > setting.

    And hereabouts it's the reverse - a good snowfall here would probably
    mean the end of the world was nigh... Shorts and t-shirt, even in winter..

    cheers,

    mt
     
    Mark Thomas, Mar 20, 2009
    #9
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Caesar Romano" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:04:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote Re Re: In Full Uniform:
    >
    >>You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
    >>with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each
    >>zone
    >>would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a
    >>latitude
    >>of 7 zones. Is that correct?
    >>
    >>Thanks for the info,
    >>Dudley

    >
    > Hello Dudley,
    >
    > Here is some information about the "Zone" system for photographic
    > exposure
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
    > http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html
    >
    > I learned it many years ago and find it most useful, particularly for
    > B&W images.
    >
    > Best Regards,
    > C.R.


    Thanks, Caesar, I'll check out the info.

    Back when I could see better, I used an inexpensive, but fairly accurate,
    light meter to supplement the built-in camera meter. Couple the metering
    with film familiarity, and my exposures weren't too bad.

    Since going digital, I've been struggling a bit with metering. Each camera
    I've used seems to meter a bit differently from the others, so it's been
    difficult to get a basic rule of thumb for exposures established.

    The one thing I've got going for me is that I can sort of make out the
    histograph of the XSi, so I can figure out whether a given image is shifted
    one way or the other. In the case of this image, though, the histograph
    wasn't much help since it was scrunched up on the right, with only a little
    blip to the left indicating Mich's darker colours.

    If there are any techies for Canon or Nikon reading this, it would be really
    nice if an over-exposure beep could be incorporated into the firmware. I
    think it would help sighted shooters, as well as us bats, since shooting in
    bright light can often make the little blinker in the viewfinder nearly
    unnoticeable.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 20, 2009
    #10
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Mark Thomas" <> wrote in message
    news:gq14od$i0r$...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>> the numbers seem to agree that the snow is rather blue/cyan.

    >>
    >> Just had a thought, Mark, could the hue be from UV?

    > I don't know enough about snow, reflectivity, etc, to answer that -
    > (somebody?) Certainly UV (and IR can cause problems with some colours.
    > But I would hope that the metering and white balancing would be relatively
    > immune from out of visible spectrum stuff.
    >
    >> And, if so, could that be why the snow is going grey?

    > As above, I don't know for sure, but would doubt it - it's not an issue
    > that seems to get much publicity.. Specular highlights, or back/front
    > lighting are usually what throws metering systems, imo. (Or being left in
    > spot metering mode, but that wouldn't apply here - the problem is the
    > wrong way around.)
    >
    >> Would Photoshop do a good job of removing the hue? Or, would it be
    >> better to use a UV filter?

    >
    > Yes, Photoshop. But then I'm known for having an intense dislike for
    > putting on extra bits of glass.. With a shot like that, I would simply
    > white balance it to a greyish piece of snow (eg grey point eyedropper in
    > curves), and then watch the other tones - in your case, perhaps get
    > someone to watch what happens..
    >
    >> Perhaps, a polarizer would be a better choice?

    > Polarizers are the one filter I *do* use a lot.. However, in this case I
    > don't think it would help - they aren't much use at all in grey skies..
    > Best used for shooting in the sun around midday, where you want deep blue
    > skies, where you wish to control the contrast in a strongly sunlit shot,
    > and anything with (non-metallic) reflections, eg river and coast scenes.
    >
    > However.. you do have to rotate the polariser to get the best effect -
    > that may cause you some issues. You could put a little dot/bump on the
    > pola, and then use your knowledge of where the light is coming from... Let
    > me know if you go down this path and I can elaborate. I've had a fair bit
    > of practice with using them.
    >
    >> While I live in Edmonton, in the midst of a lot of snow, I've never shot
    >> a lot of pics in the white stuf, so definitely have a lot to learn in
    >> this setting.

