Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Being a Photographer > Business / Philosophy of Photography

Business / Philosophy of Photography Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography."

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Why do we still shoot stills?
Old 02-20-2011   #1
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,851
Why do we still shoot stills?

I was sitting here in my home office editing some web video for the newspaper's website today, immersed in Final Cut Pro, and thought to myself, with the technology we have, and the ease of shooting video these days, why do I continue to shoot still photos? Of course, I still need them for the print edition of the newspaper, but why am I trying to personally tell stories with a single image, or even a series of single images?

Doesn't video actually tell a story better? What continues to be so appealing to me about still photos?

The technology to share video is no longer a limiting factor. You can literally hold video in your hands. There are smart phones, Ipads, computers...everywhere! The same technology most of us share still photos on.

So, here's the question. Beyond "because I like the cameras that shoot still photos," why do you prefer (or not, if that's the case) to shoot stills?
__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #2
softshock
Registered User
 
softshock's Avatar
 
softshock is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Paris, FR
Posts: 112
I honestly prefer an article with a photo or two along with a written story. I can't stand when I go to a news site, almost any now, and it's a lot of video not even accompanied by a transcript! Writing will always tell the best story, but I feel a video is information overload. Keep in mind this is all just my personal opinion.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #3
Neare
Registered User
 
Neare's Avatar
 
Neare is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,591
Perhaps it is because it lacks the story telling aspect and it is rather, implied.
Implications can have a further meaning to them beyond the obvious or what is seen.

A single moment captured is quite often far more powerful and that single moment of a film reel that only existed for 1/60 of a second as the frames went by.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #4
SciAggie
Registered User
 
SciAggie's Avatar
 
SciAggie is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Age: 55
Posts: 545
For me it is the same reason that I prefer to read the book before I see the movie. The old cliché "a picture is worth a thousand words" is true for me - and the thousand words are my own. There is imagination and a connection with a good still image. You can also stare at it and put yourself in it. I don't believe video has that feeling. I have never seen a Norman Rockwell moment captured in a news video.
__________________
Gary
Amateur Image Architect

http://strickspics.zenfolio.com
RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #5
will-i_am
Registered User
 
will-i_am's Avatar
 
will-i_am is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 28
Posts: 305
most of the things that i photograph are still so that makes allot of sense. you cant make prints from videos, videos tell the truth and photographs hold a bit more mystery as to what may have come before or after.
__________________
FLICKR tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #6
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,851
Modern times...creating "content" for the web. <sigh>


__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #7
erik
Registered User
 
erik's Avatar
 
erik is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rhode Island USA
Posts: 178
It was never just about technical limitations. A still can communicate the essence of an event with a directness that a video clip cannot do. No knock on video, it just is a different thing. Consider TV news for instance, they are all about motion and showing a clip poses no problem, but more often than not major events are introduced by a still image behind the newscaster. Think about events like Oklahoma City, or the President at ground zero after 9/11, these conjure up a still image for me, that is what becomes iconic. Video can become iconic too but I don't see it pushing out the still. People have a deep sense for pictures and that goes way beyond any single technology.

Last edited by erik : 02-20-2011 at 17:20.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #8
tapesonthefloor
Registered User
 
tapesonthefloor's Avatar
 
tapesonthefloor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 289
A response to a work of art is as much a function of what the viewer provides as it is of the artist's statement. Art is a dialogue. Motion film, as an inherently linear medium, removes much of the mystery and intrigue that's present in many of the best photographs. It brings too much to the table. The viewer's imagination is never given a moment to wander, to explore, to come up with its own answers to the questions what, why, and how. It's an excellent medium for linear storytelling, esp. when mated with sound, (or, at least, it's an effective one) but for communicating a moment or a feeling or an emotion to the viewer nothing will ever top a still image, in my opinion. A still image is the wardrobe and the looking-glass, and no form of art is as inviting, or as enticing to the imaginative mind.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #9
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,851
One thing to me is that, long past the "event" that a still photo depicts, even after its context is lost, the photo, abstracted from its original context, can still stand as an outstanding photo. Video will never really be abstracted.

An amazing portrait that happened to be shot during a child's birthday party will always be an amazing photo, even devoid of context. A video of a child's birthday party will always be a video of a child's birthday party.
__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #10
Spyro
Registered User
 
Spyro is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Oz
Posts: 921
oh a few reasons... first I cant be bothered reinventing the wheel in terms of software, developing etc. Second I dont have the patience to set up a scene, and good video requires complex set ups and equipment.

The third and most important reason for me is that video takes away one important factor that I really enjoy, which is timing my shot and getting the right moment that captures the emotion and tells the story I want to tell. I'm sure it introduces others challenges and options that are equally or more interesting, but I really love my 1/250 moments

Oh yeah and you cant print video for your wall.
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #11
Trooper
Registered User
 
Trooper's Avatar
 
Trooper is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Lake St. Clair
Posts: 256
A single frame is can be more effective. Ever click on a thumbnail, a single image from a 10:00 minute video, only to be disappointed by the other 9599 frames? Even videographers resort to choosing their single, best frame. To advertise entire movies, the best scenes are shown as previews. But ultimately, the entire movie is boiled down to a poster.

A single, powerful, image is simple more memorable that a video.

Last edited by Trooper : 02-20-2011 at 18:29.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #12
FrozenInTime
Registered User
 
FrozenInTime's Avatar
 
FrozenInTime is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,531
I tried to think of some examples where still images, video and sound all exist.

Hindenburg : it's the reporter 'Oh the Humanity' that I think of first.
911 attacks : there are no words to describe the shock of seeing the planes ploughing into the towers.
Apollo : there is a serene stillness looking at those Hasselblad moon photos.
Tiananmen square : it's that man causing the tanks to wiggle around.

Unfortunately I can't think of any written words matching the power of images and sound - perhaps that's a more telling sign of the times ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #13
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,851
FrozenInTime, that's a good observation. While I personally prefer a written story to watching a video of the event, I'm 60 years old. Young people consume video and sound bites like I consume written words.
__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #14
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 56
Posts: 5,489
Because a still photograph is more capable of making a lasting impression on ones mind while a video is fleeting. For an example here's the video of a thread I posted a few hours ago of photographer Matthew Lewis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsR8Q...layer_embedded Clearly the still of the two girls swinging is much stronger than any video made of the same subject.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #15
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,052
This is one perspective, and one I agree with, on the difference between stills and video and why I prefer stills.

http://duckrabbit.info/2010/05/in-pr...dio-slideshow/

From where I sit, the video/mm splash hasn't made much of a difference and many newspapers are going with the 'programming model' vs the storytelling one. There are exceptions of course but bean counters have realized producing quality multimedia photojournalism eats up manpower and resources which they feel could be better spent elsewhere. Sorry to digress but it's relevent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #16
softshock
Registered User
 
softshock's Avatar
 
softshock is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Paris, FR
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson View Post
FrozenInTime, that's a good observation. While I personally prefer a written story to watching a video of the event, I'm 60 years old. Young people consume video and sound bites like I consume written words.
And that's why "we're" a stupid generation! I despise facebook, twitter, myspace, and most news outlets in general. We were talking about this yesterday at the Philadelphia meetup, but it seems like every commercial on television or every ad for diapers, booze, insurance, or sports has some kind of "Visit us on: Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc". I don't even have a TV set and only watch what I want to watch, on my own time, at Hulu or Netflix.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #17
Pfreddee
Registered User
 
Pfreddee is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the suburbs of Dillwyn, Virginia
Age: 75
Posts: 386
I don't wish to be totally negative and unpleasant, but I have no interest in becoming a videographer. It's hard enough being a good still photographer and I am perfectly happy as I am.

Having said that, I am fully aware that video production is another branch of graphic arts, with its own disciplines and techniques. If one's inclinations are in that direction, or one wishes to do both still and video, have at it!

With best regards to all.

Pfreddee(Stephen)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #18
GSNfan
-
 
GSNfan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Age: 36
Posts: 644
I almost never look at news still images anymore, and I have not read a newspaper in a couple of years now. For news, I visit one of the major news orgs website, read the news titles, and watch the video clips.

The days of still photography for news is over and so is that form of PJ work. Still photography is back where it started, mainly for artistic use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #19
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,851
GSNfan, that's why our newspaper has a website. Our surveys show that the majority of folks in our county under 30 years old no longer buy newspapers and get the majority of their news from video online. I'm a print newspaper shooter from way back, but I also understand that dead tree newspapers, with the kind of demographic our surveys show, don't have a long future.

I don't particularly enjoy shooting and editing video. But I do enjoy the news game, and want to keep doing it.
__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #20
dng88
Dennis
 
dng88's Avatar
 
dng88 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 145
Video force you to take the "author" view point and timeline. You are not involved. It is a "cold" medium.

Still require author to involve the reader and not force them to think, force them to listen, force them to ... You have to ask the reader to think, ask reader to listen to the sound that is not there, ask the reader to imagine or even guess what is the intent/ the context / ... etc.

Also, I can quickly do with an image and hence if it is attractive, I would try to dig more about the "author" etc. But for video, well, I have to sit to watch that rubbish and find out that it is really rubbish and by the time it is too late. Hence, I do not iike video that much.

