Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: the price of the used MF back  (Read 16182 times)
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #60 on: November 27, 2008, 06:30:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Yair, I'll try to find that book here in New York.
And guys, I still shoot with backs and Hasselblad equipment. And Mamiya on occasion. Just making a point about print quality and resolution of paper, etc.

I do want to see actual prints/printed material - like Yair has indicated here. Anyone else point to something specific which I can find at the bookstore?
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #61 on: November 27, 2008, 10:59:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: yaya
Here's one example: London by Richard Bryant and Peter Ackroyd which happens to be launched tonight at Somerset House, London

If you see the book (done on 4-colour offset print) and the 7'-12' Lambda prints you will be able to tell the differences between a high end digital back and anything else.

Yair


I don't think anyone would dispute for static, slow moving, even people images with heavy strobe lighting a medium format back without an aa filter will produce a "technically" superior result.  artistically superior is in the eye of the beholder.

the subject is about the cost and viability of a medium format back.  medium format has moved at a much slower pace than the dslrs and for much of advertising and editorial people photography it's just not as viable as the dslrs.

right now I have 10 very large in-store posters and 3 double truck magazine ads shot with a 1dsIII from a campaign that I shot the previous year with medium format and the client is not complaining.  in fact I find it hard to tell the difference in print.  

personally, I'd rather use a medium format camera, especially in the vertical orientation, but clients this year are asking for what is essentially two days of production in a day and these are high visibility well paying clients.   I can't imagine what they will be asking for next year and to do this takes more than megapixels, or leaf shutter lenses, it takes a camera system that works in a lot of different situations and is fast.

regardless of what clients are "asking" for the real point of all of this is getting the shot.  if you chose medium format and it works for you then your all set, buy the backs stay with them and have success.

as I mentioned, I own both medium format and dslrs but in this years (and I'm sure next year also) economy I find the backs stay in the case, the 35mm cameras get all the use.

in my world looking at glossy 11x14 books are nice but the last time I saw a book publisher's contract it paid about $42.

I hope richard and peter make more than that.
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #62 on: November 28, 2008, 01:54:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
I don't think anyone would dispute for static, slow moving, even people images with heavy strobe lighting a medium format back without an aa filter will produce a "technically" superior result.  artistically superior is in the eye of the beholder.

the subject is about the cost and viability of a medium format back.  medium format has moved at a much slower pace than the dslrs and for much of advertising and editorial people photography it's just not as viable as the dslrs.

right now I have 10 very large in-store posters and 3 double truck magazine ads shot with a 1dsIII from a campaign that I shot the previous year with medium format and the client is not complaining.  in fact I find it hard to tell the difference in print.  

personally, I'd rather use a medium format camera, especially in the vertical orientation, but clients this year are asking for what is essentially two days of production in a day and these are high visibility well paying clients.   I can't imagine what they will be asking for next year and to do this takes more than megapixels, or leaf shutter lenses, it takes a camera system that works in a lot of different situations and is fast.

regardless of what clients are "asking" for the real point of all of this is getting the shot.  if you chose medium format and it works for you then your all set, buy the backs stay with them and have success.

as I mentioned, I own both medium format and dslrs but in this years (and I'm sure next year also) economy I find the backs stay in the case, the 35mm cameras get all the use.

in my world looking at glossy 11x14 books are nice but the last time I saw a book publisher's contract it paid about $42.

I hope richard and peter make more than that.
Hi
We are in the same situation here in Sydney. We just did two shoots for a new editorial client & we shot with the Canon. For Make Me A Super Model we shot with the Canon. Gay & I love MFD and just for practical purposes for these projects we choose the Canon 1DsMKIII. I find tethered with the Canon bullet proof, no crashes. When we did MMASM TV reality show we had to perform to a tight time frame. We find the file depth not as good as MFD and the Canon does the job. The big bonus is FAST capture plus FAST AF.

Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
yaya
Guest
« Reply #63 on: November 29, 2008, 06:40:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
I don't think anyone would dispute for static, slow moving, even people images with heavy strobe lighting a medium format back without an aa filter will produce a "technically" superior result.  artistically superior is in the eye of the beholder.

the subject is about the cost and viability of a medium format back.  medium format has moved at a much slower pace than the dslrs and for much of advertising and editorial people photography it's just not as viable as the dslrs.

right now I have 10 very large in-store posters and 3 double truck magazine ads shot with a 1dsIII from a campaign that I shot the previous year with medium format and the client is not complaining.  in fact I find it hard to tell the difference in print.  

personally, I'd rather use a medium format camera, especially in the vertical orientation, but clients this year are asking for what is essentially two days of production in a day and these are high visibility well paying clients.   I can't imagine what they will be asking for next year and to do this takes more than megapixels, or leaf shutter lenses, it takes a camera system that works in a lot of different situations and is fast.

regardless of what clients are "asking" for the real point of all of this is getting the shot.  if you chose medium format and it works for you then your all set, buy the backs stay with them and have success.

as I mentioned, I own both medium format and dslrs but in this years (and I'm sure next year also) economy I find the backs stay in the case, the 35mm cameras get all the use.

in my world looking at glossy 11x14 books are nice but the last time I saw a book publisher's contract it paid about $42.

I hope richard and peter make more than that.

Yes, they do and the lambdas at the exhibition are also for sale at an average of 6K...

Yair
Logged
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #64 on: November 29, 2008, 07:50:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ixpressraf
To be honest Lisa, there is actually no visible difference. A DB is just a toy to let people see that our business is dong fine. In the old days we had the guys shooting hasselblad and mamiy RZ67. That was a joke, they were just showing off. I was talking lately with a photographer who used to work with Ansel Adams and he told me that even he was fooling us by making it look he took pictures at least with a 4'by5' camera, mostly 5'by7' and bigger when he could have done that with a Laika or Nokin. There is actually no reason why you should go MFDB unless you have a huge pile of unused dollar bills. I myself have never seen a difference between a picture shot with a Canon 5d and one shot with a Phase one or hasselblad. People say there is a difference but i never saw it. In the old days to me there also was no difference between landscape shot with 35mm tri-x and a  8'by10' polaroid or panatomic-x ( unless they where enlarged to more then 15 foot wide).

dripping with sarcasm....

Geoff

Logged

Geoff
yaya
Guest
« Reply #65 on: November 29, 2008, 07:55:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
Thanks Yair, I'll try to find that book here in New York.
And guys, I still shoot with backs and Hasselblad equipment. And Mamiya on occasion. Just making a point about print quality and resolution of paper, etc.

I do want to see actual prints/printed material - like Yair has indicated here. Anyone else point to something specific which I can find at the bookstore?

These big posters from the new Mercedes GLK campaign are hanging all over europe's airports and motorways.

Especially at the airports you can look at them up close (they are about 24' wide). I doubt anything but a high-end MF back could produce these smooth gradations and lines at this size.

Yair
Logged
antonyoung
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #66 on: November 29, 2008, 08:22:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mcfoto
Gay & I love MFD and just for practical purposes for these projects we choose the Canon 1DsMKIII. I find tethered with the Canon bullet proof, no crashes. The big bonus is FAST capture plus FAST AF.

How are you tethering your Mark III? I held off even trying to tether it since I heard such horror stories. Now that C1 4.5 is out I've been trying to get it to work, but so far it's completely unusable for anything I need to use it for. I need settings applied and file names set as the images come in, so JPEGs to computer and RAWs to card won't work for me. Is that what people are doing who are happy with it tethering?

My experience has been that the Mark III is unusable tethered- you can shoot 10-12 frames as fast as you want, and then the camera hits the buffer and goes completely unresponsive and unpredictable. You can maybe sneak a frame or two in here or there, but until the buffer is cleared you're sitting there like an idiot missing shots. I bought the latest and greatest glossy powerbook hoping to avoid this- everybody on the internet said it has faster USB, but no luck avoiding hitting the buffer. It takes about 60 seconds on this machine to completely clear the buffer of 12 shots. I tried an USB express card to see if that would improve it, same results.

Since everybody on the internet said it's a Mac OS problem, I figured I would just work around it by using Windows. So I installed BootCamp, installed XP pro SP2, updated it to SP3, installed C1 4.5, and got better but still unusable results. Buffer gets clear in 45 seconds instead of 60, but I still hit the wall after 10-12 frames. If I watch the clock and click off one frame per second, I can get to 15 frames before I start missing in Windows, 12 with Mac OS- unusable with either platform. And when I say unresponsive, I mean really unresponsive, like will not fire for 10-15 seconds at a time.

When I just lock it down on continuous for 60 seconds, I get 19 captures booted into Mac and 29 booted into Windows. Neither platform is useable after those first 12-15 frames though- it's like 15 frames, wait 8-10 secs, 2 frames, wait 6 secs, one frame, wait 10-12 secs, 2 frames... like that. For comparison, a P30+ on the same machine gave me 34 captures in 60 seconds at a completely constant rate of just under 2 secs/capture.

Are those of you who are tethering the Mark III getting substantially better results than that with DPP? Or are you all just shooting JPEGs to the computer? Does using a Windows machine rather than a Mac running Windows improve RAW tethering greatly or something? Are my standards just too high or something? Could somebody with a Windows machine (laptop if possible) do the same test- lock it down for 60 seconds and tell me how many RAW captures you get in a minute and how many before the camera becomes unresponsive?
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #67 on: November 29, 2008, 09:43:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: antonyoung
When I just lock it down on continuous for 60 seconds, I get 19 captures booted into Mac and 29 booted into Windows. Neither platform is useable after those first 12-15 frames though- it's like 15 frames, wait 8-10 secs, 2 frames, wait 6 secs, one frame, wait 10-12 secs, 2 frames... like that. For comparison, a P30+ on the same machine gave me 34 captures in 60 seconds at a completely constant rate of just under 2 secs/capture.

Are those of you who are tethering the Mark III getting substantially better results than that with DPP? Or are you all just shooting JPEGs to the computer? Does using a Windows machine rather than a Mac running Windows improve RAW tethering greatly or something? Are my standards just too high or something? Could somebody with a Windows machine (laptop if possible) do the same test- lock it down for 60 seconds and tell me how many RAW captures you get in a minute and how many before the camera becomes unresponsive?


I bought an dell 17" studio expressly for tethering the 1ds Mark III's and there is a difference between the usb drivers, or maybe the computer, running vista compared to a mac.

I didn't do the stop watch timed test, but shooting fast you get about 24 frames before you hit the buffer (faster than a p21+) and the previews are about 2 seconds a full screen rez preview.

After approx 20 frames there is a buffer but it starts to clear in 2 seconds or so and in three seconds it's cleared up to 5 frames so you can keep shooting.

If you shoot to the speed of most studio flash or just to my standard shooting speed, it never hits the buffer and will always be ahead of the previews as you can shoot much faster than 1 fps. the previews build as fast as the p21+ on 3.78, probably faster and definatley more detailed.

Now this is all through eos utility and dpp, which lets you name files as they come in, or rename files, apply settings to the camera or apply settings at a later date.  You can also shoot tethered and to cards but the names coming into the computer will specificially named and the files on the cf card will be camera numbered.

Still, if you have a lot of cards I guess it's a good safety measure, though I have never needed to pull an image off a card when tethering.

I don't dislike eos utility, though more simple than c-1 it does the job and the previews are nice and the learning curve is quick.  Same with vista, which is about 15% different than working the mac and it runs programs like cs3 and light room very fast.