    > And hereabouts it's the reverse - a good snowfall here would probably mean
    > the end of the world was nigh... Shorts and t-shirt, even in winter..
    >
    > cheers,
    >
    > mt
    >


    Thanks for the info, Mark. I'll ponder this for a while and try the shot
    again this weekend.

    BTW, after my three weeks in California, I really miss your warmer
    climate...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 20, 2009
    #11
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Vance Guest

    On Mar 20, 4:52 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <>
    wrote:
    > "Caesar Romano" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:04:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > > <> wrote Re Re: In Full Uniform:

    >
    > >>You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7.  I am unfamiliar
    > >>with the zone terminology.  I take it there are only 7 zones, and each
    > >>zone
    > >>would correspond to 1 stop.  Thus, most digital shots would have a
    > >>latitude
    > >>of 7 zones.  Is that correct?

    >
    > >>Thanks for the info,
    > >>Dudley

    >
    > > Hello Dudley,

    >
    > > Here is some information about the "Zone" system for photographic
    > > exposure

    >
    > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
    > >http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html

    >
    > > I learned it many years ago and find it most useful, particularly for
    > > B&W images.

    >
    > > Best Regards,
    > > C.R.

    >
    > Thanks, Caesar, I'll check out the info.
    >
    > Back when I could see better, I used an inexpensive, but fairly accurate,
    > light meter to supplement the built-in camera meter.  Couple the metering
    > with film familiarity, and my exposures weren't too bad.
    >
    > Since going digital, I've been struggling a bit with metering.  Each camera
    > I've used seems to meter a bit differently from the others, so it's been
    > difficult to get a basic rule of thumb for exposures established.
    >
    > The one thing I've got going for me is that I can sort of make out the
    > histograph of the XSi, so I can figure out whether a given image is shifted
    > one way or the other.  In the case of this image, though, the histograph
    > wasn't much help since it was scrunched up on the right, with only a little
    > blip to the left indicating Mich's darker colours.
    >
    > If there are any techies for Canon or Nikon reading this, it would be really
    > nice if an over-exposure beep could be incorporated into the firmware.  I
    > think it would help sighted shooters, as well as us bats, since shooting in
    > bright light can often make the little blinker in the viewfinder nearly
    > unnoticeable.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Dudley, I'm not sure about this, but if I could modify a cheap digital
    light meter to give you a verbal read out, what that be useful for
    you? I might be able to do it with a microcontroller.

    Vance
     
    Vance, Mar 21, 2009
    #12
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Vance" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Mar 20, 4:52 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <>
    wrote:
    > "Caesar Romano" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:04:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > > <> wrote Re Re: In Full Uniform:

    >
    > >>You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
    > >>with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each
    > >>zone
    > >>would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a
    > >>latitude
    > >>of 7 zones. Is that correct?

    >
    > >>Thanks for the info,
    > >>Dudley

    >
    > > Hello Dudley,

    >
    > > Here is some information about the "Zone" system for photographic
    > > exposure

    >
    > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
    > >http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html

    >
    > > I learned it many years ago and find it most useful, particularly for
    > > B&W images.

    >
    > > Best Regards,
    > > C.R.

    >
    > Thanks, Caesar, I'll check out the info.
    >
    > Back when I could see better, I used an inexpensive, but fairly accurate,
    > light meter to supplement the built-in camera meter. Couple the metering
    > with film familiarity, and my exposures weren't too bad.
    >
    > Since going digital, I've been struggling a bit with metering. Each camera
    > I've used seems to meter a bit differently from the others, so it's been
    > difficult to get a basic rule of thumb for exposures established.
    >
    > The one thing I've got going for me is that I can sort of make out the
    > histograph of the XSi, so I can figure out whether a given image is
    > shifted
    > one way or the other. In the case of this image, though, the histograph
    > wasn't much help since it was scrunched up on the right, with only a
    > little
    > blip to the left indicating Mich's darker colours.
    >
    > If there are any techies for Canon or Nikon reading this, it would be
    > really
    > nice if an over-exposure beep could be incorporated into the firmware. I
    > think it would help sighted shooters, as well as us bats, since shooting
    > in
    > bright light can often make the little blinker in the viewfinder nearly
    > unnoticeable.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Dudley, I'm not sure about this, but if I could modify a cheap digital
    light meter to give you a verbal read out, what that be useful for
    you? I might be able to do it with a microcontroller.

