# DoF and a mirror



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

Lets say you want to take a group picture in your rose garden in the evening with not a lot of lighting available. You want to shoot at an aperture of 1.4 to get as much light into your sensor. Couldn't you just put a mirror in front of the group you want to photograph and photograph their reflection? I mean the mirror will let you capture everything within the dof of 1.4 because its only a flat surface. Couldn't this trick work?


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

No.  The image is not ON the mirror.  It would simply be further away.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 29, 2013)

If you want to photograph what's on the surface of the mirror, then yes.  If you're photographing the reflection, then no.  But don't let me discourage you.  Try it and see.  The first problem you'll come up against is that the AF will ignore the surface, and try to focus on the object reflected in the mirror.


----------



## ratssass (Dec 29, 2013)

...not to mention you'd need to put a stringline up to put the tip of everyones nose on..........lol


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

480sparky said:


> No.  The image is not ON the mirror.  It would simply be further away.



But you put the mirror at the distance you would photograph. So that would cancel that out.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

pgriz said:


> If you want to photograph what's on the surface of the mirror, then yes.  If you're photographing the reflection, then no.  But don't let me discourage you.  Try it and see.  The first problem you'll come up against is that the AF will ignore the surface, and try to focus on the object reflected in the mirror.



You just manual focus on the surface of the mirror and the mirror will do the work. I will find a mirror and gather up my backyard dwarves. This idea of mine is going places.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Dec 29, 2013)

I've taken pictures of reflections in a mirror, they aren't as sharp. (I focus manually all the time anyway.) 

Go out in your rose garden sometime and do some test shots. You could use some objects to be 'stand-ins' of a sort to have something to focus the camera on. See what works and what doesn't so when you want to do a group photo you'll know how to set your camera. 

Or if you want, go out and set up a mirror, prop it somehow in front of where a group might stand, take some test shots and see if it works. Or the mirror might fall and break and that will be the end of this experiment...


----------



## Judobreaker (Dec 29, 2013)

Not going to work. 

A mirror just reflects objects, it doesn't become them.
Just try standing in front of a mirror and focussing on different objects of different distances from the mirror. You'll see that the camera will need to refocus for every object... That wouldn't happen if it were all focussed on the same plane would it now?


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> ........You just manual focus on the surface of the mirror and the mirror will do the work. I will find a mirror and gather up my backyard dwarves. This idea of mine is going places.



Make sure you focus on the mirror, now, and not the subject's reflection!

I think you'll find you'll end up with sharp images of the dust and fingerprints on the mirror.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 29, 2013)

A very dirty mirror at my friends forge where he makes hand beaten armoury not sure if it would work

















An extra shot of something he made from a drawing of someones hand with measurements for a gentleman in Switzerland


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

If windex worked for enter the dragon then it'll work for me.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

You didn't focus on the mirror.  See how OOF it is?

Focus on the mirror like you said you would.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

480sparky said:


> You didn't focus on the mirror.  See how OOF it is?
> 
> Focus on the mirror like you said you would.



It is very easy actually. You can even try this with autofocus. Just put the dslr on a tripod facing the thing you want to photograph. Now get an a4 paper and a small tape to tape it to the mirror, now autofocus on the paper that is taped to the mirror, lock focus and remove paper and take the shot. We've now turned an aperture 1.4 into infinite.


----------



## Overread (Dec 29, 2013)

Television cameras often used very small film/sensor sizes. Much like how a mobile phone or bridge camera has a very deep depth of field the same is true of your average TV camera; which is why you can see more depth in the windows there than you might if you used a DSLR which has a much bigger sensor.

Also remember your eyes constantly re-focus a we look around a scene so we also get an artificial increase in what we perceive to be our depth of field.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 29, 2013)

It won't work for reasons described, but good luck with that.

This is one of those things you need to try to see what's going on, so, you should try it.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> We've now turned an aperture 1.4 into infinite.




Huh?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





If you're saying you now have infinite DOF, then why is the mirror frame (and the wall it's hanging on) horribly OOF?


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > No.  The image is not ON the mirror.  It would simply be further away.
> ...


The distance you would be measuring is the distance the light is traveling, which will be camera-to-mirror plus mirror-to-subject.