I did load c-1 4.5 into the dell but as far as I know 4.5 doesn't tether in vista for canon or my phase backs.  I don't know for sure, but I don't think phase has written 4.5 to tether through vista.

I actually find the dell faster than my new macbook 17" for just about every function.  The last job we shot tethered I just used the Canons rather than the p-30+ or the p21+.  It was just easier.

You might want to read this as Nikon is promising fast tethering speed on their new D3x.  I don't know if it applies to apple or vista but this is interesting.

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/...081128-0006.jpg






Logged

carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #68 on: November 29, 2008, 09:53:43 AM »
ReplyReply

You might want to see if you can find someone with a new MacBook or MacBook Pro, and see how it performs there, since the USB in these is meant to be dramatically improved over the old Macs, and are a tiny bit faster than Windows machines, at least in some tests.
Logged

Esben
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


WWW
« Reply #69 on: November 29, 2008, 10:18:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Anton,

I have come to the same conclusion. I think the Canon 1Ds mark III is a great camera but slow tethered. Half the time the photographer chooses CF cards or alternatively goes with the Leaf Aptus 54S.
I have always applied the same 60 second standard to the number of frames the camera shoots and how many images are viewable on the computer.
The hands down winner is the Leaf Aptus 54S on a H2: 76 frames in 60 seconds and no hitting the buffer at any point.

(for anybody interested, I have a Aptus 54S for sale   ): LINK

All the best,
Esben
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 10:18:24 AM by Esben » Logged

Digital Tech NYC // LA
www.captureforce.com

phone. 212 203 6427
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #70 on: November 29, 2008, 10:22:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: antonyoung
How are you tethering your Mark III? I held off even trying to tether it since I heard such horror stories. Now that C1 4.5 is out I've been trying to get it to work, but so far it's completely unusable for anything I need to use it for. I need settings applied and file names set as the images come in, so JPEGs to computer and RAWs to card won't work for me. Is that what people are doing who are happy with it tethering?

My experience has been that the Mark III is unusable tethered- you can shoot 10-12 frames as fast as you want, and then the camera hits the buffer and goes completely unresponsive and unpredictable. You can maybe sneak a frame or two in here or there, but until the buffer is cleared you're sitting there like an idiot missing shots. I bought the latest and greatest glossy powerbook hoping to avoid this- everybody on the internet said it has faster USB, but no luck avoiding hitting the buffer. It takes about 60 seconds on this machine to completely clear the buffer of 12 shots. I tried an USB express card to see if that would improve it, same results.

Since everybody on the internet said it's a Mac OS problem, I figured I would just work around it by using Windows. So I installed BootCamp, installed XP pro SP2, updated it to SP3, installed C1 4.5, and got better but still unusable results. Buffer gets clear in 45 seconds instead of 60, but I still hit the wall after 10-12 frames. If I watch the clock and click off one frame per second, I can get to 15 frames before I start missing in Windows, 12 with Mac OS- unusable with either platform. And when I say unresponsive, I mean really unresponsive, like will not fire for 10-15 seconds at a time.

When I just lock it down on continuous for 60 seconds, I get 19 captures booted into Mac and 29 booted into Windows. Neither platform is useable after those first 12-15 frames though- it's like 15 frames, wait 8-10 secs, 2 frames, wait 6 secs, one frame, wait 10-12 secs, 2 frames... like that. For comparison, a P30+ on the same machine gave me 34 captures in 60 seconds at a completely constant rate of just under 2 secs/capture.

Are those of you who are tethering the Mark III getting substantially better results than that with DPP? Or are you all just shooting JPEGs to the computer? Does using a Windows machine rather than a Mac running Windows improve RAW tethering greatly or something? Are my standards just too high or something? Could somebody with a Windows machine (laptop if possible) do the same test- lock it down for 60 seconds and tell me how many RAW captures you get in a minute and how many before the camera becomes unresponsive?


The beta version of Mac OSX 10.5.6 is allowing the 1dsmk3 to tether and shoot super quick according to someone on another thread on LL, I am gonna wait for that to come out and then use phase V4
Logged
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #71 on: November 29, 2008, 10:50:33 AM »
ReplyReply

What's the cause?

Is it USB2?  But, didn't Canon 1Ds2 have buffer issues even with Firewire?

Are the DSLR's buffer not large enough?
Does Nikon's buffer upgrade cure it?
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...qid=25465&p
Is this why Leica's S2 and Phase's P65+ have 1GB buffer?

I guess James Russell is saying MacOS X is the cause?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 11:14:52 AM by BJNY » Logged

Guillermo
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #72 on: November 29, 2008, 11:22:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJNY
What's the cause?

Is it USB2?  But, didn't Canon 1Ds2 have buffer issues even with Firewire?

Are the DSLR's buffer not large enough?
Does Nikon's buffer upgrade cure it?
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...qid=25465&p
Is this why Leica's S2 and Phase's P65+ have 1GB buffer?


Most people in the still photography business go into catatonic fits at the thought of using anything windows, or microsoft but honestly vista is not that big of a leap from mac os and the cinema biz goes from pc to mac all the time and doesn't break a sweat.

It's more about what works than brand names and I feel the same way about cameras.  Each has a use, each camera has a look and I really don't care what the name on the front of the machine says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIKxJlh_RMo...feature=related

I just want things to work, work fast, not break and be usable.

I don't like the glossy screen of the dell but after buying a new macbook pro with a glossy screen (the only one I could find available)  I realized it's just as bad as the dell, maybe worse, so at this stage they are all just boxes to me.

The Canons even with the dell will hit the buffer tethered or non tethered if you hold your finger on the trigger, but they also are more responsive and shoot a hell of a lot faster than any medium format camera.  Also when I yank the cord to walk across the street I can actually see something on the cameras lcd and actually shoot with continuous lights without 6 generators the size of a peterbuilt.

Don't underestimate the continuous light use as more and more video (motion) will become a part of a still session, whether the still photographer is responsible for it or not.

I actually find shooting to cards and then between sets dropping the images into a program like photomechanic to be a better way to work, because the client's/AD's aren't just staring into the computer they are actually watching the set and when you do preview the images it gives everyone a moment to reflect on what has been shot, rather than look at the computer and give suggestions while shooting and interrupting the flow and the buzz.

It's just about getting the shot, not about anything else.

Nobody hires a photographer for what camera or computer they use.

Logged

jimgolden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


WWW
« Reply #73 on: November 29, 2008, 12:32:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BobDavid
I used to use an 8" X 10" view camera strapped around my neck for street photography. But now I'm so stooped that the view camera drags against the ground. The Minox sure comes in handy now.

best. comment. ever.

LMAO
Logged
antonyoung
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #74 on: November 29, 2008, 12:45:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
You might want to see if you can find someone with a new MacBook or MacBook Pro, and see how it performs there, since the USB in these is meant to be dramatically improved over the old Macs, and are a tiny bit faster than Windows machines, at least in some tests.

This was with a brand new glossy unibody MacBook Pro, as I said. I haven't tested it vs. one of my older MacBook Pro's, but the speed with the Mark III is not good enough under either Mac OS or Windows.
Logged
antonyoung
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #75 on: November 29, 2008, 12:47:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: billy
The beta version of Mac OSX 10.5.6 is allowing the 1dsmk3 to tether and shoot super quick according to someone on another thread on LL, I am gonna wait for that to come out and then use phase V4

That will be a welcome change if it turns out to be true, but people on other threads on LL also said that these new MacBook Pros were supposed to be dramatically faster, and that running in Windows rather than Mac OS would solve any USB speed problems with the Mark III.
Logged
antonyoung
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #76 on: November 29, 2008, 01:01:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R Russell
I bought an dell 17" studio expressly for tethering the 1ds Mark III's and there is a difference between the usb drivers, or maybe the computer, running vista compared to a mac.

I didn't do the stop watch timed test, but shooting fast you get about 24 frames before you hit the buffer (faster than a p21+) and the previews are about 2 seconds a full screen rez preview.

After approx 20 frames there is a buffer but it starts to clear in 2 seconds or so and in three seconds it's cleared up to 5 frames so you can keep shooting.

If you shoot to the speed of most studio flash or just to my standard shooting speed, it never hits the buffer and will always be ahead of the previews as you can shoot much faster than 1 fps. the previews build as fast as the p21+ on 3.78, probably faster and definatley more detailed.

Now this is all through eos utility and dpp, which lets you name files as they come in, or rename files, apply settings to the camera or apply settings at a later date.  You can also shoot tethered and to cards but the names coming into the computer will specificially named and the files on the cf card will be camera numbered.

Still, if you have a lot of cards I guess it's a good safety measure, though I have never needed to pull an image off a card when tethering.

I don't dislike eos utility, though more simple than c-1 it does the job and the previews are nice and the learning curve is quick.  Same with vista, which is about 15% different than working the mac and it runs programs like cs3 and light room very fast.

I did load c-1 4.5 into the dell but as far as I know 4.5 doesn't tether in vista for canon or my phase backs.  I don't know for sure, but I don't think phase has written 4.5 to tether through vista.

I actually find the dell faster than my new macbook 17" for just about every function.  The last job we shot tethered I just used the Canons rather than the p-30+ or the p21+.  It was just easier.

You might want to read this as Nikon is promising fast tethering speed on their new D3x.  I don't know if it applies to apple or vista but this is interesting.

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/...081128-0006.jpg

Thanks for the response James. What model of Dell is it you bought? And the C1 problem was just with 64bit Vista right? 32bit works? It seems to tether fine for me in XP pro with both Canon and Phase, and the preview rendering in 4.5 is much faster than 3.7 was.

With the Canons, I need them to tether much faster and with a much bigger buffer than I've been able to get so far. We don't use them on studio jobs where we're waiting on the strobes, we use them on location jobs where we're shooting ambient, so 10-15 frames and then wait for the buffer doesn't cut it. Does Dell have a money back if not satisfied type deal? This new MBP is very nice and is now my new personal laptop, but I don't want to get stuck with a Dell I don't need if the speed is still not cutting it.

I've been following the Nikon rumors and will probably add Nikon in once the D3x ships if in fact it can tether successfully to C1. Nikon tends to shoot themselves in the foot with some sort of proprietary thing, so I'll wait and see on that. I don't want to add in DPP or Nikon NX or Lightroom or Photo Mechanic or Aperture or anything else- I currently have a lot of camera systems but only one software to worry about, and I'd like to keep it that way.
Logged
antonyoung
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #77 on: November 29, 2008, 01:08:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJNY
What's the cause?

Is it USB2?  But, didn't Canon 1Ds2 have buffer issues even with Firewire?

Are the DSLR's buffer not large enough?
Does Nikon's buffer upgrade cure it?
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...qid=25465&p
Is this why Leica's S2 and Phase's P65+ have 1GB buffer?

I guess James Russell is saying MacOS X is the cause?

I think most of the problem it is the much bigger RAW file the Mark III produces. The Mark II tethered fine over firewire, and the 5D tethered fine over USB.
Logged
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #78 on: November 29, 2008, 01:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Yair,

What accounts for the speed of the AFi-5
I thoroughly enjoyed using it for four days recently.

Quote from: Esben
The hands down winner is the Leaf Aptus 54S on a H2: 76 frames in 60 seconds and no hitting the buffer at any point.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 01:33:08 PM by BJNY » Logged

Guillermo
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #79 on: November 29, 2008, 01:23:40 PM »
ReplyReply

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 08:34:01 AM by gwhitf » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad