 |
 | 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 / May 2008Enlarger lens options.
I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & white printing over the Componon -S I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves but the Componon - S curves seem flatter than the HM ones. The Rodenstock charts seem to be a lot easier to understand, well they are marketed as such anyway. Would the lens folk of this community consider the APO-Rodagon - N enlarging lenses to be on a par with the HM series or the Componon - S series? And does it matter. What about bigger magnifications, say 12X. Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur series, perform equally to the eye. > I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. > The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur series, > perform equally to the eye. Isn't the APO Rodagon-N intended for copy work as a taking lens?  SignatureCharles Hohenstein (to reply, remove Gene Robinson) "The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers, treehuggers, social climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies, and chronic petition signers that makes up the current Episcopal Church . . ." -‹Thomas Lipscomb > I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. > The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur series, > perform equally to the eye. As I recall, the HM lenses permit a bit more magnification with a given set-up because they have a somewhat wider field. This permits using a shorter focal length lens and thus more enlargement. If you need that, it would seem to be of interest. You may be right, that there is something given up getting the wider field. Even so, extracting the last bit of performance from whatever lens is also an issue. You also need pretty good technique to see the advantage of a lens that is claimed to be better than the Componon-S (or a Rodagon). In particular, you need to eliminate vibration, eliminate any misalignment, focus accurately and avoid any curl or pop in the negative (for big negatives, this may mean a glass carrier). On May 7, 5:19 pm, "otzi" <x...@xxx.xxx.au> wrote: > I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. > The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > series, > perform equally to the eye. As I recall, the HM lenses permit a bit more magnification with a given set-up because they have a somewhat wider field. This permits using a shorter focal length lens and thus more enlargement. If you need that, it would seem to be of interest. You may be right, that there is something given up getting the wider field. Even so, extracting the last bit of performance from whatever lens is also an issue. You also need pretty good technique to see the advantage of a lens that is claimed to be better than the Componon-S (or a Rodagon). In particular, you need to eliminate vibration, eliminate any misalignment, focus accurately and avoid any curl or pop in the negative (for big negatives, this may mean a glass carrier). I just wondered if the HM was more for colour work, rather than B&W. ... > I just wondered if the HM was more for colour work, rather than B&W.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Sometimes Bob Salomon posts on this board and he would have more details at his fingertips. My opinion is that unless you need the extra coverage the obvious choice is whichever is cheaper. It wll be hard to see a difference in image quality between the lenses using either B&W or color. The Componon-S, the Rodagon, the Nikon and the HM Componon are excellent lenses (usually - individual variation or especially damage in a used lens is possible). On May 7, 7:32 pm, "otzi" <x...@xxx.xxx.au> wrote: ... > I just wondered if the HM was more for colour work, rather > than B&W.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Sometimes Bob Salomon posts on this board and he would have more details at his fingertips. My opinion is that unless you need the extra coverage the obvious choice is whichever is cheaper. It wll be hard to see a difference in image quality between the lenses using either B&W or color. The Componon-S, the Rodagon, the Nikon and the HM Componon are excellent lenses (usually - individual variation or especially damage in a used lens is possible). One problem with "wide angle" enlarging lenses is light fall off. Fall off is due to geometric properties and increases with the image angle. It can be reduced to some degree in some types of wide angle lenses but I don't think this principal is used for enlarging lenses. As an example I use a 135mm lens for enlarging 4x5 negatives and must burn the corners. Standard for this format is 150mm but 180mm would be better for corner to corner uniformity, however, it would require a very long throw (tall column). I concur that unless you need a wide angle lens because of lack of projection space its better to use a longer focal length. As far as the MTF charts from the various manufacturers go they really don't tell you much. Rodenstock's chromatic correction curve shows that their "apo" lenses are not apochromatic but acromatic and AFAIK so are Schneider's. This really makes no practical difference because both lines are very well corrected. For the most part the older Schneider Componon-S is excellent and there is not a lot to be gained by using newer and much more expensive lenses although their performance is marginally better. BTW, one of the reasons for the redesign of both enlarging and camera lenses in the last couple of decades is the lack of certain kinds of optical glass due to some components being considered environmental hazards. For instance arsenic was a common ingredient in glass to clarify it and must not be used now. Since some of the glass constants have changed the designs have had to be changed. Not a big deal with computer assisted design but it does require making some changes. The original Tessar could not be built now because the glass types it calls for are no longer available. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty > good. The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur > series, perform equally to the eye. Perhaps, this might help solve your quandary or, at least, be enlightening. Years ago, a friend of mine, a Rochester Institute of Technology graduate in the photo processing and laboratory fields, owned a pro lab, a dream of his. He had all manner of enlarging lenses of all makes and models-- Componons, Comparons, Rodagons, and some I'd never heard of. One day, the Rodagon rep came in and gave him a couple Apo-Rodagons to try out. They were a new design. To make a long story short: He ended up replacing EVERY enlarger lens in the lab with Apo-Rodagons for both color and b&w. He said that you could actually see the improved image quality with the naked eye even in an 8x10 print, and they did prints up to 8x10 feet. But to truly benefit from the superiority and flatness of field of the lenses, you had to use glass carriers to hold the film perfectly flat, and all the stages of your enlarger had to be in perfect alignment and parallel to the vacuum printing easel. Stef I've accumulated a large number of good lenses over some time and also recently got about 20 more in a purchase of a pro lab /business odd lot. I decided to test the most desirable ones for my own duty and took time with a Versalign rig to get all planes in proper alignment for a run through. The 40HM, 45HM and Rodagon APO 50 were judged about equal and all were only slightly ahead of the standard Rodagons and Componon-S but only discernible at higher magnifications. The single Nikkor 50 2.8 was slightly less sharp than the others mentioned but this could easily be a single sample variation as these enjoy a good reputation. An odd Fujinon 49.9 EFS did very well and was nipping at the APO heels and I believe anyone would be happy with it. A 63mm Nikkor was also in this same class as was a 40WA Rodagon. The Rodagon 80 APO and Componon HM 90 seemed equal to each other and in practice these show a very slight advantage for the Rodagon as there is something about how it renders mid tone/skin tones that is especially nice, at least with my materials and practices. Again, the standard Rodagons and Comp-S did well against these until more extreme enlargement sizes. A Nikkor 80 showed poorly but it had a bit of dust internally and may not have been a good sample. A single Componon S 100 did nicely and did slightly better than a pair of 105 Nikkors. It was fun to have all of these nice chunks of glass all in one place for some comparisons. I learned that I could likely be happy with most any of them but use the APOs in general use for little more reason than the psychology of having the best glass on the machine. I would describe myself as "fussy" regarding optics and I'll admit that this entire exercise had me conclude that it is truly hair-splitting to discern any real world difference in any of these good quality choices. Perhaps if I worked in color, I would find characteristics that would favor one over another. In black and white, my best tools for quality in darkroom projection has turned out to be my alignment tool and grain focuser! Any of the differences I've highlighted were very, very slight and had me pondering long and hard to tell any difference. >I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. >The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & >white printing >over the Componon -S >I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves but the Componon - S curves >seem flatter than the HM ones. Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com Thanks for all the input folks. I was curious but unconvinced. Just wondered why so much was invested for so little gain. But these responses were very encouraging. Thanks. > I've accumulated a large number of good lenses over some time and also > recently got about 20 more in a purchase of a pro lab /business odd [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Craig Schroeder > craig nospam craigschroeder com > Just wondered why so much was invested for so little gain. The law of diminishing returns. When something is close to perfection the cost of even a miniscule gain becomes astronomical. There is a universal "80/20 rule": you can get 80% of the performance for 20% of the cost. The most cost-effective approach to improving photography is to buy a used Tessar-formula enlarging lens and spend the savings on something worthwhile that will make a noticeable and unequivocal improvement: a trip to someplace photogenic, a workshop, a really good timer ... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> Just wondered why so much was invested for so little gain. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and unequivocal improvement: a trip to someplace photogenic, > a workshop, a really good timer ... True. Many fuzzy images are caused by tripod insufficiency syndrome. Of course, fuzzy concepts in the mind of the photographer can also be a problem. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 15:25:01 up 1 day, 7:57, 3 users, load average: 4.29, 4.38, 4.35 > The law of diminishing returns. When something is close to > perfection the cost of even a miniscule gain becomes > astronomical. Sometimes astronauts become miniscule. It evens out. >spend the >savings on something worthwhile that will make a noticeable >and unequivocal improvement: a trip to someplace photogenic, >a workshop, a really good timer ... I got a good timer but I'm not having a good time. > Thanks for all the input folks. I was curious but > unconvinced. Just wondered why so much was invested for so > little gain. But these responses were very encouraging. > Thanks. Lots of snipping here. There are a number of reasons for the newer lenses. One is simply that lenses have a very long lifetime so buying one often takes the buyer out of the market for some time unless a "better" replacement can be offered. Another is that computer aided design makes it easier to make new designs and evaluate them. Before computers the lens design procedure could progress only so far through mathematical analysis at which point a sample lens had to built and evaluated on the optical bench. The computer allows very complex analysis to be made quickly so that new designs can be brought much closer to optimum before one is made. Often the difference between a computer optimized lens and one designed by the older methods is slight. I also mentioned in an earlier response to this thread that the optical glass types available had changed necessitating redesign of many existing lenses. Since many of these were designed before computer optimization became generally available the redisign for new glass types also resulted in either improvement in the original design or a completely new design. Nearly all modern enlarging lenses are based on a generic type known as a Plasmat as are many large format camera lenses. These have several inherent advantages such as low astigmatism which is important for flat field applications such as enlarging. They are also have relatively wide coverage angles. Modern multi-coating also helps performance by increasing the image contrast. Keep in mind that any lens with fixed position elements can be optimized for only one object to image distance. The performance at other distances can be good but will not be quite up to the optimum distance. Most camera lenses are optimized for approximately infinity but enlarger lenses are optimized for whatever distance corresponds to the magnification the manufacturer thinks it will be used for mostly. Some manufacturers, Rodenstock and Schneieder particularly, specify the magnification range for their lenses. While the lens can give satisfactory performance outside of this range special range lenses will do better. Both manuacturers offer lenses for relatively large magnification, i.e., photomurals, as well as for more usual size prints. Since the print size does not vary so much with differences in format (one makes 8x10 or 11x14 from all common negative sizes) the optimum magnification will vary with the lens focal length, that is, it will be greater for a lens for 35mm than for a 4x5 lens. A high power grain focuser will often show up differences in lenses that are much harder to see in a print but may also introduce its own problems, for instance, some grain focusers are not very well achromitized and will show color fringes due to its own optics which are not present in the image from the enlarging lens. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > A high power grain focuser will often show up > differences in lenses that are much harder to see in a print > but may also introduce its own problems, for instance, some > grain focusers are not very well achromitized and will show > color fringes due to its own optics which are not present in > the image from the enlarging lens. I made a comparison between some better enlarging lenses for 24x36mm (Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50, Componon-S 2.8/50, Focotar 4.5/50, Focotar 2.8/40 and Rodagon 4/60) and compared them at about 8x enlargement (20x30cm paper size). Each was perfectly adjusted using a Peak #1, a glass carrier and all enlarger planes were adjusted parallel using a laser tool. All lenses were closed 2 stops from wide open. The result: The only one you could distinguish from the others was the old Focotar 4.5/50. It had a little curvature of field visible at the extreme edges. That's all... no visible difference for the other lenses. You can see the differences between the lenses with the Peak #1. The curvature of field is readily visible for the two Focotars. The two Rodagon and the Componon-S were much better and nearly identical. The Apo-Rodagon was a little better wide open than the others, but all 2.8 lenses were unuseable with this opening (for my view of quality...). Stopped down, all were excellent. Martin >> A high power grain focuser will often show up >> differences in lenses that are much harder to see in a [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Martin That's quite interesting. I suspect the Rodagon and Componon designs are quite similar although I don't have the actual prescriptions. Since its likely all the relatively modern lenses were designed with the aid of computers I suspect the performance should be much alike. I think the Focotar is an older design. One of the characteristics of the generic Plasmat type, which is what the Rodagon and Componon are, is that they can be unusually well corrected for astigmatism. Forgoing an explanation of what exactly that is (different in a camera lens than in opthalmic lenses) it leads to being able to get a very flat field. While both manufacturers claim superiority I suspect its pretty much a draw. Some think the Rodagon is mechanically superior to the Componon. Do your lenses have metal or plastic iris blades? Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > That's quite interesting. I suspect the Rodagon and Componon designs are > quite similar although I don't have the actual prescriptions. Since its [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > think the Rodagon is mechanically superior to the Componon. Do your > lenses have metal or plastic iris blades? When I first got into 4x5" work, in the mid 1970s, I got a Schneider Componon-S f/5.6 to f/45 180mm enlarging lens, # 11 973 xxx. It works fine. Its diaphragm has lots of blades (about 19 of them), enough to make the aperture look round, and they appear to be metal. At least 10 years later, I got a Componon-S f/5.6 to f/45 150mm lens, # 14 588 yyy. It has only 5 blades, so the aperture looks approximately like a pentagon (except the edges are not quite straght. I cannot tell if they are metal or plastic; the 180 blades are shinier than the 150 and darker, reminding me of blackened brass (but I do not know what they are for sure), and the 150 blades are duller, but slightly lighter in color and rougher, reminding me of anodized aluminum (but I very much doubt they would actually be aluminum). Perhaps that is what plastic blades look like. For normal photograph use, is there any benefit to having a round aperture? I know in half-tone work with a sealed half-tone screen, there is a benefit to having a square aperture, but round holes work OK -- you just get a little bit of a different transfer function from the original to the half-tone. Unless you use the lens in the hot sun or something, there might even be a slight benefit to having plastic iris blades: less likely to rust or corrode. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 06:35:01 up 2 days, 23:07, 3 users, load average: 4.19, 4.16, 4.08 >> That's quite interesting. I suspect the Rodagon and Componon designs are >> quite similar although I don't have the actual prescriptions. Since its [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > slight benefit to having plastic iris blades: less likely to rust or > corrode. >> That's quite interesting. I suspect the Rodagon and >> Componon designs are [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > slight benefit to having plastic iris blades: less likely > to rust or corrode. It appears that the shape of the iris affects out of focus areas of the image. This is perhaps part of the effect called bokeh by the Japanese. In any case bright points which are not sharply focused are rendered in the shape of the iris. This may not be as noticable for enlarging where a flat surface is imaged onto another flat surface. In making half-tone plates the iris is imaged by the half tone screen as an array of spots or dots. By using a square aperture the intestices of the dots are at the corners so the variation is smoother. For color work each of the images is photographed using an iris with a lozenge-shaped aperture at a different angle. I can't remember now if this is to prevent moir but I think it is. In any case there is an optimum set of angles for the apertures. These apertures are usually in the form of Waterhouse stops and is the reason process lenses usually have a slot in the side. My barrel mounted Apo-Artars have the slot but the shutter mounted one does not. The barrel mounted Artars also have 20 blade irises and a very nearly perfectly round hole. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > It appears that the shape of the iris affects out of focus areas of the > image. This is perhaps part of the effect called bokeh by the Japanese. > In any case bright points which are not sharply focused are rendered in > the shape of the iris. This may not be as noticable for enlarging where a > flat surface is imaged onto another flat surface. > In making half-tone plates the iris is imaged by the half tone screen as > an array of spots or dots. By using a square aperture the intestices of > the dots are at the corners so the variation is smoother. Right, although I find that a round hole is not too bad. But I do halftone starting with a continuous tone negative (a positive print or other positive flat art is usually used) and make the half-tone on OrthoLith. These dots have soft edges (undesirable) so I contact print them onto another piece of OrthoLith to get a suitable half-tone negative. > For color work each of the images is photographed using an iris with a > lozenge-shaped aperture at a different angle. That might be so, but I never heard that. > I can't remember now if this is to prevent moir[e] but I think it is. When my great grandfather (F. E. Ives) devised the process, he angled the half-tone screen to prevent moire, but AFAIK did not use lozenge shaped diaphragms. > In any case there is an optimum set of angles for the apertures. This is true for the angles of the half-tone screens as well. In fact an amusing thing happened to F.E.Ives. When he first made color half-tones, he naturally angled the screens between the different colors. He did not bother to patent that because it was obvious. Years later someone else patented the idea of angling the screens and sued Ives. Ives had to go to court at considerable expense to prove that the patent was invalid both because it was obvious (kiss of death for patents) and because of over a decade of prior use. > These apertures are usually in the form of Waterhouse stops and is the > reason process lenses usually have a slot in the side. In any case a slot is needed to set the aperture (square or not) to the correct angle. This is all about sealed glass half-tone screens, not the plastic contact screens more recently used. Of course, with a round aperture, none of this makes any difference. > My barrel mounted Apo-Artars have the slot but the shutter mounted one > does not. The barrel mounted Artars also have 20 blade irises and a very > nearly perfectly round hole. The 150 mm Componon-S 5-blade iris does not make a geometric pentagon. What would be straight edges are actually semi-circular convex to the edge of the lens. I.e., at the "corners" of the iris the diameter is larger than in the middle of what would be a straight line. In other words, the corners are farther from the center than would be expected if a true pentagon were used. This clearly because the iris blades are made that way. It would be perfectly easy to make them straight if Schneider had wanted to. I assume this was done for optical reasons and not to make the mechanics cheaper. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 11:35:01 up 3 days, 4:07, 3 users, load average: 4.16, 4.13, 4.08 >> It appears that the shape of the iris affects out of >> focus areas of the [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > this was done for optical reasons and not to make the > mechanics cheaper. I think you may be right that its the screens which are made at an angle rather than the aperture, its been too long since I learned about this stuff and the books are not handy. Soft dot edges have always been a problem. Monckhoven's intensifier was intended to remedy this. It has the peculiar property of being both an intensifier and reducer because the cyanide will dissolve the low density silver before the intensifier works so the net result is to increase the contrast of the edges of the dots. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > I think you may be right that its the screens which are made at an angle > rather than the aperture, its been too long since I learned about this > stuff and the books are not handy. > Soft dot edges have always been a problem. Monckhoven's intensifier was > intended to remedy this. It has the peculiar property of being both an > intensifier and reducer because the cyanide will dissolve the low density > silver before the intensifier works so the net result is to increase the > contrast of the edges of the dots. I know F.E.Ives used special treatment of the negatives, and careful control of their condition for best results. They did not have litho film in those days. They do now (for a while more, at least), so I make contact prints of the soft-dot stuff onto another piece of litho film and that makes hard-dots. Exposure is tricky at first, because if you change the exposure, you change the diameter of the dots. I make some 50% dots (my densitometer will measure % dot area) and make the contact prints 50% also -- or pretty close anyway. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 18:40:01 up 4 days, 11:12, 4 users, load average: 4.31, 4.37, 4.31 > I make some 50% dots (my densitometer will measure % dot area) > and make the contact prints 50% ... Brings back memories ... My firm designed a graphic arts exposure integrator that had exposure adjustment in % dot gain (along with stops, OD (for step-wedge test results), and straight %). Then we designed nuVac for stochastic screening and the hell with dot-gain. All about 20 years ago ... the dénouement of analog pre-press. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> I make some 50% dots (my densitometer will measure % dot area) >> and make the contact prints 50% ... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dot-gain. All about 20 years ago ... the dénouement of analog > pre-press. I just use a Macbeth densitometer TD-901 that has a %dot scale. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 10:25:01 up 5 days, 2:57, 3 users, load average: 4.05, 4.02, 4.03 On 5/10/2008 8:02 AM Richard Knoppow spake thus: > In making half-tone plates the iris is imaged by the > half tone screen as an array of spots or dots. By using a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lozenge-shaped aperture at a different angle. I can't > remember now if this is to prevent moir but I think it is. Yes, the screens are angled to prevent moiré. By the way, the standard screen angles for 4-color (CMYK) printing are: K (black): 45° M (magenta): 75° Y (yellow): 90° C (cyan): 105° So far as I know, these have been in use as long as 4-color halftone printing has been around. SignatureThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill On 5/11/2008 5:09 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus: > By the way, the standard screen angles for 4-color (CMYK) printing are: > > K (black): 45° > M (magenta): 75° > Y (yellow): 90° > C (cyan): 105° Interesting explanation of screen angles can be found at http://www.dtp-aus.com/hlftone.htm (scroll down to "Screen(#) Ruling and Angles"). Interestingly, it's not just a matter of reducing moiré effects; the screen angles are selected to create "rose" patterns which, apparently, are the least bad alternative (there will always be some kind of pattern generated by multiple halftone screens, and this is thought to be the most pleasing one). SignatureThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill |
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
|
©2008 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.