Also, still is for everyone to one but video, good one, is not for everyone to do. I have my 8x10 and probably if not wander so much, I can have my M9/D3x. Can I even reach a lens of video camera.
__________________
Pentax 67, Deadoroff 8x10, hessey 203fe, fuji 645zi
fuji gx680 "the breast", R3A/R4A and Nikon F4,
Yaschica 124G, Holga 66&612,
Tachihara 4x5, Kodak 2d 8x10
D: Nikon D300, Epson v700, Nex III&5n
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #21
FrozenInTime
Registered User
 
FrozenInTime's Avatar
 
FrozenInTime is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSNfan View Post
For news, I visit one of the major news orgs website, read the news titles, and watch the video clips.
I'm too impatient to watch the news clips on the BBC,CNN etc. especially if they are preceded by a 20s advert
or if they take more than a couple of seconds to start streaming.
I would rather read the headlines and follow a link to a text report. Still images also win as attention grabbers in that context.

If I'm at home, I'm happy to be spoon fed the TV news.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #22
Vilk
Registered User
 
Vilk's Avatar
 
Vilk is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 183
here's an angle for you,

my mom has a framed picture of me on her bookshelf; it's reasonably prominent, she can see it from everywhere... now imagine this were a 60-second video clip in an LCD frame
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #23
gns
Registered User
 
gns is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson View Post
Doesn't video actually tell a story better? What continues to be so appealing to me about still photos?
A story (or narrative), by definition, requires the passage of time. It is a series of related events. So movies, videos and language (spoken or written) are obviously more suitable for telling stories.
Still images do something different. They describe something of the look of things, frozen in time and removed from their original context. They represent and document the look of something, but at the same time change it. The best photos, to me, always seem to elaborate somehow on that. A photo may evoke some story in a viewer, but that isn't really telling a story, is it?

Cheers,
Gary
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #24
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,373
If I'm on a site with embedded video, that begins running without my initiating it, I leave the site at once. I don't want unwanted data loaded on my box.

Also, if it's news, i want it quickly. I'll decide what content I want in depth. Sites with a lot of active content take time to load. I'll look elsewhere.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #25
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson View Post
GSNfan, that's why our newspaper has a website. Our surveys show that the majority of folks in our county under 30 years old no longer buy newspapers and get the majority of their news from video online. I'm a print newspaper shooter from way back, but I also understand that dead tree newspapers, with the kind of demographic our surveys show, don't have a long future.

I don't particularly enjoy shooting and editing video. But I do enjoy the news game, and want to keep doing it.
Many current stats reveal that a lot of those under 30 can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map or globe. If it's not a story about pop culture, many aren't interested. Maybe they need movement to attract their attention ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2011   #26
Alpacaman
keen bean
 
Alpacaman is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson View Post
Young people consume video and sound bites like I consume written words.
Well, a large proportion might, many do not. I personally prefer written words and stills.

To me videos (at least news ones, I have to make an exception for some of my favourite films) are clunky, noisy, and all the information is forced down your throat at a timing decided by someone else. An article can be digested in your own time, thoroughly dissected or quickly skimmed at will, in your own head, in your own voice. The same applies to stills, which for me tend to do a better job of conveying emotion than a video might.

I do get my news online, through various rss feeds, as articles (I cannot get the paper out in the country where I am) but these also afford me the luxury of deciding what kinds of news I want to receive.

Last edited by Alpacaman : 02-20-2011 at 23:08.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #27
Peter^
Registered User
 
Peter^'s Avatar
 
Peter^ is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 264
Photography is a very limited art medium: no sound, no narration, no motion, and no space.

It's as much about what it doesn't say as about what it does.
__________________
- Peter
----------------
Zeiss Ikon, Olympus OM-1n, Konica C35, NEX-7

See my pictures at:
http://peter.andrews.ipernity.com

“Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #28
will-i_am
Registered User
 
will-i_am's Avatar
 
will-i_am is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 28
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
Many current stats reveal that a lot of those under 30 can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map or globe. If it's not a story about pop culture, many aren't interested. Maybe they need movement to attract their attention ?
yeah flashing lights help too
__________________
FLICKR tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #29
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by will-i_am View Post
yeah flashing lights help too
Well, William, you don't fit the pattern. But I'll bet you know a few that do. Actually, I've found the younger (20 year olds) kids a bit more "adjusted" to the High Tech. BS. Most that I'm in contact with, that are over their heads in all the social media stuff are in their mid 20s to early 40s. The younger kids seem to have figured out that if the power goes out, the social media goes out too. If someone tweets them in the middle of a job (ADs), everything comes to a stop. They are the center of the universe.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #30
Spleenrippa
Yes, Right There
 