    Vance

    Vance, that would be INCREDIBLE! But, I don't know if I could afford that.

    I brought my old meter out today. Of course, I can't read it, so I got my
    daughter to help. It took a while to teach her how to read the display, but
    we seemed to get on the same page after a while.

    As near as I can figure it out, my meter is about two stops off from the
    camera (when the meter is set to ISO 100, the camera needs to be set to ISO
    400 for accurate exposure of flash readings, at about 20 feet).

    I'd be very interested in what you can do with a meter, and how much it
    would cost.

    Thanks, Vance, I appreciate that a lot.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 21, 2009
    #13
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Vance Guest

    On Mar 20, 11:10 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <>
    wrote:
    > "Vance" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > On Mar 20, 4:52 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > "Caesar Romano" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >news:...

    >
    > > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:04:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > > > <> wrote Re Re: In Full Uniform:

    >
    > > >>You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
    > > >>with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each
    > > >>zone
    > > >>would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a
    > > >>latitude
    > > >>of 7 zones. Is that correct?

    >
    > > >>Thanks for the info,
    > > >>Dudley

    >
    > > > Hello Dudley,

    >
    > > > Here is some information about the "Zone" system for photographic
    > > > exposure

    >
    > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
    > > >http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html

    >
    > > > I learned it many years ago and find it most useful, particularly for
    > > > B&W images.

    >
    > > > Best Regards,
    > > > C.R.

    >
    > > Thanks, Caesar, I'll check out the info.

    >
    > > Back when I could see better, I used an inexpensive, but fairly accurate,
    > > light meter to supplement the built-in camera meter. Couple the metering
    > > with film familiarity, and my exposures weren't too bad.

    >
    > > Since going digital, I've been struggling a bit with metering. Each camera
    > > I've used seems to meter a bit differently from the others, so it's been
    > > difficult to get a basic rule of thumb for exposures established.

    >
    > > The one thing I've got going for me is that I can sort of make out the
    > > histograph of the XSi, so I can figure out whether a given image is
    > > shifted
    > > one way or the other. In the case of this image, though, the histograph
    > > wasn't much help since it was scrunched up on the right, with only a
    > > little
    > > blip to the left indicating Mich's darker colours.

    >
    > > If there are any techies for Canon or Nikon reading this, it would be
    > > really
    > > nice if an over-exposure beep could be incorporated into the firmware. I
    > > think it would help sighted shooters, as well as us bats, since shooting
    > > in
    > > bright light can often make the little blinker in the viewfinder nearly
    > > unnoticeable.

    >
    > > Take Care,
    > > Dudley- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > > - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Dudley, I'm not sure about this, but if I could modify a cheap digital
    > light meter to give you a verbal read out, what that be useful for
    > you?  I might be able to do it with a microcontroller.
    >
    > Vance
    >
    > Vance, that would be INCREDIBLE!  But, I don't know if I could afford that.
    >
    > I brought my old meter out today.  Of course, I can't read it, so I got my
    > daughter to help.  It took a while to teach her how to read the display, but
    > we seemed to get on the same page after a while.
    >
    > As near as I can figure it out, my meter is about two stops off from the
    > camera (when the meter is set to ISO 100, the camera needs to be set to ISO
    > 400 for accurate exposure of flash readings, at about 20 feet).
    >
    > I'd be very interested in what you can do with a meter, and how much it
    > would cost.
    >
    > Thanks, Vance, I appreciate that a lot.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Let me look into it, Dudley. The speech synthesizer chip only costs
    around $24.00 or $25.00 U.S. I can probably modify an older light
    meter in your face it with a microcontroller and write a program that
    will convert the readings to information the voice generation chips
    can use. How much it will cost, I don't know, but I'm awful band good
    at doing a lot with very little. I'll see what I can find on the
    surplus market.

