Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Kodachrome Revisited  (Read 15898 times)
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2884


« on: January 21, 2011, 05:21:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Is it correct that Kodachrome's colors after development are balanced for projection lamps with a 3200K color and by that produce neutral white and greys to our eyes when we see Kodachrome slides projected in that condition?

Is it correct that Ektachrome's colors after development are balanced for projection lamps with a 5000K color and by that produce neutral white and greys to our eyes when we see Ektachrome slides projected in that condition?

Any mix of both types of slides projected with one projector would be a challenge to the adaption of our eyes?  A set containing both slide types on a 5000K viewing box can easily be sorted in two groups based on their overall color cast? Kodachrome slides having the blue cast.

We shouldn't make the mistake to interprete a color film description "daylight, tungsten balanced" as describing the above features, that description is for the exposure of said films.

If so the summary of Guyburns in the opther thread could be reduced to the following lines:

1. Kodachrome color, whatever film version, is balanced for viewing with 3200K projection light. Ektachrome film is (in general) balanced for 5000K light. "For the average human eye color receptors" is the other condition.

2  Desktop scanners, film and flatbed models, have an illumination that approaches 5000K with CCFL, FL or LED lamps. More or less continuous spectrum. The RGB filter dyes of (linear) CCD sensors will have slight differences in between but are very different to the human eye receptor.

3 Depending on the conditions described in 1 and 2, Kodachrome slides will show more color cast than Ektachrome slides when scanned as the light source suits Ektachrome better. Color inconstancy in changing light. Blue cast for Kodachrome slides the dominant effect. The difference between the human eye/brain and scanner sensor filtering producing color casts as well. Color inconstancy due to different observers. Differences between scanner lighting and sensor filtering per model and per scanner creating another color inconstancy.

4 Fading of Kodachrome slide due to projection time creating substantial loss of magenta in the slide and a shift to green. Dark fading of Kodachrome should so far be negligable but would create a yellow loss in time and a shift to blue. Fujichrome showing the best projection fade properties, Ektachrome better than Kodachrome, ratio 5: 2.5:1 in hours. All will fade with magenta loss on projection so a shift to green. Ektachrome and Fujichrome dark fading is faster and creates a cyan loss so a shift to red. Yellow staining of archived Ektachrome and Fujichrome slides, it doesn't happen with Kodachrome. A shift to yellow as a result of that. All types of aging will have an influence on scanning results.

5. A scanner can be profiled with an IT8 target + its reference data file (to counter any scanning inaccuracies) using software such as VueScan or Silverfast to correct for inaccuracies in scanning later on. Two Kodachrome IT8-7 slide types exist but they differ, Kodak's original made in 1999 is based on Kodachrome 25, the Lasersoft Kodachrome made in2009 is based on Kodachrome 64. Ektachrome target slides exist in many variations and shouldn't be used for Kodachrome scanning. More color management software exists for creating scanner/film profiles. Profiling is doing an average job in scanning, it can not correct color for slides that deviate from the average like due to exposure to other K values than tungsten or daylight, reciprocity color shifts, fading, etc. Each IT8 target also needs a IT8/CGATS file that contains the colormetric measurements for that target. This text file is required as part of the calibration process. The CGATS file for Kodachrome can be downloaded from FTP.Kodak.com/GASTDS/Q60DATA and is contained in a folder called K3-Data. Info about the colour coding of the IT8 targets is in the document TECHINFO.pdf.

7. In optimal conditions, fresh slide, correctly exposed, a profiled scanning workflow, will in the first place deliver a representation of the (Kodachrome) slide as it is, not of the original scene. With Kodachrome the results will have a mainly blue color cast due to the illumination change from the 3200K KCh is balanced for to the 5000K lighting of the average desktop scanner and differences between the RGB filter dyes/human eye-brain. Contrast in the tone range of Kodachrome film will be affected by the changes too, slide films have in general a wider dynamic range and desktop (film) scanners can not always cope with that, flatbeds even less.  Correction for color, tone range, should be available in the Kodachrome settings of for example Vuescan and Silverfast and should be correct per scanner model. More or less as for example an insufficient dynamic range of a scanner can not be compensated that way. Any other experience? White, grey, balance on neutrals in the scanner and/or additional editing on 16 bit scans in editing software may still be needed or will be needed if the scan software doesn't know a Kodachrome setting. Similar RAW editing is another route. Whether one can avoid the per slide editing with Kodachrome batch scanning is open to debate.


