Re: [SI] New mandate needed

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by philo, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. philo

    philo Guest

    On 03/19/2012 05:41 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<>, Alan Browne
    > says...
    >>
    >> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.

    >
    > Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to consolidate
    > all rec.photo.digital subgroups into rec.photo.digital. It might even
    > make sense to consolidate all rec.photo subgroups, since all photography
    > nowadays is digital.




    I would not go so far as to say that *all* photography is digital...
    there are still plenty of people using film...
    however it is certainly a minority.

    Side note: I have just heard that one of the big, local art colleges
    here in town is shutting down all of their dark rooms!

    --
    https://www.createspace.com/3707686
    philo, Mar 20, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > In article <jk9jnq$bai$>, philo says...
    >> I would not go so far as to say that *all* photography is digital...
    >> there are still plenty of people using film...

    >
    > Can you still buy film? If yes, for how long? Kodak is bankrupt.


    Yes. And Fuji is not, Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
    not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 20, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >> Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
    >> not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....

    >
    > I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must
    > be extremely niche, making film for a few afcionados. For the
    > overwhelming majority of people film is dead.


    For the overwhelming majority of people, film is no longer *of any
    interest*. Very different statement. It's fine if you're one of them.

    And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
    ignorant, since they are the other company that split the B&W film
    market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
    years of photography in the 1970s.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 20, 2012
    #3
  4. On 3/20/2012 4:37 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >> Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
    >> not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....

    >
    > I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must
    > be extremely niche, making film for a few afcionados. For the
    > overwhelming majority of people film is dead.
    >
    > Also vacuum tubes were replaced by transistors 50 years ago, but in some
    > areas (for instance TVs) vacuum tubes survived longer but where
    > eventually replaced by something else.


    Some people (not me) believe that sound produced by tube electronics is
    "better" than that from solid state. I think they just like the
    distortions they were accustomed to.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
    James Silverton, Mar 20, 2012
    #4
  5. philo

    philo Guest

    On 03/20/2012 03:37 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >> Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
    >> not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....

    >
    > I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must
    > be extremely niche, making film for a few afcionados. For the
    > overwhelming majority of people film is dead.
    >
    > Also vacuum tubes were replaced by transistors 50 years ago, but in some
    > areas (for instance TVs) vacuum tubes survived longer but where
    > eventually replaced by something else.




    Vacuum tubes are still being used...especially by musicians for their
    guitar amplifiers.

    Don't forget Xray tubes


    Anyway...film will be around for a long time

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2011-06-04-film-camera-digital_n.htm

    --
    https://www.createspace.com/3707686
    philo, Mar 20, 2012
    #5
  6. philo

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-03-20 23:37:52 +0000, philo said:

    > On 03/20/2012 03:37 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article<>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >>> Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
    >>> not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....

    >>
    >> I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must
    >> be extremely niche, making film for a few afcionados. For the
    >> overwhelming majority of people film is dead.
    >>
    >> Also vacuum tubes were replaced by transistors 50 years ago, but in some
    >> areas (for instance TVs) vacuum tubes survived longer but where
    >> eventually replaced by something else.

    >
    > Vacuum tubes are still being used...especially by musicians for their
    > guitar amplifiers.


    Also still used in some radio receivers and transceivers because of
    their immunity to electromagnetic pulses.
    Pete A, Mar 21, 2012
    #6
  7. philo

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-03-20 23:00:24 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
    >> ignorant,

    >
    > Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)
    >
    >> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
    >> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
    >> years of photography in the 1970s.

    >
    > It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
    > and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
    > never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
    > in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.


    I hardly ever used Ilford film until I discovered XP1 during the
    1980's: a black and white film that could be processed in a high-street
    colour lab (C41 process).

    XP1 allowed the photographer to change the ISO rating between shots on
    the same roll. Its latest incarnation, XP2 Super, is still quite
    popular.
    Pete A, Mar 21, 2012
    #7
  8. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
    >> ignorant,

    >
    > Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)


    That's true of a considerable number of people, I must admit. (57)

    >> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
    >> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
    >> years of photography in the 1970s.

    >
    > It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
    > and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
    > never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
    > in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.


    You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
    in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
    like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
    company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
    I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
    with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
    so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
    rolls and bulk loaded.)

    However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
    difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps. Perhaps that
    qualifies as "very niche" -- though during part of that time period, B&W
    was the "serious" film.