    The question will be how to make it the most usable for you. My gut
    instinct is to get a cheap already calibrated and accurate analog
    meter and go from there. I could design a light meter from scratch
    (they're very simple), but that gets into the hassle of having to
    calibrate it.

    Digital camera ISO settings don't always equal handheld light meter
    ISO settings. However, your two stop difference is a little out of
    line. I would tend a suspect your daughter's metering technique. You
    also mention maybe going to two stops over when shooting in snow.
    With your camera I would try something like 1 2/3 stops for snow. I
    noticed that the day was overcast with Mitch's picture, so I would
    think that 1 2/3 stops would work under those circumstances because
    you only seem to be up about one stop under exposed. On bright sunny
    days, with a lot of snow, the "Sunny 16 Rule" is a good place to
    start.

    I'm sorry we didn't get together when you're out here getting
    acquainted with Mitch, though I'm pretty sure you had a lot on your
    plate.

    In sum, give me about a week or so to look into things.

    Regards,
    Vance
     
    Vance, Mar 21, 2009
    #14
  15. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    > Dudley, I'm not sure about this, but if I could modify a cheap digital
    > light meter to give you a verbal read out, what that be useful for
    > you? I might be able to do it with a microcontroller.
    >
    > Vance
    >
    > Vance, that would be INCREDIBLE! But, I don't know if I could afford that.
    >
    > I brought my old meter out today. Of course, I can't read it, so I got my
    > daughter to help. It took a while to teach her how to read the display,
    > but
    > we seemed to get on the same page after a while.
    >
    > As near as I can figure it out, my meter is about two stops off from the
    > camera (when the meter is set to ISO 100, the camera needs to be set to
    > ISO
    > 400 for accurate exposure of flash readings, at about 20 feet).
    >
    > I'd be very interested in what you can do with a meter, and how much it
    > would cost.
    >
    > Thanks, Vance, I appreciate that a lot.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley



    Let me look into it, Dudley. The speech synthesizer chip only costs
    around $24.00 or $25.00 U.S. I can probably modify an older light
    meter in your face it with a microcontroller and write a program that
    will convert the readings to information the voice generation chips
    can use. How much it will cost, I don't know, but I'm awful band good
    at doing a lot with very little. I'll see what I can find on the
    surplus market.

    The question will be how to make it the most usable for you. My gut
    instinct is to get a cheap already calibrated and accurate analog
    meter and go from there. I could design a light meter from scratch
    (they're very simple), but that gets into the hassle of having to
    calibrate it.

    Digital camera ISO settings don't always equal handheld light meter
    ISO settings. However, your two stop difference is a little out of
    line. I would tend a suspect your daughter's metering technique. You
    also mention maybe going to two stops over when shooting in snow.
    With your camera I would try something like 1 2/3 stops for snow. I
    noticed that the day was overcast with Mitch's picture, so I would
    think that 1 2/3 stops would work under those circumstances because
    you only seem to be up about one stop under exposed. On bright sunny
    days, with a lot of snow, the "Sunny 16 Rule" is a good place to
    start.

    I'm sorry we didn't get together when you're out here getting
    acquainted with Mitch, though I'm pretty sure you had a lot on your
    plate.

    In sum, give me about a week or so to look into things.

    Regards,
    Vance

    Once again, thanks a lot, Vance. I appreciate your help.

    Yes, it's too bad we didn't get together in San Francisco. I only had a few
    hours on the afternoons of two Sundays to meet with personal acquaintences
    over the three weeks I was there. Given that we went from 6:00 am until
    about 9:00 pm the rest of the time, it was a fairly intensive program. Two
    students were sent home without dogs, and a third went through 2 changes
    before finding the right guide. GDB's standards are incredibly high, but
    the end result is worth the drain.

    Still, I would have like to have heard your ideas about how to get better
    pics...

    Re: my light meter, I think you are right about the difference being due to
    ineffective placement of the meter. We've worked a bit more, today, and the
    difference is getting closer to 1 stop. I enjoy working with my kids --
    it's a great family activity -- but it's just not the same as being able to
    work out a scene myself...

    Your idea really does sound great; just let me know if you need any input
    from me. I think you have my e-mail address. If not, I can be reached at:



    From a blind user's perspective, being able to hear the ISO speed, shutter
    speed, aperture and mode are the main things. In the case of the meter I am
    using now, the aperture reading is broken down into two parts, the main part
    (IE. 2.8, 3.5, 5.6, etc) and a secondary (fractional) part that has to be
    added onto the main part. The secondary part is like a multi-segmented
    horseshoe that starts lighting up from left to right. The more sections
    that light up, the closer the reading is to the next major aperture setting.

    This is part of the problem with my daughter's translation, she either
    forgets to add that part to the main reading, or else is unsure of how to
    interpret it.

    I'm not sure how you would get those two parts to mesh. But, my meter is
    about 20 years old; the newer ones are probably more advanced and easier to
    work with.

    Anyway, I'll look forward to hearing whether or not you will be able to
    figure something out.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 22, 2009
    #15
  16. Dudley Hanks

    Vance Guest

    Dudley,

    In order, I'm looking at:

    1. Modifying a digital meter by reading the display multiplexer and
    adding a control signal to determine whether
    you are modifying the function, such as setting ISO, or you are taking
    a reading. The feedback for changing the function would be the
    function name and the numerical value. Since your Canon reads things
    to 1/3 stop, I don't know if the voice output has to give more than a
    whole F stop plus a 1/3 stop positive adjustment. Under some
    circumstances, this will introduce a predictable one 3rd stop under
    exposure.I think that's acceptable, but you may not.

    2. Modifying an analog leader, but I would have to add circuitry to
    convert the analog voltage to the digital value and add function
    control logic. That would be a lot more clergy and it's not going to
    be my first choice.


    I'm gonna take my older Polaris meter apart tonight and see what's in
    it. I've seen them used on eBay for between $40.00 and $60.00 U.S.
    These are actually pretty good meters and provide flash, ambient and
    reflected readings to one 10th of a stop. With

    Anyway, I'm on the front and I will get back to you by e-mail.

    Regards,
    Vance


    On Mar 22, 12:27 am, "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote:
    > > Dudley, I'm not sure about this, but if I could modify a cheap digital
    > > light meter to give you a verbal read out, what that be useful for
    > > you? I might be able to do it with a microcontroller.

    >
    > > Vance

    >
    > > Vance, that would be INCREDIBLE! But, I don't know if I could afford that.

    >
    > > I brought my old meter out today. Of course, I can't read it, so I got my
    > > daughter to help. It took a while to teach her how to read the display,
    > > but
    > > we seemed to get on the same page after a while.

    >
    > > As near as I can figure it out, my meter is about two stops off from the
    > > camera (when the meter is set to ISO 100, the camera needs to be set to
    > > ISO
    > > 400 for accurate exposure of flash readings, at about 20 feet).

    >
    > > I'd be very interested in what you can do with a meter, and how much it
    > > would cost.

    >
    > > Thanks, Vance, I appreciate that a lot.

    >
    > > Take Care,
    > > Dudley

    >
    > Let me look into it, Dudley.  The speech synthesizer chip only costs
    > around $24.00 or $25.00 U.S.  I can probably modify an older light
    > meter in your face it with a microcontroller and write a program that
    > will convert the readings to information the voice generation chips
    > can use.  How much it will cost, I don't know, but I'm awful band good
    > at doing a lot with very little.  I'll see what I can find on the
    > surplus market.
    >
    > The question will be how to make it the most usable for you.  My gut
    > instinct is to get a cheap already calibrated and accurate analog
    > meter and go from there.  I could design a light meter from scratch
    > (they're very simple), but that gets into the hassle of having to
    > calibrate it.
    >
    > Digital camera ISO settings don't always equal handheld light meter
    > ISO settings.  However, your two stop difference is a little out of
    > line.  I would tend a suspect your daughter's metering technique.  You
    > also mention maybe going to two stops over when shooting in snow.
    > With your camera I would try something like 1 2/3 stops for snow.  I
    > noticed that the day was overcast with Mitch's picture, so I would
    > think that 1 2/3 stops would work under those circumstances because
    > you only seem to be up about one stop under exposed.  On bright sunny
    > days, with a lot of snow, the "Sunny 16 Rule" is a good place to
    > start.
    >
    > I'm sorry we didn't get together when you're out here getting
    > acquainted with Mitch, though I'm pretty sure you had a lot on your
    > plate.
    >
    > In sum, give me about a week or so to look into things.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Vance
    >
    > Once again, thanks a lot, Vance.  I appreciate your help.
    >
    > Yes, it's too bad we didn't get together in San Francisco.  I only had a few
    > hours on the afternoons of two Sundays to meet with personal acquaintences
    > over the three weeks I was there.  Given that we went from 6:00 am until
    > about 9:00 pm the rest of the time, it was a fairly intensive program.  Two
    > students were sent home without dogs, and a third went through 2 changes
    > before finding the right guide.  GDB's standards are incredibly high, but
    > the end result is worth the drain.
    >
    > Still, I would have like to have heard your ideas about how to get better
    > pics...
    >
    > Re:  my light meter, I think you are right about the difference being due to
    > ineffective placement of the meter.  We've worked a bit more, today, and the
    > difference is getting closer to 1 stop.  I enjoy working with my kids --  
    > it's a great family activity -- but it's just not the same as being able to
    > work out a scene myself...
    >
    > Your idea really does sound great;  just let me know if you need any input
    > from me.  I think you have my e-mail address.  If not, I can be reached at:
    >
    >
    >
    > From a blind user's perspective, being able to hear the ISO speed, shutter
    > speed, aperture and mode are the main things.  In the case of the meter I am
    > using now, the aperture reading is broken down into two parts, the main part
    > (IE. 2.8, 3.5, 5.6, etc) and a secondary (fractional) part that has to be
    > added onto the main part.  The secondary part is like a multi-segmented
    > horseshoe that starts lighting up from left to right.  The more sections
    > that light up, the closer the reading is to the next major aperture setting.
    >
    > This is part of the problem with my daughter's translation, she either
    > forgets to add that part to the main reading, or else is unsure of how to
    > interpret it.
    >
    > I'm not sure how you would get those two parts to mesh.  But, my meter is
    > about 20 years old;  the newer ones are probably more advanced and easier to
    > work with.
    >
    > Anyway, I'll look forward to hearing whether or not you will be able to
    > figure something out.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -
     
    Vance, Mar 22, 2009
    #16
  17. Dudley Hanks

    Vance Guest

    Dudley,

    Get in touch with me by e-mail and maybe we can work out a shot for
    the calendar. It would be a setup shot and maybe one of your kids can
    be a model. An approach might be to take a cue from car advertising
    and shoot from a 45 degree frontal angle. Shot from about 15 degrees
    above Mitch's shoulder would be my first guess. I don't know if I
    would include the whole human model in the image since the focus is
    the dog, but it is a matter of interpretation.

    Regards,
    Vance

    On Mar 19, 11:08 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <>
    wrote:
    > "Mark Thomas" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:gpv9sh$453$...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > >> Went for a walk in the snow and decided to snap a pic of Mich in his
    > >> uniform.  When I got home, I printed the image, and was told it looked
    > >> "photoshopped," very 2-dimensional -- like Mich was pasted onto a white
    > >> background.

    >
    > >> What do you think?  How is the exposure?  Bright enough?  Too bright?

    >
    > >> I used my old Canon Speedlite 540ez, in manual mode, on low, to fill in a
    > >> bit.  Did the flash hurt or help?

