 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 2005Real feelings about fake images
For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the past 15 years. The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and cropping. It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?". My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made up" or is "not real". I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an artifical scene on a computer. Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own good? Terry >For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and >b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Terry In the end, no photo is "real" due to optics and film characteristics. That is to say, depth of field, angle of view, selective focus, and etc. for the optics. Light sensitivity, grain, sharpness and resolution for film. Burning and dodging change the way a photo is perceived. They can change the point of interest or focus of a picture. These techniques allow you to have your vision and create the reality you see which is not, however, always what was in front of the lens. Don't be offended if people think your photos have been photoshopped. Just smile and suggest that you hope that technology catches up to the quality of a good, handmade photograph. Ehud still-light.com | >For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and | >b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] | etc. for the optics. Light sensitivity, grain, sharpness and | resolution for film. That is not the reality it is about, I'd say. Roland Barthes (France, philosopher) wrote a very nice book on photography (1980?, befor digital got into the hands of the common man) where he stated that photography stands or falls with this criterium: "It was there". Hence digital manipulation or image creation or whatever it's called is _not_ photography (although it can be art in the hands of an artist). I share Terry's feelings, but I keep my head up, thinking "what do they know?" If you can't appreciate it, well so be it. Others will. | Burning and dodging change the way a photo is perceived. They can | change the point of interest or focus of a picture. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | Ehud | still-light.com >"Ehud Yaniv" <eyaniv@telus.n.e.t.> schreef in bericht >| In the end, no photo is "real" due to optics and film characteristics. >| That is to say, depth of field, angle of view, selective focus, and >| etc. for the optics. Light sensitivity, grain, sharpness and >| resolution for film. >That is not the reality it is about, I'd say. >Roland Barthes (France, philosopher) wrote a very nice book on photography >(1980?, befor digital got into the hands of the common man) where he stated >that photography stands or falls with this criterium: "It was there". Hence >digital manipulation or image creation or whatever it's called is _not_ >photography (although it can be art in the hands of an artist). Interesting. There's something to that distinction. No one would claim that the producers of _Jurassic_Park_ photographed a dinosaur. They created an image designed to look like a photograph of a dinosaur. This criterion actually crosses the digital/silver line. If I take an image of me on the Golden Gate Bridge with a silver-based camera or a silicon-based camera, then both are photographs of me. Then, suppose I get a photograph of the Golden Gate Bridge and add an image of Charles Darwin to it, whether by darkroom alchemy or digital algorithms. I could try to sell it as a 'trick' photograph or a special effect, but would seem wrong to sell it as a "photograph of Darwin on the Golden Gate Bridge"--since *he was not there*. To take a sillier example, NASA has an 'art train' where they go around and show off space exploration art they commissioned over the last few decades, and they have a setup that can splice a picture of you into a lunar scene. Everyone says, "wow, it looks like we're on the moon", or something similar. But it's unnatural to say that they produced a photograph of "us on the moon". So that criterion certainly captures something of how the word and concept of photography are used. Digital makes it easier to create images that look like photographs of things that weren't there. In essence, it makes certain special effects easier. > If I take > an image of me on the Golden Gate Bridge with a silver-based camera > or a silicon-based camera, then both are photographs of me. Not according to some. > but would seem wrong to sell it as a "photograph of > Darwin on the Golden Gate Bridge"--since *he was not there*. Why? Since its obviously a fake representation of time. Unless someone is naive enough not to know him and his circumstances I doubt anyone would buy the image. That is unless they had the desire to have such an image for some illustrative point. > To take a sillier example, NASA has an 'art train' where they go > around and show off space exploration art they commissioned over the > last few decades, and they have a setup that can splice a picture of > you into a lunar scene. Everyone says, "wow, it looks like we're on > the moon", or something similar. But it's unnatural to say that they > produced a photograph of "us on the moon". There was a movie about the fake moon landing, some people believe that is the truth,...just like Roswell. > So that criterion certainly captures something of how the word > and concept of photography are used. > Digital makes it easier to create images that look like photographs of > things that weren't there. In essence, it makes certain special > effects easier. Wrong thought process, the photographer,....or imagist does it not the magic box that captures the "seen-scene" stuff. If you set up a film camera to document the happenings of a place and a digital camera to do so, you still have more or less exciting images.  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > That is not the reality it is about, I'd say. > Roland Barthes (France, philosopher) wrote a very nice book on photography > (1980?, befor digital got into the hands of the common man) where he > stated > that photography stands or falls with this criterium: "It was there". True! And that should be the very end of this thread. Of course, the fundamentally argumentative type will dive into their own foolish vanity to extend the thread until is a ghost of fibre. > For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and > b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my > work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?". I was astonished the first time a sophisticated person published one of my photos calling it a "Merged, maniuplated print." It was a straight, conventional print. > My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the > time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made > up" or is "not real". Consider it a sign of the times and be encouraged rather than discouraged. When interests drift into what's genuine and what is not, you will have evidence for the former. > For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and > b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Terry No! I feel just the opposite. I am inspired to produce even better traditional prints especially as my last few prints were sold to individual collectors searching for non-electronic photographs. Truly, dr bob. I'll agree with this (bottom) poster. I have spent the last 30 years of my life working with information systems, and quite a few with digital image manipulation techniques - usually "making art" or wallpaper for websites, not manipulating images. I really dislike working with images in a digital darkroom. Not that it's "immoral" or "not real art" or anything, I just don't like those tools anymore than I like to cook with a blowtorch. I love the challenges and opportunities posed by the limitations of a chemical developing process, and as long as there is B&W film, I'll do the chemical darkroom. I think the rub is that non-photographers don't seem to appreciate the work that goes into making a good straight print, and tend to view the artist's talent exclusively as a function of the complexity of the image. The more complex and manipulated, the better the artist. I wonder how they would feel about Ansel Adams who labored mightily over his "straight" landscapes. While to the casual eye they may appear essentially unmanipulated, his abilities to eventually find his way to the print he intended and his ability to frame the image at the right moment make him one of the truly great artists. But I wonder if he will still be appreciated when we are a few generations removed from the film camera? The ease of digital imaging does not appeal to me, and frankly that's all that should matter. I tend to print full frame 35mm, 4x5, and panoramics on the theory that I should include all (and only) the necessary information in the frame when I trip the shutter. I work at filtration and exposure to capture the image I have in mind. I manipulate the print to get to that image too. For me photography is about challenging myself. If I did it for money, I'd have to go digital to compete. But I can waste countless sheets of paper, rolls of film, and hours of labor, ultimately producing 1 good print just because I have learned something from the experience and just because I know that those who have spent time in a darkroom will appreciate the effort as much as I appreciate their efforts. I have a professional (maybe ex-professional now) photogapher friend who will no longer look at B&W photo magazines because (in his words) "all the worthy pictures have already been taken." To carry this bizarre notion into the digital world, we should no bother to take any pictures because if it hasn't been shot yet, (or we missed an historic picture opportunity), we could just fabricate what we imagine it was like digitally. We "filmers" have the satisfaction of knowing we have the skill and the luck to be in the right place at the right time to capture in an image a tiny slice of reality rather than (potentially) fabricate it out of thin air. That makes me want to work harder at my craft. I do label all my prints with the camera, film, and paper to be sure that the viewer has the ability to understand that this print resulted from a chemical rather than digital process. >> For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and >> b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Truly, dr bob. > [...] > I have a professional (maybe ex-professional now) photogapher friend who > will no longer look at B&W photo magazines because (in his words) "all the > worthy pictures have already been taken." The same is said of poetry. From a some poets, publishers and academics in the field I hear "there are so many good poets today compared to..." and "all the poetic words that can be written have been", but the same people admits that poetry continues to speak to it's mature self and to find new audiences. I guess we need a Digital Poet Shop to truly rile them up. > To carry this bizarre notion into the digital world, we should no bother > to take any pictures because if it hasn't been shot yet, (or we missed an > historic picture opportunity), we could just fabricate what we imagine it > was like digitally. [...] Bizarre is correct. Some of the most important photography is the humble work of documentarians who are not trying to make an 'individual statement' to draw attention to themselves, but to make pictures which regard The Thing Itself. >> [...] >> I have a professional (maybe ex-professional now) photogapher friend who >> will no longer look at B&W photo magazines because (in his words) "all the >> worthy pictures have already been taken." >The same is said of poetry. From a some poets, publishers and academics in >the field I hear "there are so many good poets today compared to..." and >"all the poetic words that can be written have been", but the same people >admits that poetry continues to speak to it's mature self and to find new >audiences. I guess we need a Digital Poet Shop to truly rile them up. In some ways it's a function of what people are willing to consider "different" or "similar". And the same kind of objection comes up in practically any discussion of any art; you can find similar laments in the world of say science fiction, or mystery stories, or rock music criticism. Nobody wants to write certain stories, say, because a similar theme was already addressed by someone else, and people don't want it said that they ripped off the idea, or be compared to their predecessor, etc. So thousands of great stories are never written, and that's too bad. Now I've taken plenty of more or less spontaneous nature shots in local parks (not that I've achieved real skill yet--or more accurately I have not made a photograph that I am satisfied with yet). And you could go through books of nature photography and find something more or less similar to each photograph I've taken. Not identical of course, but similar: there are photographs waiting to be taken, and anyone else who has come upon a similar place with a camera will take a similar picture. The pictures I've taken are not copies of anything, but they are also not original. If I craved originality I'd need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of what has been done, and time and determination to do something otherwise. And there'd be nothing wrong with that, and if I were a professional artist that would be my duty (and there would be nothing wrong with it!). On the other hand, I believe excessive obsession with finding similarities of various sorts and criticizing new photographs on such grounds is somewhat decadent. Doing something completely new is only one of the wonderful things to attempt. Could anything possibly be less original than taking a straight photograph of the Golden Gate bridge off the Marin Headlands? But if you're some place like that, how can you not take such a photograph, at least once? Doesn't every new quality shot of it reveal at least something about it, as the light, seasons, and bay change? So, I can't speak for the market for professional artists, and for professional photographers. I *do* know "all the good photographs" have certainly not been taken. As an amateur I have the freedom to photograph anything I like, since no claim of wild novelty, or even moderate novelty at all, is at stake. There is nothing at all at stake, except whether I like the photograph. I feel that if I adhere to some conventions of quality and work hard to improve, and to learn to do an excellent job, I am participating constructively in photography. Precisely because what I do is not socially or monetarily important, I can have the enjoyment of photographing anything. I can even try to photograph the Half Dome in Yosemite, in black and white no less, to see what I can see there. I can't imagine the burden of trying to do that as a professional, knowing who you would be compared to. Though even that has been done, too. So we can discuss how different a photo has to be from other photos someone can remember before it is considered 'original'. There are interesting issues of perception and cognitive psychology involved. And we could discuss the issues professionals have in selling photos of things others have photographed. But I can't imagine that "all the great photos" have been taken--not until every spot has been photographed round the clock under all conditions at all depths of field, at all zooms, night and day, rain or shine (or rain and shine), time exposures and high-speed exposures, infrared and ultraviolet, etc. etc. I once had to write ten pages describing a candle flame (an old-fashioned science lab thing), and that convinced me that there's a *lot* to see if you look, and therefore a *lot* to photograph if you work. It may take the rest of my life, or never, before I can make others see it too (i.e., be a good photographer). Perhaps there is no need for us beginners, or anyone else, to be discouraged by such cynicism. my strictly amateur 2 cents. >Could anything possibly be less original than taking a straight photograph of >the Golden Gate bridge off the Marin Headlands? But if you're some place like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >been taken. As an amateur I have the freedom to photograph anything I like, >since no claim of wild novelty, or even moderate novelty at all, is at stake. I think the main thing is to consider the target audience. An amateur may take pictures just because he likes the process. An artist may create works just to express an idea. As long as you take pictures to please yourself there is no reason to take work of other people into account. When you show pictures to other people, you have to take their interests into account. A tourist who takes the 'standard picture' may show it to relatives and friends who have never seen pictures of that place before. Even a local art market may be small enough that potential buyers have not seen similar works by other people. At a global scale it may be harder to come up with something new. But in many cases, there are so many degrees of freedom in photography, that if you really have something to say, you will end up with a different picture. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency I think that setting out to imitate an existing artist's work because it might appeal to a specific audience is not "art" per se. I have seen almost exact recent reproductions of some of Ansel Adams' most popular (and spectacular) landscapes. For me the question is "why were they done?" Two cases: If they were taken by a photographer who was completely ignorant of AA's work and who simply came to a perfect vantage point on a trail to take a dramatic landscape that moved him/her, then I think that artist was moved by a truly artistic creative spirit. However, if that same person in the same place knew of AA's specific photo and tried to duplicate it because he/she wanted something saleable for the craft fair, then I think that is not creative nor is it art. Paradoxically, both took the exact same picture, so how are they different? The difference (to me) is in the motivation. If you the artist are moved to create, that is "art" in its purest form. If you need a commodity to sell, so you imitate art, that is something else. I guess that is why some few artists are commercially successful - they are not creating with a audience in mind. Hopefully someone of similar tastes will like their art, but that's not the moving force behind creating it. It could be real crap to the rest of us - "art" is truly in the mind of the creator. So when my photographer friend refuses to look at magazines because "all the good pictures are already taken", in part he is doing it because he will find pictures he wants to take. If he sees them in a magazine before he takes them himself, and consciously or unconsciously imitates them, he will not be an artist (but he might be a commercial success). <SNIP> > I think the main thing is to consider the target audience. An amateur > may take pictures just because he likes the process. An artist may create [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > if you really have something to say, you will end up with a different > picture. >If you the artist are moved to create, that is "art" in its >purest form. If you need a commodity to sell, so you imitate art, that is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >force behind creating it. It could be real crap to the rest of us - "art" >is truly in the mind of the creator. If you want to make a living, the market is probably more important than whether or not something is art. >So when my photographer friend refuses to look at magazines because "all the >good pictures are already taken", in part he is doing it because he will >find pictures he wants to take. If he sees them in a magazine before he >takes them himself, and consciously or unconsciously imitates them, he will >not be an artist (but he might be a commercial success). That doesn't sound like a smart strategy. The trick is to find things you don't like in other people's pictures and try to take pictures that are in some sense better. Not knowing what other people have done may help initially to think about things. But at some point you learn much more quickly by studying other people's work than by trying to re-discover what they discovered a long time ago. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency ... there is no need for ... beginners, or anyone else, to be discouraged by ... cynicism. apr1205 from Lloyd Erlick, Indeed, this is exactly true. It could probably be argued that all of Ansel Adams' works were essentially the same. Julia Margaret Cameron repeated the same portrait over and over. (No doubt this applies to me, too...). Karsh, Rembranbdt, van Gogh, why bother? But what of it? I make portraits so I can see what someone looks like at a given moment, and I like to continue making portraits of the same people so I can see their development, or deterioration, over time. I'm not the first, and I never said I was, and I never cared to be. The argument could be stated, 'any breath is like the one before, why continue breathing?' Because others have done the same or similar is a ridiculous argument for giving something up. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ It's a very frustrating attitude to have to deal with. People who have to ask if an image has been Photoshopped, to me, don't understand much about photography and aren't worth engaging in conversation about anything photo- related. My answer to the question as to whether one of my images has been PSed is, "Who cares?" If it is indeed the questioner who does care, thank them for their time and walk away. Christopher Swift www.hotchilistudios.com > It's a very frustrating attitude to have to deal with. People who have to > ask if an image has been Photoshopped, to me, don't understand much about > photography and aren't worth engaging in conversation about anything photo- > related. Rofl! Is that an MS or Ph.D in condescension you have there? Wayne > It's a very frustrating attitude to have to deal with. People who have to > ask if an image has been Photoshopped, to me, don't understand much about > photography and aren't worth engaging in conversation about anything photo- > related. Anyone is worth engaging in conversation - consider it our mission to educate them. ;) > My answer to the question as to whether one of my images has been PSed is, > "Who cares?" If it is indeed the questioner who does care, thank them for > their time and walk away. My response is always, "How does it make you feel?" SignatureMark Lauter Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > My response is always, "How does it make you feel?" Seems to me the phenomenon under discussion could be better titled: "Fake feelings about real images?" SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ Excellent response! Agree wholeheartedly. >> My response is always, "How does it make you feel?" > > Seems to me the phenomenon under discussion could be better > titled: > > "Fake feelings about real images?" >My response is always, "How does it make you feel?" "Does it make you feel" might be more appropriate. JD - www.puresilver.org > >My response is always, "How does it make you feel?" > > "Does it make you feel" might be more appropriate. That's a great point and it's why the original post got me thinking. Last night I was able to sorta put it into words and wrote this: http://marklauter.com/journal/?p=24 SignatureMark Lauter Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and > b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the > past 15 years. > > The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and > cropping. That is still manipulation. Once you do that (and we all probably do) you lose some of the high ground on claiming reality. > It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my > work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?". > > My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the > time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made > up" or is "not real". See above > I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has > given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out > great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an > artifical scene on a computer. I know the feeling, but you have to fight it or the bastards will win. I wish I had a solution to keep the inspiration going, because I feel much the same way sometimes. > Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own > good? > > Terry Yes I feel much the same way, but not for the exact same reason. Photography almost always involves manipulation of some degree, and I think arguments to the contrary will fail every time. The way I look at it the important difference is not one of reality versus fake its one of labor and manual craftsmanship versus computer technowizardry. They are entirely different skill sets (I did not say one was better), and one need not do any labor or exhibit any manual craftsmanship to make Photoshop images. That is what you are proud of (or should be), I think, and is a valid and defensible reason for objecting to the implication that your work is produced otherwise. > My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the > time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made > up" or is "not real". Ansel Adams refers to photography as an artistic "departure from reality". Things for you to consider: 1. Who cares what the averaged unwashed viewer thinks? 2. Art is art. Choose your medium. Some people are expressing themselves with heavily manipulated images in PS, some are expressing themselves with careful shutter time consideration and careful darkroom work. Each has its place. > I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has > given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out > great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an > artifical scene on a computer. It has always been possible to create an artificial scene - computer or no. Photography isn't painting and neither is it digital image manipulation or ray tracing. I now prefer to focus on the mood created by my artwork, not the method by which it was created. I have a friend who performs wonders with PovRay. He spends hours creating amazing artificial scenes, however these images have no asthetic appeal to me - not because of his tool, but because of how he sees the world. > Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own > good? Probably both. :) There was a short time last year when I went through something similar. I had to decide to shoot for me, not for other people. It helped. SignatureMark Lauter Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > Things for you to consider: > > 1. Who cares what the averaged unwashed viewer thinks? Indeed. It is the 'washed' we have to contend with - those who sit behind a computer monitor or TV all day devloping their impressionistic reference to reality. > 2. Art is art. Choose your medium. Some people are expressing themselves > with heavily manipulated images in PS, some are expressing themselves with > careful shutter time consideration and careful darkroom work. Each has > its > place. Yes. There are those who Are There to make the pictuere, and those who simulate the same, and the 'tweeners who do both. So be it. Choose your endeavor and be there yourself. There is no way to encourage the bench-racers, scope-dopes, those with no real lives. The later two are not photographers. > The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and > cropping. > > It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my > work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?". BTW, Salvador Dali painted his own impressions over top other people's prints. He didn't use a computer, but he essentially did the same thing that is commonly referred to as photoshopping today. I don't think that makes his artistic vision any less amazing. SignatureMark Lauter Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com >For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and >b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the >past 15 years. >The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and >cropping. >It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my >work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?". >My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the >time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made >up" or is "not real". >I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has >given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out >great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an >artifical scene on a computer. >Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own >good? Take their question as a badge of pride..._you_ do not need to simulate what you can photograph. Terry Davis <sportsguy_2005@webtv.net> wrote: >... am I just too sensitive for my own good? apr1205 from Lloyd Erlick, I hope so! Most of us probably are, and I hope we don't lose it! regards, -le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.