Re: That slapping mirror

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alotta Fagina, Jul 6, 2008.

  1. In message news:, Alfred Molon
    <> done wrote:

    > Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
    > luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
    > Sony R1).
    >
    > Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
    > shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
    > I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
    > this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
    > What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.


    Are we psychically supposed to know which camera you bought?
     
    Alotta Fagina, Jul 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <g4rct7$ofb$>, says...
    >
    >> The solution is to not worry about mirror slap. Worry about camera
    >> motion due to your own hands moving the camera when you press the
    >> button. The mirror simply does not cause problems. Apparently the
    >> designers
    >> know how to design cameras, at least Canon and Nikon do.

    >
    > Well, I don't know. I heard that if the exposure is long and you use a
    > tripod, the slapping mirror will affect shots at long focal lengths
    > (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
    > I think I'll just wait until the 70-300 lens arrives and will then
    > make some tests.


    Far more important is that the 70-300mm lens has good image stabilisation.
    I have found that on my own DSLR mirror-slap simply is not an issue for my
    photography (mostly outdoors). Remember that you can use ISO 800 and
    probably ISO 1600 with little loss of quality.

    Enjoy your new freedom!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 7, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alfred Molon wrote:
    []
    > Well, the Sony A350 has in-camera IS. Not aware of any compatible lens
    > with IS.
    >
    > As for ISO 800 and 1600 I was indeed surprised by the image quality
    > yesterday. The A350 with its 14MP on an APS-C sensor is not one of the
    > top performers in this category, but the output at ISO1600 is very
    > interesting. Lots of detail and fine grain if you process the RAW
    > image. In any case, going up to ISO 800 or 1600 to solve the mirror
    > slap seems to be a bad thing. On the one hand you improve the noise
    > performance, thank you very much, but at the same time you degrade it
    > by being forced to use high ISO.
    >
    > I'll make some tests with the 70-300 lens and see what options there
    > are.


    Alfred,

    Unfortunately, in-camera IS is a poor compromise if you are buying both
    camera and lenses from scratch, as you completely lose the stabilisation
    effect in the optical viewfinder which you would get from in-lens IS.
    This alone would rule out such a camera for me.

    But you should enjoy the good ISO 800 performance. I think mirror slap
    will be a non-issue in normal use.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 7, 2008
    #3
  4. Alfred Molon wrote:
    []
    > Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
    > the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.
    >
    > The other day I got a sharp 0.4s exposure at 67mm equiv. focal length
    > with the in-camera IS on. I set the camera to continuos mode and took
    > a burst of 6-7 shots. The sharpest of these looks very good and is
    > quite impressive considering that it is a 14MP image.


    With long lenses, like the 70-300mm, I much prefer to have the camera
    against my face, with the slightly bent left arm and hand supporting the
    barrel of the lens. Only if there is no alternative (like with my compact
    Panasonic TZ3) would I hold the camera away from my face. But I guess you
    do whatever gives best results for you.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 7, 2008
    #4
  5. Alotta Fagina

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:51:55 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

    > As for ISO 800 and 1600 I was indeed surprised by the image quality
    > yesterday. The A350 with its 14MP on an APS-C sensor is not one of the
    > top performers in this category, but the output at ISO1600 is very
    > interesting. Lots of detail and fine grain if you process the RAW image.
    > In any case, going up to ISO 800 or 1600 to solve the mirror slap seems
    > to be a bad thing. On the one hand you improve the noise performance,
    > thank you very much, but at the same time you degrade it by being forced
    > to use high ISO.


    I used Nikon's 700-300mm lens (VR off) at 300mm for distant shots
    across a lake several days ago with the sky slightly overcast.
    Examining the images at 200% showed no trace of blurring due to
    camera movement. If there was any, it was obscured by the
    pixelization limit of the 12mp sensor. But then I didn't have the
    camera set to the shutter speeds most likely to cause mirror slap
    problems. Shots taken in the morning (9:20am) showed settings of
    ISO 200, f/8, 1/160 (static shots), and these settings were changed
    to ISO 400, f/6.3 and 1/640 or 1/1250 several hours later for
    pictures of water skiing teams.

    Handheld shots at a closer distance (about 2 feet) and fl at 85mm
    also didn't show evidence of blurring due to mirror slap. Shots at
    1/15 and 1/30 with VR on and no flash showed sharpness comparable to
    shooting at 1/60 when the flash was used. With no flash and VR off,
    blurring was noticeable, but much less than I've ever gotten from my
    P&S cameras under similar conditions. This is probably due to the
    DSLR's much greater weight. If mirror slap contributed to the
    blurring, it was probably less than the amount produced by camera
    movement. Unless your Sony A350 has a miserably designed mirror
    mechanism, mirror slap movement probably won't be an issue except
    for shots taken over a very small range of slow shutter speeds that
    also need to be printed at very large paper sizes, or for shots
    taken by the most demanding pixel peepers.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 7, 2008
    #5
  6. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
    > the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.



    Absorbing which sort of shocks exactly ?

    What is their source ?


    michael adams

    ....




    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    > http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    michael adams, Jul 7, 2008
    #6
  7. "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > michael adams wrote:
    > > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > >> Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
    > >> the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.

    > >
    > >
    > > Absorbing which sort of shocks exactly ?
    > >
    > > What is their source ?
    > >

    >
    > Some folks feel that the return of the mirror creates tremors in the
    > camera body that can be noticed in the results.




    Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
    particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
    inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best possible
    stance, etc.


    michael adams










    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams
     
    michael adams, Jul 7, 2008
    #7
  8. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, michael adams says...
    >
    > > Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
    > > particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
    > > inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best possible
    > > stance, etc.

    >
    > Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
    > the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
    > arms work as shock absorbers.




    Surely the point is that when the camera is forcibly pressed against the face
    stability results from the meeting of two opposing forces. A force coming
    up from the feet which are firmly planted on the ground coming up through the
    neck, most usually directed forward, being opposed by the force of the hands
    and arms pressing back against this.

    This seems to work well enough in practice, in my experience anyway.

    In the same way that many people who suffer from a trembling of the hands
    may find the symptoms far less marked if they grasp both their hands tightly
    together. And thus create an opposition to the trembling motion.
    Which is also the most effective way to fire a pistol, I believe.
    Two handed.

    > To illustrate the point, try walking with a glass of water. If the glass
    > is on your head it will shake a lot, while if you walk with the glass in
    > your hand and bowed elbows it is much easier to hold the water in the
    > glass still.


    Having the glass of water balancing on your head brings in extraneous factors
    such as the centre of gravity and possible nervousness at the consequences of
    spilling the water. Pressing the glass tight to your chest with one or both both
    hands would seem to offer a better solution IMO.


    michael adams

    ....







    >
    > Perhaps an a bit unscientific explanation, but this is how I get sharp
    > handheld shots. I wouldn't keep the camera pressed against my face
    > unless perhaps my head was leaning against a wall.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    > http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    michael adams, Jul 8, 2008
    #8
  9. Alotta Fagina

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:00:48 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

    > Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
    > the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
    > arms work as shock absorbers.


    Perhaps useful if standing on a platform vibrating within an
    advantageous range of frequencies. Otherwise, the photographer's
    skeleton should pretty well eliminate vertical movement when the
    camera is held to the face. When held at a distance, vertical
    oscillating motion is perpetual, with the muscles applying vertical
    (up and down) forces to keep the camera from moving too far from the
    desired position. You should be able to see how stably you can hold
    a camera both ways by using a simple motion magnifier. Get a small
    portable radio of approximately the same size as your camera and
    extend its antenna. Hold it as you would the camera, with the
    antenna pointed towards an imaginary subject, but with the tip very
    close to some immovable object, such as the top of a chair, or a
    mark on a wall, etc.

    Doing this, I can see that extending a camera away from my body
    with arms positioned as you describe doesn't work as well for me.
    But I also saw that the difference between the two methods isn't
    substantial, so your method may work well for you and well enough
    for others that use similar bracing and don't excessively extend
    their arms. But that technique still looks kind of dorky. :)


    > To illustrate the point, try walking with a glass of water. If the glass
    > is on your head it will shake a lot, while if you walk with the glass in
    > your hand and bowed elbows it is much easier to hold the water in the
    > glass still.


    Oh, please. Try taking pictures while you're walking. Of course
    the head moves up and down while walking. It's explained by simple
    geometry. But that motion doesn't exist while *not* walking, so the
    "shock absorbers" have no shocks to absorb. And the constant
    muscular correction produced by extended arms *will* create motion.
    This is a particularly bad theory that proves nothing but may seem
    plausible to those that don't know any better.


    > Perhaps an a bit unscientific explanation, but this is how I get sharp
    > handheld shots. I wouldn't keep the camera pressed against my face
    > unless perhaps my head was leaning against a wall.


    Quite unscientific, but it's not to say that you can't use your
    'extended arms' method to get sharp shots. Walls can be quite
    effective when used as 'found' tripods. But you can do better than
    using your face as a quick release plate. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 8, 2008
    #9
  10. Alotta Fagina

    Mark Thomas Guest

    2-second delay timer - Re: That slapping mirror

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    >> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).

    >
    > The 2 second timer is the MLU.
    >


    A very good point that is oft forgotten - if you are not shooting
    'action', then your self-timer is your best friend, as most cams have a
    short-delay mode... I use mine all the time.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 8, 2008
    #10
  11. Alan Browne wrote:

    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <>, michael adams says...
    >>
    >>> Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
    >>> particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
    >>> inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best
    >>> possible stance, etc.

    >>
    >> Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
    >> the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
    >> arms work as shock absorbers.

    >
    > That just introduces soft motion, esp. if you have a serious lens
    > mounted (any f/2.8 zoom for example or a tele).
    >
    > There is a well known technique used by most amateur/pro photographers
    > to assure stability.
    >
    > -Left hand cradles lens from underneath (adjusts focus, zoom and [not
    > all cameras] aperture and other lens functions). Most of the weight
    > falls on this hand.
    >
    > -Right hand holds the grip. On a DSLR most functions (including
    > aperture on some/many cameras).
    >
    > -elbows tucked in against the ribcage fairly tight
    >
    > -stable stance (feet at about shoulder width).
    >
    > -Important: don't 'stab' the shutter release. Depress it gently.


    Not surprisingly, if you use "forestock" being held by the left hand
    underneath and "trigger" for "shutter release", and you've described
    another other kind of stable shooting position - or at least as stable as
    a standing, unbraced position can be.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jul 8, 2008
    #11
  12. Alotta Fagina

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:18:52 +0200, Alfred Molon quibbled:

    >> Quite unscientific, but it's not to say that you can't use your
    >> 'extended arms' method to get sharp shots.

    >
    > Not extended arms, bowed arms.


    Semi-extended perhaps. I did read your earlier description that
    mentioned "bent arms". "Bowed arms" sounds about as silly as I
    think it looks, and makes one wonder if the photographer is about to
    get plucked. If you still insist that the "bowed arms" would be
    useful as "shock absorbers", you have an extremely poor
    understanding of photography and physics. I assume that you don't,
    but weren't gracious enough to retract your bogus theory. Unless,
    that is, you are in the habit of taking pictures while walking,
    where the bent arms may occasionally help to take pictures that are
    slightly better than abominable. But if that's the case, you'd be
    much better off using an external IS system - roller skates. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 8, 2008
    #12
  13. Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > Alfred Molon wrote:


    >> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).


    > The 2 second timer is the MLU.


    > You might enjoy the manual as well which is included in the purchase.


    You may be confusing the A350 manual with another. Some DSLRs do
    indeed incorporate a pre-shot mirror raise in their short timer, a
    kind of MLU, but the Sony A350 does not, nor does its manual claim
    that it does.

    On a film SLR I found mirror slap was degrading my 300mm heavy duty
    tripod shots by available light in dim church interiors with exposures
    roughly in the large fraction of a second range. The fuzzing was
    visible in A5 size prints, nothing specially large was required. The
    mirror clatter could quite clearly be felt to vibrate the camera on the
    tripod for a good fraction of a second.