Spleenrippa's Avatar
 
Spleenrippa is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Halifax, NS
Age: 32
Posts: 421
In this topic: old farts and luddites deride change
Television supplanted radio as the main media source of the average home. The internet is quickly doing that to television. Ebooks are doing it to print.
As far as newspapers go, why would you want to read one? What you're reading is ancient history. Call social media and online news evil, but if you want info on what is happening NOW, it's the only way to go.
I maintain a fairly substantial physical library, but do most of my reading via my tablet. My smartphone is always by my side- I'm piped in 24/7/365 to all the weather, news and contact with friends that I can handle. At any given moment, I have more information 3 seconds away than the bloody Library of Congress.
__________________
My Site. You know you want to
ROBOTERKAM
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #31
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,413
Easier to remember. Even where we remember a moving image, be it news or a coup de cinéma it's normally two or three seconds at most: often, effectively, a single frame.

Also, GOOD video is MUCH more difficult. Most amateurs can master still photography almost instinctively. How much good amateur video/ciné footage have you ever seen?

In fact, in three words, 'the decisive moment'.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #32
al1966
Feed Your Head
 
al1966's Avatar
 
al1966 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 601
I am moved by still images whether they be paint, silver or paper and glue. The video clip is fleeting and personally I can look at a still for a good while looking at it up and down side to side taking in all the subtleties it has to offer. Though it could be said I could play a video over and over, it tends to get boring as the commentary appears more repetitive and the feeling that it does not have much to offer. I do exempt some great films but as others have said the book mostly offers a lot lot more. Also I don't want a moving image hanging on my wall it creates a visual irritant.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #33
Tim Gray
Registered User
 
Tim Gray is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,840
I can much more easily create a 'finished' photo than I can a 'finished' video product. Sure, we can tape something on our iPhones and upload it to Youtube, etc., but a video product in finished form requires a lot more pre production, production, and post production work than a photo does. At least in my opinion. Just in post, you need to edit the video, edit and mix the audio, color correct the footage, etc. Same goes for the other stages of video/film making.

There's something to be said for a medium that has no audio and no movement. It let's the creator and the audience concentrate on the single visual aspect, frozen in time.

That being said, I love doing video/film work too. It's just a LOT more time consuming in my mind when it comes time to push a final version out.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #34
antiquark
Derek Ross
 
antiquark's Avatar
 
antiquark is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,469
It's much faster to look at a picture for 5 seconds than to watch a video for 5 minutes. There are only so many hours in the day, I'm not going to spend them watching vids!

For example, take a look at "The Big Picture" blog.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201..._behind_t.html

This article has 36 pictures. You can skim that in a few minutes. If they expanded that to video form, it would be an hour long documentary. Who has the time???
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #35
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson View Post
So, here's the question. Beyond "because I like the cameras that shoot still photos," why do you prefer (or not, if that's the case) to shoot stills?
Still images leave room for your imagination, videos silent it.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

I prefer stills and words
Old 02-21-2011   #36
daveleo
È quello che è.
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,504
I prefer stills and words

The great majority of personal videos (to me) are pathetically boring or stupid. The majority of "news" and "info" videos are mostly wasted frames of chatter or irelevant points.

Text in print lets me reread sentences, slow down and think if this or that makes sense or has credibility, and a (good) still image with it helps me visualize the important points.

If I were to oversimplify, I'd say that videos are flash-by-fast entertainment, text and stills are for the serious exchange of information and ideas.
__________________
Dave


"I photograph my fantasies" .... Man Ray
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #37
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,408
Unlike 'stills', video never interested me. It seems like kitsch in comparison with 'stills'. Or like peanut butter, you know how it smears off the knife when you make a peanut butter sandwich?

Like that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #38
GSNfan
-
 
GSNfan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Age: 36
Posts: 644
Right now, the big news is Libya, but there are not a single foreign correspondent there. The only news is coming from amateur video footage and witness reports. BBC is running a live update page on their website and Aljazeera has a live video feed with commentary and interviews on their website...

In other words, the idea of a next-day newspaper, and still images never felt more outdated and even absurd than ever.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #39
_larky
Registered User
 
_larky's Avatar
 
_larky is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 631
I don't shoot video simply because I prefer to shoot stills. I have the opportunity to shoot video as much as I want, but I just don't like doing it. I do it for work when I have to, but otherwise I think one great photo can say more than any amount of video footage.

Take any Nachtwey picture for example, you'll not find any video that touches me as much.

But this is simply my opinion.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2011   #40
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is online now
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,137
Sounds like the same argument as to why a painter wouldn't just want to photograph instead.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 14:05.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.