I have some questions:

Is there information on how pro drumscan operators coped with Kodachrome slides? The use of 3200K lamps and altered, more Kodachrome friendly, filters on the PMTs? Must have been the solution in the infancy of drum scanner technology and not a bad approach. Later on solved with similar Kodachrome adaptions in software + profiling which may have been less effective but better adapted to demand. I checked some books on reprography here but couldn't find a clue.

I originally thought that there were Imacon models with a halogen tungsten lamp but I must have been wrong. There is a reference to replacing a 5000K fluorescent lamp with a 5400K lamp (repair) due to lamp production issues though. I wonder whether there have been DIY attempts to replace scanner lamps with 3200K lamps to suit Kodachrome scanning. In slide copying with a digital camera/slide copier that route should be easier. Did some searches but nothing substantial surfaced.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
crames
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2011, 08:43:56 AM »
ReplyReply

...
If so the summary of Guyburns in the opther thread could be reduced to the following lines:

Your summary leaves out any mention of Kodachrome's non-coincident characteristic curves, which are at the heart of the matter, as extensively discussed in the other threads.

Quote
I wonder whether there have been DIY attempts to replace scanner lamps with 3200K lamps to suit Kodachrome scanning.

Kodachrome is balanced not only for the tungsten projection lamp, but also for the eye's response to dark projection viewing conditions, and to the way the eye only partially adapts to the projection light. These perceptual tweaks are non-linear and can't be removed by only changing the type of lamp in the scanner.


Logged

Cliff
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2884


« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2011, 10:13:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Your summary leaves out any mention of Kodachrome's non-coincident characteristic curves, which are at the heart of the matter, as extensively discussed in the other threads.

Kodachrome is balanced not only for the tungsten projection lamp, but also for the eye's response to dark projection viewing conditions, and to the way the eye only partially adapts to the projection light. These perceptual tweaks are non-linear and can't be removed by only changing the type of lamp in the scanner.




I mentioned a change of the lamp and possible filter changes in a drum scanner to create better conditions for scanning. I do not have the illusion that the human eye can be recreated that way either but wonder if it could have made things easier in drum scanning then.

What has been left out extensively in my opinion has been the balance to 5000K for Ektachrome. Point is that if you describe the way Kodachrome was adapted to 3200K/the human eye you should also mention what has been done for Ektachrome.

Whatever film, Kodak - Fuji - Agfa, has to adjust dyes etc to get a balance for a given Kelvin grade illumination. Whatever change in Kelvin grade of illumination the color balance will be off. The eye will adapt to a degree to light levels, changed white point with no other white reference around, etc. The better if the light level/Kelvin grade change follows the Kruithof curve. Some dyes will however not play nicely and show more color inconstancy in changing light. That's the lighting side of the issue. There is the observer side too as explained in the summary. A similar thing happens there. If you have two conditions changed it gets pretty complex and referring the whole issue to the Kodachrome 3200K dye curves too simple, not telling all.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm


Logged
crames
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2011, 08:45:37 PM »
ReplyReply

What has been left out extensively in my opinion has been the balance to 5000K for Ektachrome. Point is that if you describe the way Kodachrome was adapted to 3200K/the human eye you should also mention what has been done for Ektachrome.

Whatever film, Kodak - Fuji - Agfa, has to adjust dyes etc to get a balance for a given Kelvin grade illumination. Whatever change in Kelvin grade of illumination the color balance will be off. The eye will adapt to a degree to light levels, changed white point with no other white reference around, etc. The better if the light level/Kelvin grade change follows the Kruithof curve. Some dyes will however not play nicely and show more color inconstancy in changing light. That's the lighting side of the issue. There is the observer side too as explained in the summary. A similar thing happens there. If you have two conditions changed it gets pretty complex and referring the whole issue to the Kodachrome 3200K dye curves too simple, not telling all.

So which of these effects are persisting after the scanner profile is applied? It seems to me that the effects you continue to emphasize are not significant in a profiled work flow because they are minimized or eliminated by the ICC profile.

Can you show that after a profile is applied there is a contribution to the blue cast by any of those effects - light source, observer metamerism, etc.?

What specific corrections do you think the special Kodachrome modes of SilverFast, NikonScan, etc., are doing, or what is it that you do when scanning to correct the blue cast, if it's not correcting for fact that the curves have different gammas?
Logged

Cliff
davidh202
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 560


« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2011, 09:13:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry all, I don't I any way mean to belittle all the combined knowledge presented here  but...
 We have now entered a third phase of 'Kodachrome' threads and all I have been able to deduce so far is...
as with every other digital discussion the extremely technical aspects go way over my not so technically minded noggen!

From my standpoint it appears that there is no easy one suit fits all solution since there are just too many variables involved to generalize the final result from any given selection of original slides. Dependant on original capture , quality of processing, aging changes ,light source, actual kelvin temp of aged lamps etc, we could go on ad infinitum with all the variables with just how subjectively   precise one expects the final result to be.
JMHO

Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2011, 09:27:35 PM »
ReplyReply

We have now entered a third phase of 'Kodachrome' threads and all I have been able to deduce so far is...
as with every other digital discussion the extremely technical aspects go way over my not so technically minded noggen!

So, do you have experience scanning Kodachrome? I ask because unlike scanning E-6, Kodachrome presents some extra challenges...that's the reason that there have been multiple threads (that and the last one kinda fouled a bit).

As with many threads here on LuLa, things tend to get technical pretty quick in large part because there are a lot of very technical and knowledgeable people here who post. Which is a good thing IMHO. Nobody is forcing you to read and post if you don't want to...
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2011, 09:33:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there information on how pro drumscan operators coped with Kodachrome slides? The use of 3200K lamps and altered, more Kodachrome friendly, filters on the PMTs?

Don't know if there is any info about Kodachrome and drum scanners, I DO remember that back when I started shooting Kodachrome 120mm medium format film, there was a lot of problems getting good drum scans of the 120mm film (late 1980's). I remember several prepress houses here in Chicago telling their ad agency clients, "don't shoot Kodachrome, shoot Ektachrome for best results". Several shooters here in town got into a drop down drag out fights about this...as I remember, even Kodak got involved in the discussions (since Kodak also had a strong graphic arts presence). At some point the "Don't shoot Kodachrome" went away...

I originally thought that there were Imacon models with a halogen tungsten lamp but I must have been wrong.

I'm pretty sure that Imacon Flextight scanners have ALWAYS used a tube that was either D50 or D55 never tungsten 3200Kº based...
« Last Edit: January 22, 2011, 09:41:08 PM by Schewe » Logged
Jonathan Ratzlaff
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 198


« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2011, 10:15:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I have never seen a difference in projection between Ektachrome and Kodachrome except for the difference in colour palette.  So I would suggest that both Ektachrome and Kodachrome would be balanced for viewing under the same light.  Carousel projectors generally ran at 3200K.  The real difference boils down to the difference in processing.  Ektachrome is a dye coupled film.  Kodachrome had no dyes in the emulsion, dyes were added during processing.  The emulsion side of a Kodachrome slide is much more evident than that from an E-6 process and I think the structure has more to do with the difficulties with scanning than anything.  That relief also creates issues with digital ice, at least the earlier versions.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2884


« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2011, 04:59:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't know if there is any info about Kodachrome and drum scanners, I DO remember that back when I started shooting Kodachrome 120mm medium format film, there was a lot of problems getting good drum scans of the 120mm film (late 1980's). I remember several prepress houses here in Chicago telling their ad agency clients, "don't shoot Kodachrome, shoot Ektachrome for best results". Several shooters here in town got into a drop down drag out fights about this...as I remember, even Kodak got involved in the discussions (since Kodak also had a strong graphic arts presence). At some point the "Don't shoot Kodachrome" went away...

There is an interesting article on Hutchcolor that describes the creation of a Kodachrome profile based on an Ektachrome HCT profile. They see the blue, blue magenta cast "because the yellow dye used in Kodachrome film emulsions appears weaker through typical scanner filters than it does to the human eye".

http://www.hutchcolor.com/PDF/Kodachrome_profiles.pdf

http://www.hutchcolor.com/HCT_overview.htm

In the last link is a description of the HCT  Precision Scanner Target and what can be expected of the results in practice. The quote here seems to suggest differences between  scanner RGB filters

>>> Choosing an emulsion:

Either Fujichrome or Ektachrome HCT targets reproduce Agfachrome™, Ektachrome and Kodachrome originals quite accurately on Heidelberg (Hell) 3000-series and Fuji (Crosfield) Drum scanners, but other scanners like the ICG drum scanner and most CCD desktop scanners require custom Ektachrome or Fujichrome profiles for precise color matching. If only one emulsion is chosen for general use, pick the one on the film type you scan most often. <<<


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
tgray
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2011, 09:12:04 AM »
ReplyReply

There have been posts on photo.net over the years talking about Kodachrome and scanning.  Ron Andrews in particular mentions some interesting stuff - he worked at Kodak.  I'm not sure if Ron Mowrey has posted anything about scanning specifically, but he's another ex-Kodak guy who posts on photo.net and APUG.  He was involved in Kodachrome and has related several interesting tidbits.

photo.net 1
photo.net 2
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2884


« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2011, 11:03:13 AM »
ReplyReply


Good links, thank you.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
crames
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2011, 11:08:46 AM »
ReplyReply

There is an interesting article on Hutchcolor that describes the creation of a Kodachrome profile based on an Ektachrome HCT profile. They see the blue, blue magenta cast "because the yellow dye used in Kodachrome film emulsions appears weaker through typical scanner filters than it does to the human eye".

http://www.hutchcolor.com/PDF/Kodachrome_profiles.pdf

Ok, Ernst, I guess you just want to continue to throw stuff out there, and ignore any questions.

Hutcheson is describing a procedure (that "relies on visual judgment and is somewhat un-scientific..") to make a pseudo-Kodachrome profile from a non-Kodachrome target. Not the same as using Real Kodachrome profiles made from Real Kodachrome targets, but let's see what it adds to the discussion.

Hutcheson recommends the following adjustment to neutralize the Kodachrome gray scale.:

Quote
7. Edit the Red, Green and/or Blue curves of the Curves 1 layer with simple midtone
moves until the screen grays match the originals. Typically a single midpoint
move should eliminate most of the error, but more than one adjustment
point may be necessary.

If you read the other Kodachrome threads you might remember that I suggested adjusting the middle gray in Levels. Hutcheson is suggesting something similar - he describes moving the midpoint of the tone curves. That would be a contrast change and is consistent with Hunt's explanation that the blue cast is due to the different gammas (slopes or contrast) of the curves.

The cause of the blue cast that Hutcheson suggests is not consistent with the adjustment that he proposes for getting rid of it. If as he suggests the blue cast were due to the yellow channel appearing weaker through the scanner filters. a different kind of adjustment would be needed (linear scaling, white point adjustment, or 3x3 matrix). And for the nth time, if a real Kodachrome profile is used, the whole scanner-filter-light-source-dye-interaction issue is rendered moot.

This is really getting tedious. It seems that all of the "conventional wisdom" on the subject that can be found on the web is offered as explanation, again and again, yet without any evidence to back it up.

A final question for you, Ernst, (but I don't really expect you will answer). How do you reconcile all your conjectures with the following quote from Hunt:

Quote
When the viewing conditions consist of projection by tungsten light in a darkened room, the light from the projector appears yellowish (Hunt, 1965), and therefore to obtain results that appear grey the picture has to be slightly bluish (see Section 5.7 [quoted previously]); this is why the curves of Fig. 14.9(a), which relate to materials for tungsten-light projection, are not even approximately coincident, the blue densities being lower than, and the red densities higher than, the green densities, in order to produce the bluish result required...
« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 11:15:21 AM by crames » Logged

Cliff
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7031


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2011, 12:14:03 PM »
ReplyReply


What specific corrections do you think the special Kodachrome modes of SilverFast, NikonScan, etc., are doing, or what is it that you do when scanning to correct the blue cast, if it's not correcting for fact that the curves have different gammas?

Cliff,

Some of this stuff is proprietary, so the software developers will not get too specific about it. What I have been told however (LaserSoft Imaging) is that apart from the Kodachrome profile, there are scanner-model specific adjustments made in the software which get triggered with the choice of the Kodachrome media setting. This seems totally consistent with your previous remarks that the profile alone won't be a sufficient correction solution.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
crames
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2011, 05:21:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Some of this stuff is proprietary, so the software developers will not get too specific about it. What I have been told however (LaserSoft Imaging) is that apart from the Kodachrome profile, there are scanner-model specific adjustments made in the software which get triggered with the choice of the Kodachrome media setting. This seems totally consistent with your previous remarks that the profile alone won't be a sufficient correction solution.

Hi Mark,

It should be easy to get at least a rough idea about what is being done. Scanning an image with a gray scale twice, once with the Kodachrome media setting on and once with it off, and comparing the RGB values (or the density values) should reveal something about how the tone curves are being manipulated.

I happen to have a couple of rolls from the last batch of K64 on the way back from Dwayne's, including a few frames of a Color Checker, so will try looking into it a bit more when I can.

Cliff
Logged

Cliff
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1227



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2011, 07:09:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I've read all the Kodachrome threads. Nothing was finalized or proven. Didn't learn any knew information that would tell me what everyone was trying to achieve scanning kodachrome. Out of frustration I had to ask myself just what the heck is Kodachrome suppose to look like since everyone here seems to know from examining kodachrome images, from where I haven't a clue.

So I did an image google search with two search entries, one "Kodachrome iT8 scans" and the other "Kodachrome Scans". What I found is quite a few pages and images of folks who claim they all got correct looking Kodachrome scans and THEY WERE ALL DIFFERENT! I wanted to spit nails!

Having an image restoration and painting background I even offered over at Photo.net to do a color treatment to emulate the look of Kodachrome according to what I found over at Dan Bayer's Kodachrome project. I thought I nailed it applying my Adobe Camera Raw saved presets I came up with that I applied to regular DSLR captured images.

"No I didn't nail it" was the answer I got back, or I got another answer from seasoned film photogs along the lines of "kinda close, but not quite there".

No one would show me a sample of what they thought Kodachrome is suppose to look like and what I found online of all the different appearances told me everyone is full of sh*t!

Here! Look at what this guy came up with...

http://members.klosterneuburg.net/handerle/kodachrome.html

Butt ugly junk! There's so much more like this.

Here's another:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/photography/183390-digital-archiving-vintage-kodachrome-slides.html

And another:

http://forums.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=280349

They're all different!
« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 07:40:00 PM by tlooknbill » Logged
davidh202
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 560


« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2011, 08:40:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Well call me "bud" Roll Eyes

The entire topic is completely subjective and case sensative depending on the variables involved .

Thank you for saying it a little more eloquently than I, with examples

That's just about what I was trying to say in my earlier post which Mr Schewe so proptly put me down for.
I was trying to learn I, I still am.
I have a few thousand Kodachromes I'd like to cull and scan. Contrary to what the real "Bud" said  about the "shills" I had reasearched the Silverfast "solution" and it was available more than 6 months ago, not simply since January 2011.
I am yet to be convinced it is the answer either.
As I said earlier there are just too many variables for a difinintive 'One Shoe Fits All' answer .


Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2011, 09:05:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I've read all the Kodachrome threads.

Cool...so how many scans have you actually done from Kodachrome? Ever try to scan 25? Kodachrome 64 in 120mm?
What sort of scanner? A drum scanner? A flatbed scanner? My experience has been scanning Kodachrome 25 & 64 in 35mm and Kodachrome 64 & 200 in 120mm. And I'm here to tell ya, scanning Kodachrome is much different and more difficult than scanning Ektachrome. Which, I think, is the reason for these recent threads? Do you have something useful to contribute? Again have you actually scanned Kodachrome? What were YOUR results?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2011, 09:07:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Well call me "bud" Roll Eyes

Hi bud...

So, what are your experiences scanning Kodachrome? What scanners? What software?
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1227



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2011, 12:14:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Do I have something useful to contribute?

I thought I was contributing by pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a one size fits all method to scanning Kodachrome seeing...

1. No one has yet told anyone what that "size" looks like...

2. From the examples I've posted, no one really knows what that "Kodachrome" look is anyway, so I'm trying to figure out what problem all these threads were trying to solve.

Jeff, as you've indicated, Kodachrome often doesn't look right scanned and requires a lot of work to get it to look 'right' while no one posts what the 'right' look is and how to maintain it on a consistent basis. So was anything resolved that I might have missed?

I can never understand how you can have a discussion on color without showing color. It's all talk, spectral curve graphs and mathematics with no connection to their results.


No, Jeff. I don't own one Kodachrome slide. I don't scan film anymore. I try to get that "film look" in post shooting with my DSLR, but I never get takers because everyone is so subjective on what that "film look" (pick your brand) should look like.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2011, 12:18:09 AM by tlooknbill » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2011, 12:28:47 AM »
ReplyReply

No, Jeff. I don't own one Kodachrome slide.

So, exactly what were you hoping to contribute to this thread? Zero experience scanning Kodachrome film? Hum, ok...

This and the other threads were directed toward people trying to actually do something rather than talk about something of which they have zero experience with.

Unless (and until) you can actually contribute something towards the topic of scanning Kodachrome film, you might want to stand on the sidelines...(instead of trying to interject suboptimal and less than useful comments).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad