The disappearance of darkness

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Me, May 7, 2013.

  1. Me

    Me Guest

    Me, May 7, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Me

    RichA Guest

    On May 6, 9:04 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > An interesting interview on Radio New Zealand this morning, with Robert
    > Burley:
    > Toronto-based photographer whose book The Disappearance of Darkness:
    > Photography at the End of the Analogue Era chronicles the rapid speed at
    > which film and the huge factories that produced it have almost vanished.
    > Link to MP3 file:http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20130507-1008-feature_guest_-_ro...


    Film is destined for a small but enthusiastic audience of geeky niche
    players, just like vinyl. Now, vinyl though still a fraction of sales
    of CD's and electronic downloads is growing, but represents only about
    a $70M market in the U.S. Can the film producers (who would also have
    to offer processing or production of chemicals to do it) make a
    business of film, whats left of it and can they survive while film
    continues to fall further?
    Film is where vinyl was around 1985, still dying before its slow rise
    again.
     
    RichA, May 7, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    Me Guest

    On 7/05/2013 5:06 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > On May 6, 9:04 pm, Me <> wrote:
    >> An interesting interview on Radio New Zealand this morning, with Robert
    >> Burley:
    >> Toronto-based photographer whose book The Disappearance of Darkness:
    >> Photography at the End of the Analogue Era chronicles the rapid speed at
    >> which film and the huge factories that produced it have almost vanished.
    >> Link to MP3 file:http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20130507-1008-feature_guest_-_ro...

    >
    > Film is destined for a small but enthusiastic audience of geeky niche
    > players, just like vinyl. Now, vinyl though still a fraction of sales
    > of CD's and electronic downloads is growing, but represents only about
    > a $70M market in the U.S. Can the film producers (who would also have
    > to offer processing or production of chemicals to do it) make a
    > business of film, whats left of it and can they survive while film
    > continues to fall further?
    > Film is where vinyl was around 1985, still dying before its slow rise
    > again.
    >

    I think that was discussed in the podcast. It's relatively inexpensive
    to set up to press vinyl records.
    Not so to set up to produce and process photographic film (except
    monochrome). When the market was massive - there were only a few players
    in that game.
     
    Me, May 7, 2013
    #3
  4. Me

    Me Guest

    On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:

    >
    > There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some misplaces
    > preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will mourn the
    > passing of wet film.
    >
    >

    Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
    There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
    sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
    amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
    valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
    to replicate the look of film.
     
    Me, May 7, 2013
    #4
  5. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kmbnve$40f$>, Me <>
    wrote:

    > > There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some misplaces
    > > preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will mourn the
    > > passing of wet film.
    > >

    > Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    > the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
    > There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
    > sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
    > amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
    > valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
    > to replicate the look of film.


    add distortion for that 'warm tube sound'.

    add grain/noise for that 'film look'. increase saturation for velvia.

    those who want accuracy don't do either.
     
    nospam, May 7, 2013
    #5
  6. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
    > smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
    > whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
    > "push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
    > class B amplifier).


    which can be done with a transistor amp but is almost never done.

    another factor is the characteristics of the distortion. tube amps are
    less harsh, but who runs their amps where they continually distort?

    under normal conditions, there is no difference that anyone can hear.

    > That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
    > 1/1000th of a percent of listeners. IOW, even "audiophiles" <cough>
    > with the best trained ears would fail to pick it out in an ABX test.


    probably less than that.

    > Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits
    > - more so in processing.


    yep.
     
    nospam, May 7, 2013
    #6
  7. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/7/2013 4:36 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kmbnve$40f$>, Me <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some misplaces
    >>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will mourn the
    >>> passing of wet film.
    >>>

    >> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    >> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
    >> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
    >> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
    >> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
    >> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
    >> to replicate the look of film.

    >
    > add distortion for that 'warm tube sound'.
    >
    > add grain/noise for that 'film look'. increase saturation for velvia.
    >
    > those who want accuracy don't do either.
    >


    And those who want art, may do either, neither or both. they may also
    use tons of filters in any of millions of combinations.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #7
  8. On 5/7/2013 3:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    > The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
    > smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
    > whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
    > "push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
    > class B amplifier).
    >
    > That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
    > 1/1000th of a percent of listeners.

    Uh ... class A versus class B has NOTHING to do with tube versus solid
    state.

    Nothing. Zero.

    In either case NO modern circuit comes even close to class B.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, May 8, 2013
    #8
  9. Me

    Me Guest

    On 8/05/2013 8:42 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
    >> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    >>> misplaces
    >>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
    >>> mourn the
    >>> passing of wet film.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    >> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
    >> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
    >> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
    >> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
    >> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
    >> to replicate the look of film.

    >
    >
    > The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is <snip>

    No.
    >
    > Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits
    > - more so in processing.
    >

    DSP is used in "modelling amps" which attempt to replicate the waveform
    of over-driven valve amps combined with particular guitar speaker
    non-linearity and "break-up" characteristics.
    They are getting pretty good - in blind tests, it's hard to tell, ie
    between a Vox AC30, and a Vox modelling amp set to sound like a Vox AC 30.
    But I think you'll find that professional performers almost unanimously
    use valve amps that they favour - I doubt that Eric Clapton for example
    would have much real interest in performing with a modelling (DSP) amp
    on which he can flick a knob to change tone to sound like Joe Satriani's
    setup one minute, Stevie Ray Vaughn the next, then flick back to the
    Eric Clapton setup DSP preset.
     
    Me, May 8, 2013
    #9
  10. Me

    Trevor Guest

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    > misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
    > will mourn the passing of wet film.


    Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
    can be printed from digital. And far more who think the archival qualities
    are superior to digital at the moment. That may change, but the nostalgia
    won't. Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
    prefer the ritual. And many will still get a kick out of watching an image
    appear under the safelight. (for as long as they can get paper and chemicals
    anyway!)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, May 8, 2013
    #10
  11. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kmcgpk$oa7$>, Trevor <>
    wrote:

    > > There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    > > misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
    > > will mourn the passing of wet film.

    >
    > Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
    > can be printed from digital.


    for no good reason.

    anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital
    a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really
    what they want.

    the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    technology.

    > And far more who think the archival qualities
    > are superior to digital at the moment.


    those who do are very mistaken.

    with digital, you can make unlimited perfect copies forever. with
    analog you cannot. every 'backup' (which isn't a backup at all) is
    lossy.

    with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
    down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
    the better.

    plus, as computers and software improves, so do the images. for
    instance, noise reduction gets better, so those old images taken with
    what are now considered noisy sensors look better than they did before.

    > That may change,


    the only thing that will change is that those who think film is more
    archival realize they are mistaken.

    digital is and will always be more archival.

    > but the nostalgia
    > won't.


    it will when those who are nostalgic move on to the great darkroom in
    the sky.

    > Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
    > prefer the ritual.


    digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip' the
    record, and maybe put a motion sensor in the floor so if you dance to
    the music a bit too enthusiastically, the record skips.

    the only good thing about vinyl is the cover art was 12" and not 5".

    > And many will still get a kick out of watching an image
    > appear under the safelight. (for as long as they can get paper and chemicals
    > anyway!)


    that can be emulated digitally.
     
    nospam, May 8, 2013
    #11
  12. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:27:02 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kmcgpk$oa7$>, Trevor <>
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > > There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some

    >
    > > > misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak

    >
    > > > will mourn the passing of wet film.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what

    >
    > > can be printed from digital.

    >
    >
    >
    > for no good reason.


    Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and sifting through them for the 'best'.


    > anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital
    >
    > a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really
    >
    > what they want.


    I remmber doing solarization in a darkroom, it felt liek I was actually achiving something special, I don't get that filing by going to a filter menu,it hardley seems like doing nowadays.


    > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >
    > technology.


    I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to the bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and the excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour down the sink.


    >
    > with digital, you can make unlimited perfect copies forever. with
    >
    > analog you cannot. every 'backup' (which isn't a backup at all) is
    >
    > lossy.


    Which in some way is a shame, but at least with digital we can all have themona lisa hanging in our toilet, whether thats a good thing on not I'm notsure.


    > with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
    >
    > down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
    >
    > the better.


    Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and individuality..


    > plus, as computers and software improves, so do the images.


    Images maybe but does the actual content.




    > > Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still

    >
    > > prefer the ritual.

    >
    >
    >
    > digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip'


    it would have to be semi-random as not every album needed flipping after 20mins.

    > the
    >
    > record, and maybe put a motion sensor in the floor so if you dance to
    >
    > the music a bit too enthusiastically, the record skips.


    Equally you can;t throw a MP3 away in distgust, but I've broken a few records before. Ypou couild simulate it but it's not quite the same.
    You'll also miss the terms like a "broken record or skipping.

    >
    > the only good thing about vinyl is the cover art was 12" and not 5".

    for me digital art is measure in teh number of bytes the end, youm also forgot about gatefold and shapped and coloured vinyl. I doubt MP3 will ever have any real value or raratuy maybe that's a good thing.


    > > And many will still get a kick out of watching an image

    >
    > > appear under the safelight. (for as long as they can get paper and chemicals

    >
    > > anyway!)

    >
    >
    >
    > that can be emulated digitally.



    I want to get rid of this old style digital technology and replace it with bio-feedback circutry, we won't need cameras then of cards just imagine the picture you want and you'll be able to see it, no need to print it out oreven project it.

    Personally I can't wait for holodeck technology, but I guess they be those still wanting 'real sex' ;-)
     
    Whisky-dave, May 8, 2013
    #12
  13. Me

    Me Guest

    On 8/05/2013 10:16 p.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
    >>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    >>>> misplaces
    >>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
    >>>> mourn the
    >>>> passing of wet film.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    >>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
    >>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
    >>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
    >>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
    >>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
    >>> to replicate the look of film.

    >>
    >>
    >> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
    >> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range whereas
    >> transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
    >> transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
    >> amplifier).

    >
    > Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but +5V
    > to +25V.
    >
    > Valve amps do demonstate tonality and high [thermal] noise.
    >
    > Transistors were adopted in amps (and much else) because they outperformed
    > valves on linearity / distortion, frequency response, reliability, noise,
    > size, energy consumption and last but by no means least cost.
    >
    > Example - a basic EF81 (AF valve) was over £1 retail in 1973, when they were
    > still in mass production - that is about £11 ($16) today. Even now an
    > equivalent transistor would cost less than a dollar and out perform it in
    > every way.
    >

    Some still are in mass production - perhaps just not in the kind of
    volume as 50 years ago, ie:
    http://www.jj-electronic.com/
    There are also makers in Russia and China.
    >
    >

    It's moved on a bit recently too, with class D amps setting efficiency
    standards, increased efficiency means less heat, smaller size. For large
    concert PA systems - this type of audio amp may be used these days:
    http://www.powersoft-audio.com/en/products/touring-amplifiers/k-series/k20.html
    2 x 9000w in a small rack mount unit, 12kg weight.
    (but you can almost guarantee that the guitarist will still be using his
    valve amp, miked in to the PA)
     
    Me, May 8, 2013
    #13
  14. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 12:27 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kmcgpk$oa7$>, Trevor <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    >>> misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
    >>> will mourn the passing of wet film.

    >>
    >> Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
    >> can be printed from digital.

    >
    > for no good reason.
    >
    > anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital
    > a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really
    > what they want.
    >
    > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > technology.



    I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    the gross inaccuracy of your statement.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #14
  15. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 5:36 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    > news:51899567$0$10844$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/7/2013 4:36 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article <kmbnve$40f$>, Me <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    >>>>> misplaces
    >>>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will mourn
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> passing of wet film.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    >>>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
    >>>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
    >>>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
    >>>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
    >>>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
    >>>> to replicate the look of film.
    >>>
    >>> add distortion for that 'warm tube sound'.
    >>>
    >>> add grain/noise for that 'film look'. increase saturation for velvia.
    >>>
    >>> those who want accuracy don't do either.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And those who want art, may do either, neither or both. they may also use
    >> tons of filters in any of millions of combinations.

    >
    > You would not drape a lace curtain in front of an old master.
    >


    No! But our Department of Justice did, to the tune of eight thousand
    dollars.

    <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm>

    What is wrong with the use of filters to create art.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #15
  16. nospam <> wrote:

    > add distortion for that 'warm tube sound'.


    > add grain/noise for that 'film look'. increase saturation for velvia.


    > those who want accuracy don't do either.


    I wasn't aware there were so many who are police photographers
    recording crime scenes, or producers of facsimiles of old
    paintings.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 8, 2013
    #16
  17. Me <> wrote:

    > But I think you'll find that professional performers almost unanimously
    > use valve amps that they favour - I doubt that Eric Clapton for example
    > would have much real interest in performing with a modelling (DSP) amp
    > on which he can flick a knob to change tone to sound like Joe Satriani's
    > setup one minute, Stevie Ray Vaughn the next, then flick back to the
    > Eric Clapton setup DSP preset.


    Of course. Art is often made to be hard. "Hand painted",
    for example. Costs more and usually is of lesser quality than
    proper manufacturing techniques (or is way more expensive).

    But is sells ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 8, 2013
    #17
  18. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <518a6438$0$10808$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    > >>> misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
    > >>> will mourn the passing of wet film.
    > >>
    > >> Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
    > >> can be printed from digital.

    > >
    > > for no good reason.
    > >
    > > anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital
    > > a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really
    > > what they want.
    > >
    > > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > > technology.

    >
    > I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    > the gross inaccuracy of your statement.


    go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.

    there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

    digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    goes on, the difference will get bigger.

    digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    results.

    if someone wants a 'film look,' they can duplicate it digitally. they
    can add back grain or match what kodachrome or velvia would have done
    or whatever else is needed to match their favourite film. there are
    plug-ins that do this automatically with a couple of clicks, or it can
    be done manually. or do both, run the plug-in then tweak it some more.
    the possibilities are endless.

    or, they can decide to stay with the higher quality of digital and not
    intentionally make the image worse.
     
    nospam, May 8, 2013
    #18
  19. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > > Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to
    > > > what

    > >
    > > > can be printed from digital.

    > >
    > > for no good reason.

    >
    > Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is
    > having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want
    > is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and
    > sifting through them for the 'best'.


    you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want. buy a
    really small memory card if you can't just stop at 12.

    > > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > > technology.

    >
    > I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to the
    > bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and the
    > excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour
    > down the sink.


    cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.

    > > with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
    > > down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
    > > the better.

    >
    > Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and individuality.


    not when it comes to backups, it isn't.

    > > > Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
    > > > prefer the ritual.

    > >
    > > digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip'

    >
    > it would have to be semi-random as not every album needed flipping after
    > 20mins.


    an lp record was about 20 minutes per side. some were a little more,
    some were a little less.

    the point is you can put a break at exactly the same place as it was on
    a record.
     
    nospam, May 8, 2013
    #19
  20. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <518a6438$0$10808$-secrets.com>, PeterN


    <snip>


    >>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >>> technology.

    >>
    >> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    >> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

    >
    > go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
    >
    > there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    > proven. it is not a matter of opinion.



    When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?

    BTW Your statement was
    "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    technology."

    When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
    a proper introduction.

    >
    > digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    > goes on, the difference will get bigger.
    >
    > digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    > colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    > batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    > it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    > results.


    Not the issue - see above


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #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. ric

    Bookmark Icon Disappearance

    ric, Apr 9, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    982
    Splibbilla
    Apr 9, 2005
  2. CarlO

    Disc Disappearance

    CarlO, May 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    433
    Ben Myers
    May 17, 2005
  3. Max Christoffersen

    Wilner's Bizarre Disappearance..

    Max Christoffersen, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    125
    Views:
    2,601
    vanpall
    Feb 9, 2004
  4. Gary

    Minimizing window causes disappearance

    Gary, Aug 12, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    428
  5. Evensong

    Partition Disappearance problem.

    Evensong, Feb 6, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    340
    Evensong
    Feb 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page