Is wide-angle over-used?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 15, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
    perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
    to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
    pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
    become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
    prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
    enough away in order to frame what they wanted?
    RichA, Apr 15, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Apr 14, 6:23 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
    > perhaps wildlife shooters.  Wide angle does have some weird attraction
    > to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
    > pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
    > become too used in magazines.  Maybe what we could use more of are
    > prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
    > enough away in order to frame what they wanted?


    What tittie magazines are you "reading" these days?
    Nervous Nick, Apr 15, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Apr 15, 12:23 am, RichA <> wrote:
    > Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
    > perhaps wildlife shooters.


    Well it does make some sense, it;'s easier to zoom in on a distant
    object
    than zoom out to get a wide angle with most kit and standard lenses.

    > Wide angle does have some weird attraction
    > to the human eye


    Well you get to see more than you normally do wihout having to move
    yuor head about.

    >(maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
    > pleasant drug-trips?)

    What of unpleasant trips ? They're just as valid.


    > but it seems like in the last few years, it has
    > become too used in magazines.


    Maybe but maybe it depends on the magazine and or the subject.
    I doubt many photographers will be shooting Kate and wills wedding
    with a wide angle lens.

    >  Maybe what we could use more of are
    > prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
    > enough away in order to frame what they wanted?


    I didn't think the distance from camera to subject changed the angle
    of view of any lens.
    Whisky-dave, Apr 15, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Richard Guest

    Possibly.
    But less so than your keyboard.
    Richard, Apr 15, 2011
    #4
  5. In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:

    > Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
    > perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
    > to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
    > pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
    > become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
    > prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
    > enough away in order to frame what they wanted?


    In the majority of my wide angle shots the only way to get further
    back in order to use a less wide lens would be to demolish the
    building at my back.

    If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    the perspective distortion will have disappeared.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 17, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    wrote:

    >In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
    >> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
    >> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
    >> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
    >> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
    >> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
    >> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?

    >
    >In the majority of my wide angle shots the only way to get further
    >back in order to use a less wide lens would be to demolish the
    >building at my back.
    >
    >If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    >photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    >the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    >the perspective distortion will have disappeared.


    OMG! How does it know?
    John A., Apr 18, 2011
    #6
  7. In rec.photo.digital John A. <> wrote:
    > On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    > wrote:


    >>In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
    >>> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
    >>> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
    >>> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
    >>> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
    >>> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
    >>> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?

    >>
    >>In the majority of my wide angle shots the only way to get further
    >>back in order to use a less wide lens would be to demolish the
    >>building at my back.
    >>
    >>If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    >>photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    >>the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    >>the perspective distortion will have disappeared.


    > OMG! How does it know?


    Nothing needs to know anything. It's a simple consequence of
    perspective geometry. You don't even need to understand lenses. It
    works with pinhole cameras, i.e. every point on the image connected by
    a straight line through the pinhole to the point in the world it's
    imaging. That gives linear perspective projection where the
    straightness of lines is preserved between world and image. Very
    simple geometry.

    Don't they teach this stuff at school any more?

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 19, 2011
    #7
  8. > Nothing needs to know anything. It's a simple consequence of
    > perspective geometry. You don't even need to understand lenses. It
    > works with pinhole cameras, i.e. every point on the image connected by
    > a straight line through the pinhole to the point in the world it's
    > imaging. That gives linear perspective projection where the
    > straightness of lines is preserved between world and image. Very
    > simple geometry.
    >
    > Don't they teach this stuff at school any more?
    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm


    Looks like they don't even teach one how to find out for oneself either!
    You would have thought that with Wikipedia and Google.....

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Apr 19, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On 18 Apr 2011 23:15:14 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    wrote:

    >In rec.photo.digital John A. <> wrote:
    >> On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>>In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
    >>>> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
    >>>> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
    >>>> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
    >>>> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
    >>>> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
    >>>> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?
    >>>
    >>>In the majority of my wide angle shots the only way to get further
    >>>back in order to use a less wide lens would be to demolish the
    >>>building at my back.
    >>>
    >>>If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    >>>photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    >>>the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    >>>the perspective distortion will have disappeared.

    >
    >> OMG! How does it know?

    >
    >Nothing needs to know anything. It's a simple consequence of
    >perspective geometry. You don't even need to understand lenses. It
    >works with pinhole cameras, i.e. every point on the image connected by
    >a straight line through the pinhole to the point in the world it's
    >imaging. That gives linear perspective projection where the
    >straightness of lines is preserved between world and image. Very
    >simple geometry.
    >
    >Don't they teach this stuff at school any more?


    LOL. Sorry. Thermos joke. :)

    Yeah, I get it. I once managed to write a rudimentary ray-tracing
    program that displayed images using 80x25 16-color CGA text mode,
    dithered by using spaces and characters 176 through 178 and 219.
    ( http://telecom.tbi.net/asc-ibm.html ) I later upgraded it to 80x50
    characters when I got hold of a VGA adapter. All before I ever took a
    trig class. (The whole like-triangles thing just kinda clicked in my
    head.) I think I had it able to render in a few graphics modes too,
    but it's been over 20 years and my memory's a little fuzzy.

    I also had done a wireframe model renderer as a teen, but only
    projected the endpoints. IIRC, I had asked a neighbor who was studying
    architecture for help with a formula to rotate a point with X,Y
    coordinates about another point so many degrees and return a new set
    of coordinates. He came up with a method that found the angle &
    distance, added the rotational angle, and calculated the new
    coordinates from that. It seemed slow to me, so I thought about it for
    a while and realized it would be much faster just to rotate the
    component vectors and add the results.

    Thanks for reminding me of all this. Really takes me back. :)
    John A., Apr 19, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/14/2011 9:40 PM, Nervous Nick wrote:
    > On Apr 14, 6:23 pm, RichA<> wrote:
    >> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
    >> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
    >> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
    >> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
    >> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
    >> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
    >> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?

    >
    > What tittie magazines are you "reading" these days?




    He probably reads all of them.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Apr 20, 2011
    #10
  11. In rec.photo.digital Crash! <> wrote:

    > about: Re: Is wide-angle over-used?;
    > On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:55:37 -0400, John A. wrote:
    >
    >
    >> On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    >> wrote:


    >> >If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    >> >photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    >> >the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    >> >the perspective distortion will have disappeared.

    >>
    >> OMG! How does it know?


    > It's sorta like mirrors.
    > A mirror will reverse right and left but
    > not up and down.


    > So how does it know?


    If you stand on a mirror it reverses up and down and left and right :)

    >> >If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    >> >photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    >> >the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    >> >the perspective distortion will have disappeared.


    > Or is it when enough of the prerepheral image
    > disappears from sight, it mimics standard vision?
    > Just asking....


    You're allowed to move your eyes while keeping your head still, in
    which case the effect can be observed right up to nearly 180 degrees
    angle of view.

    The whole idea of a standard angle of view being based on the optics
    of the human eye is based on lots of assumptions which in turn are
    based on some serious misunderstandings of how human vision works. The
    angle of view of the sharply detailed central region in the human eye
    is at most a few degrees, but something can be seen out of the corner
    of the eye out to around an angle of view of 150 degrees or more. But
    there's so much processing and stacking of the retinal images by the
    brain that the simple optics of the eye are less important than many
    who compare the eyeball to a camera suppose.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 21, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Apr 21, 9:06 am, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital Crash! <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > about: Re: Is wide-angle over-used?;
    > >   On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:55:37 -0400, John A. wrote:

    >
    > >> On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    > >> wrote:
    > >> >If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    > >> >photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    > >> >the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    > >> >the perspective distortion will have disappeared.

    >
    > >> OMG! How does it know?

    > > It's sorta like mirrors.  
    > > A mirror will reverse right and left but
    > > not up and down.
    > >   So how does it know?

    >
    > If you stand on a mirror it reverses up and down and left and right :)
    >
    > >> >If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    > >> >photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    > >> >the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    > >> >the perspective distortion will have disappeared.

    > > Or is it when enough of the prerepheral image
    > > disappears from sight, it mimics standard vision?
    > > Just asking....

    >
    > You're allowed to move your eyes while keeping your head still, in
    > which case the effect can be observed right up to nearly 180 degrees
    > angle of view.


    But that not really a true angle of view is it if you have to move the
    optics
    to achieve it. If you put a 1000mm lens on a tripod you get a 360 deg
    view if you spin it around. ;-)

    >
    > The whole idea of a standard angle of view being based on the optics
    > of the human eye is based on lots of assumptions which in turn are
    > based on some serious misunderstandings of how human vision works. The
    > angle of view of the sharply detailed central region in the human eye
    > is at most a few degrees,


    I though it was 15-20...

    > but something can be seen out of the corner
    > of the eye out to around an angle of view of 150 degrees or more.


    Our peripheral vision is faster acting but less detailed than our
    central vision
    this was apparently so we could quickly detect preditors approaching.
    Some animals have greater sensitivity and alsosee less colours
    something to do with rods and cones IIRC.

    > But
    > there's so much processing and stacking of the retinal images by the
    > brain that the simple optics of the eye are less important than many
    > who compare the eyeball to a camera suppose.


    Yes opur brain also fills in details and makes assumptions especially
    about colour
    that's what makes optical illusions so interesting and magicians
    successful.

    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm
    Whisky-dave, Apr 21, 2011
    #12
  13. In rec.photo.digital Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    > On Apr 21, 9:06 am, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >> In rec.photo.digital Crash! <> wrote:


    >> > about: Re: Is wide-angle over-used?;
    >> >   On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:55:37 -0400, John A. wrote:

    >>
    >> >> On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    >> >> wrote:


    >> >> >If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    >> >> >photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    >> >> >the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    >> >> >the perspective distortion will have disappeared.

    >>
    >> >> OMG! How does it know?


    >> > It's sorta like mirrors.  
    >> > A mirror will reverse right and left but
    >> > not up and down.
    >> >   So how does it know?

    >>
    >> If you stand on a mirror it reverses up and down and left and right :)
    >>
    >> >> >If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    >> >> >photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    >> >> >the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    >> >> >the perspective distortion will have disappeared.
    >> > Or is it when enough of the prerepheral image
    >> > disappears from sight, it mimics standard vision?
    >> > Just asking....

    >>
    >> You're allowed to move your eyes while keeping your head still, in
    >> which case the effect can be observed right up to nearly 180 degrees
    >> angle of view.


    > But that not really a true angle of view is it if you have to move the
    > optics
    > to achieve it. If you put a 1000mm lens on a tripod you get a 360 deg
    > view if you spin it around. ;-)


    Cameras have the design aim of getting detailed resolution over the
    whole sensor area, whereas human eyes have the design aim of achieving
    apparent high resolution views by very fast movements of a very small
    high resolution area over the interesting parts of the view, which the
    brain stitches together.

    >> The whole idea of a standard angle of view being based on the optics
    >> of the human eye is based on lots of assumptions which in turn are
    >> based on some serious misunderstandings of how human vision works. The
    >> angle of view of the sharply detailed central region in the human eye
    >> is at most a few degrees,


    > I though it was 15-20...


    At usual newspaper reading distances it's not enough to encompass the
    width of one long printed word. A saccadic shift of view is required
    to see all the letters sharply enough to identify a spelling mistake.

    >> but something can be seen out of the corner
    >> of the eye out to around an angle of view of 150 degrees or more.


    > Our peripheral vision is faster acting but less detailed than our
    > central vision
    > this was apparently so we could quickly detect preditors approaching.
    > Some animals have greater sensitivity and alsosee less colours
    > something to do with rods and cones IIRC.


    >> But
    >> there's so much processing and stacking of the retinal images by the
    >> brain that the simple optics of the eye are less important than many
    >> who compare the eyeball to a camera suppose.


    > Yes opur brain also fills in details and makes assumptions especially
    > about colour
    > that's what makes optical illusions so interesting and magicians
    > successful.


    And why you can't compare angles of view between cameras and eyes
    without making so many simplifying assumptions that there are always
    plenty of commonplace examples which make nonsense of any specific
    prescription of a standard normal human angle of view.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 22, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    me at Guest

    Good Morning,

    Best length for a portrait? 105?

    --
    Vic




    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    google groups are blocked
    copy_paste_to_the_command_line_for_email_address
    perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100egral.ta.resu/"
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    me at, Apr 22, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    me at <> wrote:
    >
    >Good Morning,
    >
    >Best length for a portrait? 105?



    For a traditional head and shoulders portrait on 35mm film or full
    frame digital, the classic focal length range in Western countries is
    between 85mm and 105mm. The Japanese prefer 135mm, but the longer
    shooting distance flattens features too much for Western tastes.

    If shooting with an APS-C sensor, reduce those focal lengths by a
    factor of 1.6X for Canon DSLRs or 1.5X for Nikon and most other
    brands. It's higher still for Sigma DSLRs but I cannot recall the
    figure.

    So to get a classic 'look' with a Canon EOS DSLR with APS-C sensor,
    use a focal length between 53mm and 66mm. With Nikon and most other
    brands, use a focal length between 57mm and 70mm.

    Of course rules are made to be broken, and you can shoot portraits
    with whatever focal length you choose. But you won't get the
    familiar, flattering perspective that you would with the traditional
    focal lengths, and you may disappoint your subject. ;-)
    Bruce, Apr 22, 2011
    #15
  16. In rec.photo.digital John A. <> wrote:
    > On 18 Apr 2011 23:15:14 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    > wrote:
    >>In rec.photo.digital John A. <> wrote:
    >>> On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
    >>>>> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
    >>>>> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
    >>>>> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
    >>>>> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
    >>>>> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
    >>>>> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?
    >>>>
    >>>>In the majority of my wide angle shots the only way to get further
    >>>>back in order to use a less wide lens would be to demolish the
    >>>>building at my back.
    >>>>
    >>>>If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
    >>>>photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
    >>>>the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
    >>>>the perspective distortion will have disappeared.

    >>
    >>> OMG! How does it know?

    >>
    >>Nothing needs to know anything. It's a simple consequence of
    >>perspective geometry. You don't even need to understand lenses. It
    >>works with pinhole cameras, i.e. every point on the image connected by
    >>a straight line through the pinhole to the point in the world it's
    >>imaging. That gives linear perspective projection where the
    >>straightness of lines is preserved between world and image. Very
    >>simple geometry.
    >>
    >>Don't they teach this stuff at school any more?


    > LOL. Sorry. Thermos joke. :)


    > Yeah, I get it. I once managed to write a rudimentary ray-tracing
    > program that displayed images using 80x25 16-color CGA text mode,
    > dithered by using spaces and characters 176 through 178 and 219.
    > ( http://telecom.tbi.net/asc-ibm.html ) I later upgraded it to 80x50
    > characters when I got hold of a VGA adapter. All before I ever took a
    > trig class. (The whole like-triangles thing just kinda clicked in my
    > head.) I think I had it able to render in a few graphics modes too,
    > but it's been over 20 years and my memory's a little fuzzy.


    > I also had done a wireframe model renderer as a teen, but only
    > projected the endpoints. IIRC, I had asked a neighbor who was studying
    > architecture for help with a formula to rotate a point with X,Y
    > coordinates about another point so many degrees and return a new set
    > of coordinates. He came up with a method that found the angle &
    > distance, added the rotational angle, and calculated the new
    > coordinates from that. It seemed slow to me, so I thought about it for
    > a while and realized it would be much faster just to rotate the
    > component vectors and add the results.


    > Thanks for reminding me of all this. Really takes me back. :)


    Me too -- I had to write a complete digital image processor more than
    thity years ago, when we got our digital images by running the output
    of a video camera through an analogue to digital converter. I think it
    took me about six months. Usually 65K monochrome images, i.e. 0.065
    megapixels. Porting the image from camera through sundry boxes into
    the image processor took around five minutes. And in order to get a
    printed digital image we photographed the video screen with a large
    format Polaroid camera.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 23, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    me at Guest

    Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:31:44 -0500 in rec.photo.digital Neil Ellwood <> wrote:
    | On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:42:31 +0000, me at wrote:

    |> Good Morning,
    |>
    |> Best length for a portrait? 105?

    | It depends on so many things. First is your sensor size, then the type of
    | portrait you are taking (half length, full face, head and shoulders etc.)
    | and how much background you want to include. Suitable focal lengths for APS
    | C can be from 50mm to somewhere about 180mm. Circumstances and personal
    | likes/dislikes will have a major effect on your decision.


    When I was a teenager (a long time ago) dad taught me
    105. I took one class in junior college. So I guess
    without having to understand to much but appreciating
    the replies, I will shorten my lens a bit. I am
    shooting a Canon DSLR. Have no idea about the sensor,
    what ever is built in. Maybe I will use 80 from now on.

    Thanks,

    Vic
    me at, Apr 23, 2011
    #17
  18. In rec.photo.digital Crash! <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >> In rec.photo.digital Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >> > On Apr 21, 9:06 am, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >> >> In rec.photo.digital Crash! <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > about: Re: Is wide-angle over-used?;
    >> >> >   On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:55:37 -0400, John A. wrote:


    > .....................


    >> > Yes opur brain also fills in details and makes assumptions especially
    >> > about colour
    >> > that's what makes optical illusions so interesting and magicians
    >> > successful.

    >>
    >> And why you can't compare angles of view between cameras and eyes
    >> without making so many simplifying assumptions that there are always
    >> plenty of commonplace examples which make nonsense of any specific
    >> prescription of a standard normal human angle of view.


    > Yet a 55mm lens seems normal.
    > Yet usually so does a 28 or a 105. ...almost.
    > ....normal to perception, the brain-stiched.


    > But I had always assume the 55mm was based
    > on similar math to an eye. No?


    What maths? I've explained why the maths is basically incomparable.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss
    events. Small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt.
    Chris Malcolm, May 2, 2011
    #18
    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. Satish K

    Sony F717 telephoto and wide angle lenses

    Satish K, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,166
    Godfrey DiGiorgi
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. pauldelanotte
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    503
    pauldelanotte
    Jan 22, 2007
  3. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    720
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  4. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    874
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
  5. Dauphin de Viennois

    Re: DSLR lenses not good wide open at wide angle?

    Dauphin de Viennois, Jul 16, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    508
    Roy Smith
    Jul 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page