    They're also a major photographic paper manufacturer, and they made the
    "Ilfochrome" color reversal paper (originally "Cibachrome") that was one
    of the most popular ways to make exhibition prints from slides back in
    the film era. They also make a line of B&W photo chemicals.

    Really, they're one of the giants of the industry.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 21, 2012
    #8
  9. Pete A <> writes:

    > On 2012-03-20 23:00:24 +0000, Alfred Molon said:
    >
    >> In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >>> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
    >>> ignorant,

    >>
    >> Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)
    >>
    >>> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
    >>> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
    >>> years of photography in the 1970s.

    >>
    >> It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
    >> and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
    >> never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
    >> in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.

    >
    > I hardly ever used Ilford film until I discovered XP1 during the
    > 1980's: a black and white film that could be processed in a
    > high-street colour lab (C41 process).


    A couple of rolls of XP1 pretty much ruined my first-ever nude photo
    shoot, and I haven't forgiven it yet. (Yeah, stupid of me to experiment
    on two things at once.)

    > XP1 allowed the photographer to change the ISO rating between shots on
    > the same roll. Its latest incarnation, XP2 Super, is still quite
    > popular.


    But I did get some nice XP2 negatives, and some nice 4x5s, more recently.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 21, 2012
    #9
  10. "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> writes:

    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    >> Can you still buy film? If yes, for how long? Kodak is bankrupt.

    >
    > No one cares. I switched to Fuji Film 25 years ago.
    >
    > But I do remember not being able to buy film at retail stores... it
    > happened all at once... one day everyone had film, the next week it
    > was gone forever.


    I bought film at Target within the last 18 months. (There wasn't much
    selection.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 21, 2012
    #10
  11. philo

    Bruce Guest

    Pete A <> wrote:
    >I hardly ever used Ilford film until I discovered XP1 during the
    >1980's: a black and white film that could be processed in a high-street
    >colour lab (C41 process).
    >
    >XP1 allowed the photographer to change the ISO rating between shots on
    >the same roll. Its latest incarnation, XP2 Super, is still quite
    >popular.



    I used a lot of XP1 when it first came out but very few rolls of XP2.
    Kodak's competing chromogenic (C41) emulsion, sold here as BW400CN, is
    much better. Whether it will survive is of course moot.
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2012
    #11
  12. philo

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
    >in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
    >like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
    >company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
    >I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
    >with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
    >so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
    >rolls and bulk loaded.)
    >
    >However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
    >difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps.



    I have a few hundred negatives that were shot on Ilford's "Ilfacolor"
    negative film in the 1960s.

    But Ilfacolor film was short-lived and I think the brand name may have
    been re-used more recently for something else entirely.

    The Ilford brand has also appeared on slide film. However, the film
    was manufactured by others; research suggested Ferrania of Italy
    (formerly 3M) and/or Konica of Japan.
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2012
    #12
  13. philo

    RichA Guest

    Re: New mandate needed

    On Mar 21, 11:30 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Pete A <> wrote:
    > >I hardly ever used Ilford film until I discovered XP1 during the
    > >1980's: a black and white film that could be processed in a high-street
    > >colour lab (C41 process).

    >
    > >XP1 allowed the photographer to change the ISO rating between shots on
    > >the same roll. Its latest incarnation, XP2 Super, is still quite
    > >popular.

    >
    > I used a lot of XP1 when it first came out but very few rolls of XP2.
    > Kodak's competing chromogenic (C41) emulsion, sold here as BW400CN, is
    > much better.  Whether it will survive is of course moot.


    XP1 was very flat, even when used with filters when enlarging. It
    required a good contrast scene to really work well. BW400CN is
    better.
    RichA, Mar 21, 2012
    #13
  14. philo

    RichA Guest

    Re: New mandate needed

    On Mar 21, 3:19 am, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <2012032017361843658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    > says...
    >
    > > ...and it is headquartered on your side of the Atlantic.
    > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilford_Photo>

    >
    > Very strange. When film was still sold, in the shops you could find
    > Kodak, Fuji or Agfa, but not Ilford.
    > --


    In Canada, shops always had Ilford (still do) B&W and thank goodness.
    It was much better than most Kodak (except Tech Pan) and their
    printing a papers (resin or fibre) were better too.
    RichA, Mar 21, 2012
    #14
  15. philo

    Pete A Guest

    Re: New mandate needed

    On 2012-03-21 15:50:41 +0000, RichA said:

    > On Mar 21, 11:30 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Pete A <> wrote:
    >>> I hardly ever used Ilford film until I discovered XP1 during the
    >>> 1980's: a black and white film that could be processed in a high-street
    >>> colour lab (C41 process).

    >>
    >>> XP1 allowed the photographer to change the ISO rating between shots on
    >>> the same roll. Its latest incarnation, XP2 Super, is still quite
    >>> popular.

    >>
    >> I used a lot of XP1 when it first came out but very few rolls of XP2.
    >> Kodak's competing chromogenic (C41) emulsion, sold here as BW400CN, is
    >> much better.  Whether it will survive is of course moot.

    >
    > XP1 was very flat, even when used with filters when enlarging. It
    > required a good contrast scene to really work well. BW400CN is
    > better.


    I'd forgotten XP1 was very flat. I suppose it had to be because of its
    variable ISO, which required a low value of gamma (more precisely, a
    reasonably linear and shallow D-logH curve).

    I always used the services of a pro lab because the lab was owned by a
    friend. I thought the XP1 prints were more than good enough for most
    purposes. I've never used Kodak BW400CN, but I do remember the awesome
    results from T-MAX 100 during the 1980's/90's.

    Can't remember the Agfa B&W film I once tried: it had a low ISO and
    extremely high contrasts so it was a sort of black or white film, which
    gave eerie results to pictures taken on foggy days.
    Pete A, Mar 21, 2012
    #15
  16. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
    >>in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
    >>like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
    >>company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
    >>I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
    >>with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
    >>so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
    >>rolls and bulk loaded.)
    >>
    >>However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
    >>difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps.

    >
    >
    > I have a few hundred negatives that were shot on Ilford's "Ilfacolor"
    > negative film in the 1960s.


    Oops! My ignorance comes around to bite me on the ass.

    > But Ilfacolor film was short-lived and I think the brand name may have
    > been re-used more recently for something else entirely.


    Or at least nip.

    > The Ilford brand has also appeared on slide film. However, the film
    > was manufactured by others; research suggested Ferrania of Italy
    > (formerly 3M) and/or Konica of Japan.


    I've used some 3M branded slide film, especially the 640T. It wasn't
    fast enough AND wasn't good enough :) . (I'm spoiled by my D700.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 21, 2012
    #16
  17. philo

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >Bruce <> writes:
    >
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
    >>>in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
    >>>like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
    >>>company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
    >>>I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
    >>>with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
    >>>so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
    >>>rolls and bulk loaded.)
    >>>
    >>>However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
    >>>difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps.

    >>
    >>
    >> I have a few hundred negatives that were shot on Ilford's "Ilfacolor"
    >> negative film in the 1960s.

    >
    >Oops! My ignorance comes around to bite me on the ass.



    Not at all. Ilford's short lived excursions into a world of colour
    photography were not a success and not widely known. Alfred Molon's
    complete ignorance of the Ilford brand would be far more serious if it
    wasn't so funny. ;-)


    >> But Ilfacolor film was short-lived and I think the brand name may have
    >> been re-used more recently for something else entirely.

    >
    >Or at least nip.
    >
    >> The Ilford brand has also appeared on slide film. However, the film
    >> was manufactured by others; research suggested Ferrania of Italy
    >> (formerly 3M) and/or Konica of Japan.

    >
    >I've used some 3M branded slide film, especially the 640T. It wasn't
    >fast enough AND wasn't good enough :) .



    Well, there was GAF 500 which we discussed fairly recently. A
    horrible emulsion even by the low standards of its day.


    >I'm spoiled by my D700.



    As I was by mine, and by the beat-up D3 that followed it. ;-)
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2012
    #17
  18. philo

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-03-21 20:17:04 +0000, Bruce said:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >> Bruce <> writes:
    >>
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>> You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
    >>>> in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
    >>>> like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
    >>>> company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
    >>>> I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
    >>>> with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
    >>>> so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
    >>>> rolls and bulk loaded.)
    >>>>
    >>>> However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
    >>>> difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I have a few hundred negatives that were shot on Ilford's "Ilfacolor"
    >>> negative film in the 1960s.

    >>
    >> Oops! My ignorance comes around to bite me on the ass.

    >
    >
    > Not at all. Ilford's short lived excursions into a world of colour
    > photography were not a success and not widely known. Alfred Molon's
    > complete ignorance of the Ilford brand would be far more serious if it
    > wasn't so funny. ;-)


    I'm not so sure about that. The Ilford packaging that I remember was so
    distinctive (literally, setting it apart) that I wouldn't have
    recognized it as camera film unless someone/an advert had previously
    pointed it out to me. E.g. a white box with black lettering disappears
    from view in a sea of brightly-coloured attention-grabbing boxes of the
    same size. Marketing psychology always trumps product excellence in
    terms of revenue.

    >>> But Ilfacolor film was short-lived and I think the brand name may have
    >>> been re-used more recently for something else entirely.

    >>
    >> Or at least nip.
    >>
    >>> The Ilford brand has also appeared on slide film. However, the film
    >>> was manufactured by others; research suggested Ferrania of Italy
    >>> (formerly 3M) and/or Konica of Japan.

    >>
    >> I've used some 3M branded slide film, especially the 640T. It wasn't
    >> fast enough AND wasn't good enough :) .

    >
    >
    > Well, there was GAF 500 which we discussed fairly recently. A
    > horrible emulsion even by the low standards of its day.


    I remember trying GAF - it's name was only one "F" short of it's
    reputation. Perhaps its only selling point was being the master of
    grain at each ISO. I happily "deleted" everything I took on it.

    >> I'm spoiled by my D700.

    >
    > As I was by mine, and by the beat-up D3 that followed it. ;-)


    Have you tried the new Nikon Picture Controls available in Capture NX2
    version 2.3.0/1 for the D700/D3? They are brutal in showing noise that
    you hoped wasn't there, but with a fair amount of editing work they can
    render awesome chroma in deep shadows.

    I've spent nearly three months re-editing some of my night and heavily
    overcast daylight shots using the new Picture Controls. They have
    enabled me to explore my surreal/abstracted art in the direction I've
    always dreamed of going.

    The new Picture Controls are not enabled by default. To get them,
    launch the Picture Control Utility; click the bottom left "Preferences"
    button and you will see two options plus explanatory text.
    Pete A, Mar 21, 2012
    #18
  19. philo

    Bruce Guest

    Pete A <> wrote:
    >On 2012-03-21 20:17:04 +0000, Bruce said:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>> I'm spoiled by my D700.

    >>
    >> As I was by mine, and by the beat-up D3 that followed it. ;-)

    >
    >Have you tried the new Nikon Picture Controls available in Capture NX2
    >version 2.3.0/1 for the D700/D3? They are brutal in showing noise that
    >you hoped wasn't there, but with a fair amount of editing work they can
    >render awesome chroma in deep shadows.
    >
    >I've spent nearly three months re-editing some of my night and heavily
    >overcast daylight shots using the new Picture Controls. They have
    >enabled me to explore my surreal/abstracted art in the direction I've
    >always dreamed of going.
    >
    >The new Picture Controls are not enabled by default. To get them,
    >launch the Picture Control Utility; click the bottom left "Preferences"
    >button and you will see two options plus explanatory text.



    Thanks, Pete. I don't use Capture NX, but I will take a look at one
    of the copies that came with the D800 and D800E. This is an
    exceptionally busy time as we are setting up our office on the new
    construction site, but I will take a look as soon as I can.
    Bruce, Mar 21, 2012
    #19
  20. philo

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-03-21 20:37:57 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

    > In article <CB8F5270.83C4D%>, George Kerby
    > says...
    >> Did you ever shoot B&W.

    >
    > Nope...
    >
    > BTW, my 8 year old daughter has never seen a roll of film. Film
    > disappeared before she was old enough to remember things.


    I don't understand that - it would appear that I'm still not old enough
    to remember things :)
    Pete A, Mar 21, 2012
    #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. Robert Spanjaard

    Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate!

    Robert Spanjaard, Apr 16, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    321
    tony cooper
    Apr 26, 2010
  2. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate!

    Robert Coe, Apr 17, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    504
    Paul Furman
    Apr 24, 2010
  3. Annika1980

    Re: Mandate reminder/update & new mandate!

    Annika1980, Apr 17, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    334
    Eric Stevens
    Apr 17, 2010
  4. PeterN

    Re: [SI] New mandate needed

    PeterN, Mar 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    242
    RichA
    Mar 20, 2012
  5. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] New mandate needed

    tony cooper, Mar 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    270
    Pete A
    Mar 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page