    Whether this will be a problem with my A350, which has a smaller
    lighter mechanism, and who knows what differences in the geometry of
    forces and centre of gravity remains to be seen, as does whether and
    how much the in-camera image stabilisation can tame it. I'll test it
    and report back when a suitable test opportunity turns up.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 8, 2008
    #13
  14. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
    >the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
    >arms work as shock absorbers.
    >
    >To illustrate the point, try walking with a glass of water. If the glass
    >is on your head it will shake a lot, while if you walk with the glass in
    >your hand and bowed elbows it is much easier to hold the water in the
    >glass still.


    May I suggest to stand still instead of walking while taking photos?

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Jul 8, 2008
    #14
  15. Alotta Fagina

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:46:10 +0200, Alfred Molon petulantly wrote:

    > It should be obvious that I'm not a native English speaker. If "bowed"
    > is incorrect, "bent" is probably the right term.


    English may not be your native language, but you speak/write it
    very well. Well enough to get in a semantic snit when I accurately
    used the word "extended". Holding the camera as you do, whether
    it's called bowed or bent, certainly extends the camera further from
    the body than if the traditional method (eye to viewfinder) is used.
    That extension, whether great or small is what many find
    problematical with that method of taking pictures.


    > And no, I do not walk taking pictures and also never claimed that.


    True. But you attempted to use "walking" to try to demonstrate
    that your arms could aid stability by acting as "shock absorbers".
    You may have also noticed by now that others assumed that you were
    describing the advantage of being better able to shoot pictures
    while walking. In fact, your method is in no way comparable to
    using shock absorbers. It's simply using your muscles to correct
    for movement caused by those same muscles when the displacement
    becomes large enough to notice.

    When walking, one's head and torso move up and down, and that
    *might* allow shock absorbing arms to slightly decrease one
    component of motion. As I stated, however, people don't normally
    walk while taking pictures, so there wouldn't be any gross vertical
    movement for your shock absorbing arms to reduce. I guess that you
    either chose to ignore my remark about roller skates making a better
    external IS mechanism or the hyperbole went over your head, possibly
    because English isn't your native language.


    > By the way, you are starting being insulting.


    In a way it's probably well earned. I thought that I presented a
    clear explanation of why your "shock absorber" theory didn't hold
    water (was "bogus") and expected that you would either try to show
    why it was a valid theory or acknowledge that you had been mistaken.
    Two replies later, and you haven't said word one about that bogus
    theory, choosing to only say in one reply "Not extended arms, bowed
    arms." and say "I do not walk taking pictures and also never claimed
    that." and complain about being insulted in the other.

    Since your record shows you to be reasonably intelligent, I find
    your choice of avoiding a real issue by addressing an insignificant,
    irrelevant detail instead to be a good deal more insulting. And as
    you and everyone else that read my reply must have seen, I didn't
    insult you by disparaging the way you hold your cameras (as others
    have done), but admitted that using a test that I devised, found
    that your method worked better than I assumed, and might even work
    quite well for you and others. That you also chose to not
    acknowledge that simply adds pettiness to insult. If I make a silly
    claim in a reply, I expect some to hurl far more insulting barbs in
    my direction. I hope that I'll reply dealing with the real issues
    and not the insults. Unless, that is, they are purely gratuitous
    insults, accompanied by nothing else of value. YMMV.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 8, 2008
    #15
  16. Alotta Fagina

    Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:05:35 -0400, in rec.photo.digital Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>> Alfred Molon wrote:

    >>
    >>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).

    >>
    >>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.

    >>
    >>> You might enjoy the manual as well which is included in the purchase.

    >>
    >> You may be confusing the A350 manual with another. Some DSLRs do
    >> indeed incorporate a pre-shot mirror raise in their short timer, a
    >> kind of MLU, but the Sony A350 does not, nor does its manual claim
    >> that it does.

    >
    >P.98 of the A350 (English) manual:
    >
    >"...and the 2-second self-timer is convenient to reduce the camera shake."
    >
    >Admittedly this is poorly written and less than explicit. But that is
    >the function.


    I doubt it. Sounds like a simple self-timer function to remove shake from
    pressing the shutter release. Nothing to do with MLU.
     
    , Jul 8, 2008
    #16
  17. Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>> Alfred Molon wrote:

    >>
    >>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).

    >>
    >>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.

    >>
    >>> You might enjoy the manual as well which is included in the purchase.

    >>
    >> You may be confusing the A350 manual with another. Some DSLRs do
    >> indeed incorporate a pre-shot mirror raise in their short timer, a
    >> kind of MLU, but the Sony A350 does not, nor does its manual claim
    >> that it does.


    > P.98 of the A350 (English) manual:


    > "...and the 2-second self-timer is convenient to reduce the camera shake."


    > Admittedly this is poorly written and less than explicit. But that is
    > the function.


    Of course it reduces camera shake. But you claimed that it also did a
    mirror lock up. Some DSLR's do in fact do just that with their short
    timer, but the A350 doesn't, as is easily verified by trying it out.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 9, 2008
    #17
  18. Re: 2-second delay timer - Re: That slapping mirror

    Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <g4ua63$dk8$>, Mark Thomas says...
    >>> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
    >>>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
    >>>>
    >>> A very good point that is oft forgotten - if you are not shooting
    >>> 'action', then your self-timer is your best friend, as most cams have a
    >>> short-delay mode... I use mine all the time.

    >>
    >> Sony removed the MLU feature from the A350. It would have cost nothing
    >> to leave it there


    > You are wrong. Please See p. 98 ( of the Enlgish manual at any rate).


    You are wrong. Page 98 of the English manual makes no claim about MLU,
    and trying the 2 sec delay on the camera verifies that it does not
    involve MLU.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 9, 2008
    #18
  19. Alotta Fagina

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: 2-second delay timer - Re: That slapping mirror

    On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:51:43 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

    > Download English the manual from Sony.


    I would needed it I if.

    :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 9, 2008
    #19
  20. Re: 2-second delay timer - Re: That slapping mirror

    Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>> Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>> In article <g4ua63$dk8$>, Mark Thomas says...
    >>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
    >>>>>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> A very good point that is oft forgotten - if you are not shooting
    >>>>> 'action', then your self-timer is your best friend, as most cams have a
    >>>>> short-delay mode... I use mine all the time.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sony removed the MLU feature from the A350. It would have cost nothing
    >>>> to leave it there

    >>
    >>> You are wrong. Please See p. 98 ( of the Enlgish manual at any rate).

    >>
    >> You are wrong. Page 98 of the English manual makes no claim about MLU,
    >> and trying the 2 sec delay on the camera verifies that it does not
    >> involve MLU.


    > Download English the manual from Sony.


    I don't need to. A copy came in the box with my Sony Alpha 350.

    > See p. 98.


    > If this does not work as an MLU, then indeed Sony have screwed this up.


    It makes no claim to do mirror lock up. It simply says it stops camera
    shake, which of course it does, because it stops you pushing the
    button to fire the camera. That's a well known feature of timer
    shutter delay which has been well known and exploited for almost as
    long as cameras have existed, and applies to all cameras, not just
    SLRs.

    > It may even be a firmware error.


    Since the manual makes no claim to doing more than simply to delay the
    normal shutter release your hypothesis requires that they not only
    forget to make the firmware do the job, but they also forgot to
    describe what it was supposed to do in the manual. Since a number of
    other camera makers omitted the short-timer-MLU from both their
    firmware and their manuals on purpose, the simpler hypothesis is that
    Sony did the same.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 9, 2008
    #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. Pete D

    Re: That slapping mirror

    Pete D, Jul 6, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    283
    Pete D
    Jul 7, 2008
  2. Matt Ion

    Re: That slapping mirror

    Matt Ion, Jul 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    297
    nospam
    Jul 8, 2008
  3. Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    Re: That slapping mirror

    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Jul 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    557
    Chris Malcolm
    Jul 10, 2008
  4. Bruce

    Re: Death of the slapping mirror

    Bruce, Aug 24, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    714
    John A.
    Sep 2, 2010
  5. Tim Conway

    Re: Death of the slapping mirror

    Tim Conway, Aug 24, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    276
    Bruce
    Aug 24, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page