My current avatar was taken using two mirrors.  One problem you will encounter is that fine details will often have some "ghosting".  It's not very noticeable, but it's there.  Quality of the mirror is a factor in this, I'm sure.

edit
Nevermind.  It's not my current avatar, lol.  It is everywhere but here.  

This is the picture I was referring to:




I can see in that picture that the camera was set to f/8.  Shutter speed was probably 1/60 or 1/125 - I can't remember for sure.  I have no problems hand holding this camera down to 1/8 second...  Subject movement is usually the deciding factor when choosing a shutter speed.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > No.  The image is not ON the mirror.  It would simply be further away.
> ...




If you can put the mirror at a distance you can photograph an entire group, why not just put the whole group there instead?


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Also, the farther away the mirror is, the larger it has to be.

In a way, I can see a benefit... Not the one hamlet is talking about though. In the shot I posted above, the first mirror was closer than the minimum focusing distance for that lens. It only works because of the mirrors.

I think that's actually the opposite of what he's talking about. He's wanting to get farther away, not closer.

For what it sounds like he's trying to do, the mirror would have to be unrealistically large. The easiest solution would be to just stand farther away. Or use a shorter lens.

The mirror will have to fill the frame - that would very quickly become a very large mirror.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Because i want to shoot at 1.4.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...


And you need mirrors to do that ... because?


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Because i want to shoot at 1.4.




I understand that.  Explain how a mirror turns the razor-thin DOF of f/1.4 into a magical infinite DOF.

By your own examples, it doesn't.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

Josh66 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



That is actually an awesome idea.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Because i want to shoot at 1.4.
> ...



The dof is a thin slice, the mirror is a thin slice. put them together and everything is within dof.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> The dof is a thin slice, the mirror is a thin slice. put them together and everything is within dof.



Then why is the mirror frame and the wall it's attached to out of focus?


(Me suspects your thin slice of DOF is placed at a distance that is the sum of camera-to-mirror plus mirror-to-subject)


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...


By using the mirror(s), all you are doing is increasing the distance to the subject.  Yes, that will also increase DoF - but unless you're trying to do something like that self portrait I posted, the same thing can be achieved by simply standing farther away.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > The dof is a thin slice, the mirror is a thin slice. put them together and everything is within dof.
> ...



The mirror is simply used to get what is being reflected on it.


Your shot would look like this:



Josh66 said:


> This is the picture I was referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



(Very good picture btw)


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

This is a very crappy drawing of how I did that.

Focus distance that the lens must be set to will be equal to the sum of the red lines.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> The mirror is simply used to get what is being reflected on it.




I know.  But how does that get you 'infinite' DOF?


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

Josh66 said:


> This is a very crappy drawing of how I did that.
> 
> Focus distance that the lens must be set to will be equal to the sum of the red lines.



Is that one of them fancy tilt/shift lenses? :mrgreen:


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

I'll add that each mirror needs to fill the frame to pull it off without cropping.  The first mirror can be smaller, since it's closer to the camera.

The camera I used has a minimum focusing distance of .9m.  I would estimate that the first mirror was about .5m away, but the total distance of the light path was probably close to 3m.


----------



## Low_Sky (Dec 29, 2013)

Hamlet, since I suspect you won't trust me, go set this up for yourself.

I put my camera on a tripod, approximately two feet from a mirror.  I was looking into the mirror, and seeing the window across the room (about 14 feet from the mirror) and my camera bag sitting on the bed in the middle of the room (about 7 feet from the mirror).  I took three photos, all at f4.0, not even at the "razor thin DOF" that you are discussing here.  The first photo is focused on the blinds, the second is focused on the camera bag, and the third is focused on the picture frame.  By your logic, the third photo should have everything in focus (especially considering the more forgiving f4.0 depth of field), but alas, only the frame is in focus.  

Please, take 10 minutes and do this little experiment for yourself instead of arguing with the people who are trying to correctly answer your question.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

Measure the camera-to-mirror distance and the mirror-to-subject distance, and add those together (the focus distance might actually be in the exif information).  Place an object that distance from the camera and the DoF will be identical.

Same reason a 1000mm reflector telescope is not 1000mm long.  The light path is what you are measuring.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

Damn, I'm gonna be rich because of this thread.  

Anyone ever use one of those cheesy 45° mirror filters Spiratone used to make?  It looks like a lens hood, but you put it on a telephoto lens and it allowed you to take photos around corners and hold the camera 90° to your subject? 

Image link

I recall Animal using one on the Lou Grant show to nail some mobsters (went to a construction site and pretended to shoot a sexy model, but was recording some illegal action instead).

I'm gonna buy the rights to that from the Spira family and reintroduce it to the market.  But it won't be the Spiratone Mirrotach.  It'll be the *480 Infinite DOF* attachment.


I'm off to file a patent right now!  Whoo hoo!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I'm gonna be filthy rich!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





New gear for EVERYONE!


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > The mirror is simply used to get what is being reflected on it.
> ...



The mirror doesn't have an aperture. The cameras sees what the mirror reflects:

example:


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

Haha - I've seen those.  "Covert" surveillance equipment or whatever.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> The mirror doesn't have an aperture. The cameras sees what the mirror reflects:




But the _camera_ does, and the combination of your focus point (which will be the sum of camera-to-mirror distance plus mirror-to-subject distance) and aperture is what will give you your final DOF.  

And I guarantee... it ain't infinite.





The proof is in your example.  The background is OOF.






Josh66 said:


> Haha - I've seen those.  "Covert" surveillance equipment or whatever.



I'd love to sit in on a brain-storming session involving hamlet and good ol' Fred Spira.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

The aperture is the aperture.  Mirrors (or magnets or any other magic stuff like that) won't change that.

What mirrors will do is increase the distance to the subject, which also increases DoF.  Standing farther away does the same thing.

If you have a large enough mirror, you could use it to shoot at f/1.4 and have infinite DoF, but that would be no different than just standing at the hyperfocal distance for f/1.4 and shooting without the mirror.  With the mirror, you would only have to be half the hyperfocal distance away.  It would have to be a pretty big mirror though.


----------



## peter27 (Dec 29, 2013)

Put a ruler up against a mirror, take a photo of the reflected image focusing on that part of the ruler closest to the mirror's front plane and you will see, depending on what f stop you use, how the ruler goes progressively OOF as it reaches into the mirror.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 29, 2013)

You're wrong, hamlet.

Try it and see.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 29, 2013)

Wait - isn't it time for the guy who was arguing that the inverse-square law was not applicable to stars show up to take part in the discussion?


----------



## GlennT (Dec 29, 2013)

If this concept worked, everything in the viewfinder on any SLR/DSLR would be in focus.  A mirror does not put everything on the same focal plane.  You don't need a camera to test this.  Look at yourself in a mirror from a reasonable distance with one eye closed, then look at the glass.  If you're too close, the difference might be minute, but you will be out of focus.

Even if it did work, the mirror would have to be angled, putting one edge considerably closer to the camera than the opposite edge.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

So i tested this idea of mine and it didn't pan out. My mirror is clearly in focus, but my backyard dwarves and pretty much everything else are out of focus that is reflected back to me. I don't understand? Its a flat surface with no depth of field.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I don't understand? Its a flat surface with no depth of field.


It's a mirror, not a portal to another dimension.

It is behaving normally.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

The image is not ON the surface of the mirror.  It's not a print.  It's just a highly reflective surface that has the optical property of altering the path of light waves.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

Do the same thing, but without the mirror.  (I'm just making these numbers up, but you get the point) - say the mirror is 10 feet in front of you, and the dwarves are 20 feet behind you.  Camera is aimed at the mirror.

(I am also assuming that the lens you're using has a distance scale on it) - Focus on the mirror.  The surface of the mirror is in focus, but the dwarves are not, because they are another 30 feet away.  Now focus on the dwarves - the scale on the lens should be showing that's it's focused at 30 feet.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

That checks out. But i'm glad i asked this question, because now i've  learned how to override my maximum close focus. Something good did come  out of this after all.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 29, 2013)

This is not obvious, hence the need to experiment.

Now think about how a ray of light to be focused actually behaves. It actually DOES behave a bit like a window to another dimension, a mirror world that is a mirror image of our own, but with the same distances and so on involved.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

(Drawing not to scale.)


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> That checks out. But i'm glad i asked this question, *because now i've  learned how to override my maximum close focus*. Something good did come  out of this after all.



You've learned nothing.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

hamlet said:


> .......because now i've  learned how to override my maximum close focus........



Huh?


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > That checks out. But i'm glad i asked this question, *because now i've  learned how to override my maximum close focus*. Something good did come  out of this after all.
> ...


That might be a little bit harsh.    I'm pretty sure I know what he means, but he might not have expressed it in the best way.

Using a mirror, you can make an object that is physically close to you optically far from you.  You are not really changing any of the distances though (since the light path is what we were measuring all along), just modifying the path it takes.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 29, 2013)

Josh66 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



And that minimum focusing distance will never change, so how does the mirror help?


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


Well, it doesn't change the minimum focusing distance, if that's what you mean.  That is a 'feature' of the lens and cannot be changed.  What the mirror does is modify the camera-to-subject distance.  If you are holding the camera, aiming at yourself in a mirror that is 5 feet away, the "subject" is 10 feet away.

You're not focusing on the surface of the mirror, but your reflection in it.

edit
Lets say that the minimum focusing distance of your lens is 2 feet.  The mirror is 1.5 feet away.  Too close to focus.  But the "subject" (you) is 3 feet away (the distance to the mirror and back) - within focusing range of the lens.


...Don't make me post another crappy drawing, lol.  If I have to do another one, it will be with pen and paper and get scanned.    I can't draw for **** with a mouse.






You'll figure it out in a matter of seconds, but this is the general idea:


----------



## pgriz (Dec 29, 2013)

Say Hamlet, while we're on the subject of mirrors - if a mirror reverses right and left, why doesn't it reverse top and bottom?


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

The main part of that question is *IF*.  
(Left and right are not reversed.)


----------



## pgriz (Dec 29, 2013)

So, when you stand face to face with a person, their right side is on your left.  When you stand with the mirror in front of you, your left is now on the mirror image right.  How come?


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2013)

It's reversed front-to-back, not left -to-right.

You might have different mirrors than me , but when I move my right arm, the arm on the right side moves in the mirror.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 29, 2013)

Josh!  Dang it, man!  Stop clarifying the murk!  This was for Hamlet!  :mrgreen:


----------



## hamlet (Dec 29, 2013)

I'm pleading the fifth or section 7.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 30, 2013)

I wanna know what Marty saw in the mirror of the Delorean when he got to 88 mph.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 30, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So i tested this idea of mine and it didn't pan out.



OH WOW PLOT TWIST GUYS!


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 30, 2013)

Josh66 said:


> It's a mirror, not a portal to another dimension.



Great..now you tell me.  Would explain why I keep waking up in the emergency room instead of Narnia.  Sheesh.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 30, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a mirror, not a portal to another dimension.
> ...



Silly.  I think it's a wardrobe you have to go through.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 30, 2013)

pgriz said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Josh66 said:
> ...



I own like 4 shirts and one coat.  Where on earth am I going to get a wardrobe?  Lol


----------



## pgriz (Dec 30, 2013)

And that's why you're not visiting Narnia.  But don't despair - not every closet is a gateway to deeper meaning.  On the other hand, have you ever priced these things at an antique place?  You'd think they were lined with gold bricks for the amount of money that many of them go for.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 30, 2013)

Hamlet....instead of all these what ifs......just go out and shoot. It is the only sure way to really lay all your inquiries to rest. Once you have tested, and retested your thought processes with no success, then come to the forum for clues. How bout' it?


----------



## hamlet (Dec 30, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Hamlet....instead of all these what ifs......just go out and shoot. It is the only sure way to really lay all your inquiries to rest. Once you have tested, and retested your thought processes with no success, then come to the forum for clues. How bout' it?



If i did then i wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place. I like discovering things together, its a lot more fun.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 30, 2013)

hamlet said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Hamlet....instead of all these what ifs......just go out and shoot. It is the only sure way to really lay all your inquiries to rest. Once you have tested, and retested your thought processes with no success, then come to the forum for clues. How bout' it?
> ...


Oh, like group hugs?


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 30, 2013)

hamlet said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Hamlet....instead of all these what ifs......just go out and shoot. It is the only sure way to really lay all your inquiries to rest. Once you have tested, and retested your thought processes with no success, then come to the forum for clues. How bout' it?
> ...



I think I hear some TPF brain cells frying there


----------



## hamlet (Dec 30, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



Yes. I am Tom Hanks and you are all Wilson's. We're stuck on this island together


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 30, 2013)

hamlet said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



Sounds more like Gilligan's Island ...


----------



## Derrel (Dec 30, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It won't work for reasons described, but good luck with that.
> 
> This is one of those things you need to try to see what's going on, so, you should try it.



Amolitor, Andrew, dude! Please, stop suggesting actual experiments, or field work, or real-world testing! If such behavior becomes normal behavior, this forum's very existence will be threatened! Please, ease up on all the wise advice and stuff, mmmkay? And you, Kathy Thorson, aka Kay-Thor, and all your, "...instead of all these what ifs......just go out and shoot. It is the only sure way to really lay all your inquiries to rest." Come on people--we NEED more fodder for threads! Hush you two, hush!  ;-)


----------



## kathyt (Dec 30, 2013)

Derrel said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > It won't work for reasons described, but good luck with that.
> ...


Alright. Alright. We are losing the entertainment factor around here.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 30, 2013)

Derrel said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > It won't work for reasons described, but good luck with that.
> ...



WILSON!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Dec 30, 2013)

I looked back to the beginning to see why you want to shoot at 1.4... If you want to do a group shot in your back yard late in the day - have people come earlier! before it gets too dark. Or do an indoor photo. 

As you're losing light outdoors you can use a larger aperture and slower shutter speed up to a point, but you'd need to keep an aperture that will have everyone in focus and a shutter speed that's not too slow to avoid blur. And if you keep raising the ISO you're of course adding more and more noise to a photo... you get to the point that you're pushing or exceeding the limits of what a camera can do - because a camera is recording _light_.

I'm not sure how shooting a reflection in a mirror would be of any help if it's late day and you're losing light; this might be an interesting experiment but I don't think it's going to help you figure out how to do a group shot in your back yard when it's getting dark.

Sparky I think I have one of those! I have a few Spiratone and other odds and ends in my stash that I've picked up at a camera swap etc. but haven't necessarily used. Guess I'd have to go do some spying...


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 30, 2013)

if he positions the mirror correctly, maybe he can reflect the sunlight to his back yard.  

problem solved




the real question is, if you use a security mirror (see through).  and shoot from behind the mirror and focus on the subjects, do they actually exist and is the mirror fooling you ?


----------



## hamlet (Dec 30, 2013)

They already do that sort of thing in the far northern part of the hemisphere.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 30, 2013)

hamlet said:


> They already do that sort of thing in the far northern part of the hemisphere.



Norwegian town uses giant mirrors to combat the winter darkness


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 30, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > They already do that sort of thing in the far northern part of the hemisphere.
> ...



Oh sure - but apparently if you want a trip to Narnia you still have to buy a wardrobe.  Rotten purists.. lol


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 30, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



You don't need a wardrobe, just one of those free TPF T-shirts or Robes.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 30, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



Speaking of the free TPF robes....where's my damned free robe order, Robbins.Photo? I payed $14 for 3-day air shipping, and my danged robe's still not here yet! And it's been like a WEEK! Man...your order fulfilment SUCKS!


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 30, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



Where do you think we get those from - we've been sniping them from the Holiday Inn Express Narnia.  Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 30, 2013)

Derrel said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



Oh sorry, slight miscommunication.  The $14 you paid was for order enlightenment, not order fulfillment.  We would like to take this opportunity to enlighten you on the fact that your order is not going to be fulfilled.  See, win win.  Synergy.  Problem solved.  NEXT!

Lol


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 30, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


Ooh, I thought you shipped those Fedex or UPS .. thus it has to wait until after the Holidays.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 30, 2013)

hamlet said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



I actually thought of that but with us as Tom Hanks.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 2, 2014)

I have read this thread as any other from Hamlet: like a novel. And happy-ended as expected: OT


----------