    >
    > >> Mich In Snow:
    > >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw-small.jpg
    > >> (BW, fast loading)
    > >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw.jpg (BW,
    > >> full size)
    > >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour-smal....
    > >> (colour, fast loading)
    > >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour.jpg
    > >> (colour, full size)
    > >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow.cr2 (Canon
    > >> RAW)

    >
    > >> BTW, for those who want to contribute to my artistic addiction, you can
    > >> now go to PayPal and transfer funds to either:
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    > >> Donations will be greatly appreciated and used to:
    > >> * Upgrade my Canon equipment
    > >> * Venture into the Nikon world
    > >> * Go to exotic locales and snap exotic pics  :)

    >
    > >> Take Care,
    > >> Dudley

    >
    > > Hi, Dudley.

    >
    > > First impressions:
    > > - needs exposure boosted (~1.5 stops) so snow is white, not grey..
    > > - focus is a little behind Mich by the looks.  Not awful, but could be
    > > better - were you using manual focus, or after a deliberate effect?  AF
    > > should have handled that easily..
    > > - composition is a bit ordinary - maybe squatting down to his level might
    > > have worked better?
    > > - colour version has fairly strong blue/cyan cast.

    >
    > > And are you *sure* that flash fired?  I can't see any eye catchlights, or
    > > flash shadow..  So the effect is er.. very subtle!  Non-existent, I would
    > > venture to say!

    >
    > Re:  exposure comp., I had it boosted by 1 stop.  I guess I'll have to go up
    > to +2 stops and see what happens there.  Anything more than that, and I'll
    > have to go manual because +2 is the limit of the EC facility in the auto
    > modes.
    >
    > Re:  focus, I was using Live View and used the slower, contrast based
    > focusing method.  I'm finding that this mode doesn't work all that well for
    > me;  it keeps selecting strange places to focus on.  I think I'll set it to
    > the quick focus method and see if that makes any difference, since I tend to
    > have a bit better luck when I just point and shoot without going into Live
    > View.
    >
    > Re:  composition, indeed, it was quite ordinary.  GDB is looking for
    > pictures for the 2009 / 2010 calendar, and I'm just doing some test shots to
    > get exposure and focusing issue straightened out.  While I was happy to get
    > Mich roughly where I wanted him, I agree with you a lower angle shot would
    > work better.  But, I was curious how he'd look against a plain white
    > snowscape.  It sounds like that idea isn't going to work.
    >
    > Re:  flash, the EXIF data says it fired, but I probably didn't have it set
    > high enough.  Earlier in the day, I had done some test shots, inside, with
    > it and it seemed to give some nice catch lights on the lowest power setting,
    > at about the same distance I was from Mich.  I'm guessing it's still a case
    > of not over-exposing enough to compensate for snow.  The next time, I'll
    > either go with a higher setting, or use the 380ex which will work in ETTL
    > mode (the 540ez only works in manual).
    >
    > The strong colour cast is interesting.  I used Canon software to convert the
    > CR2 file to a colour JPG file, and this software is really crappy when it
    > comes to being usable with a screen reader.  Accordingly, my daughter was
    > helping me quite a bit, and I'm thinking I might not have set something
    > properly, probably should have made sure it was using the daylight white
    > balance.
    >
    > Oh, well, back to the drawing board...
    >
    > Thanks for all the info, Mark, that helps quite a bit.  For the calendar
    > submission, I'd like to get a lower angle shot, taken more head on.  But,
    > GDB wants the harness to be clearly visible, so I'm not sure just how much
    > lower I can go and still get the harness handle in the shot.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -
     
    Vance, Mar 22, 2009
    #17
    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. Evan Platt

    Re: Uniform "toolbar" on all machines.

    Evan Platt, Jul 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    546
    Evan Platt
    Jul 21, 2005
  2. peter
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    487
    Markeau
    Apr 13, 2005
  3. Acecliffy
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    322
    Joal Heagney
    Sep 17, 2006
  4. DWACON
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    402
    DWACON
    Jun 22, 2006
  5. - Bobb -
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    915
    Colin Barnhorst
    Dec 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page