Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Coffee With Mentors > Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

“Our autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selects”  

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."  

 

Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking "if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow."  I looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a starving man.  Bill has worked as a photojournalist  for 25 years, keyword: WORK.  Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's  life that Bill has earned and enjoyed.  Probably Bill's most famous pic is Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still waving. 

 

Bill  has been published in many major magazines, including  Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match.  :His published books include  The Leica Manual,  War Torn, Survivors and Victims in the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America,  Human Rights in China,  Children of War.  Add to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums.  Magazine contributions include  Popular Photography,  Camera 35, Leica Manual,  Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist, and now RFF.  Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad,  and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award. Perhaps an ever bigger award is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."

 

I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson.  In person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his writing.  He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography.  I am happy to say he has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF  From time to time Bill will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions.  Sit down and enjoy the ride!

 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 09-01-2012   #51
emayoh
Rangefindered User
 
emayoh's Avatar
 
emayoh is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 111
I've read this thread, and it has led to many more questions for me. When I see someone's method or results, I would like to hear *why* they like the results. IS the goal to get good dynamic range? Detail in shadows whilst retaining deep blacks? Is the goal to have no lost highlights? Is it possible to characterize the results with more than just liking "the look"? Maybe this question is heresy, but ... Is it possible to expound upon that with a bit more words?
__________________
Mick O // @Redfishingboat

Last edited by emayoh : 09-01-2012 at 22:04. Reason: typos
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2012   #52
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: On the Locust Fork of the Warrior River, Alabama
Age: 63
Posts: 9,711
i think i might start making color photos of monochrome subjects, and say they were converted ...
__________________
i show what i see ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2012   #53
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 52
Posts: 480
Is it just me or does it seem that all these film simulation softwares want to apply too much contrast, crush the blacks and apply too much grain?

And, yes....I use DXO, SEP2, Exposure and some others.

I find the best way is to start from scratch and 'develop' each image on it's own rather than any preset.

I like the look of the M Monochrome, but the highlights still look a bit dodgy...or is it just me?

I think where digital b&w conversions and even the M Monochrome fall down is in the transition from highlight into midtone...from all I see they still look a bit posterised to my eye.

None of this detracts from a good photo though. A good photo can stand on its own...film or digital, colour or b&w, leica or holga.
__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2012   #54
C_R
Registered User
 
C_R is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: germany
Posts: 183
The M Monochrom let me think about filtering again. Many years ago when I shot film and had my own darkroom, it was a good idea to get the shot right with choice of film, filter, exposure. The M Monochrom owners are in the same situation, they must see in greyscale, so to say. And they have just one emulsion, the MM sensor. After exposure, just dodging and burning, local contrast, curves, quite similar to the wet darkroom techniques. LR4 and Silver Efex cannot do wonders when foliage is muddy, tonal variation is lost when you used a red filter for the sky, or tones are so-so when you shot without a filter.
What I want to say is, after fiddling with B&W conversion for 10 years now, after trying out almost every software for B&W, I got the best results with filtering for exposure again.
Take one of your good old B&W filters, screw it on, and shoot some color RAW / DNGs. Then convert it directly to B&W with, for example, Capture One. Works much better than tweaking a color shot with some software like SFEX.

For landscape, a 060 B&W Yellow-Green is nice to get better tonal variations in foliage and sky (M9 and 21/3.4):




Carsten
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/sets/

Last edited by C_R : 09-01-2012 at 23:41. Reason: typo
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #55
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 52
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by C_R View Post
The M Monochrom let me think about filtering again. Many years ago when I shot film and had my own darkroom, it was a good idea to get the shot right with choice of film, filter, exposure. The M Monochrom owners are in the same situation, they must see in greyscale, so to say. And they have just one emulsion, the MM sensor. After exposure, just dodging and burning, local contrast, curves, quite similar to the wet darkroom techniques. LR4 and Silver Efex cannot do wonders when foliage is muddy, tonal variation is lost when you used a red filter for the sky, or tones are so-so when you shot without a filter.
What I want to say is, after fiddling with B&W conversion for 10 years now, after trying out almost every software for B&W, I got the best results with filtering for exposure again.
Take one of your good old B&W filters, screw it on, and shoot some color RAW / DNGs. Then convert it directly to B&W with, for example, Capture One. Works much better than tweaking a color shot with some software like SFEX.

For landscape, a 060 B&W Yellow-Green is nice to get better tonal variations in foliage and sky (M9 and 21/3.4):

Carsten
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/sets/
Thanks for the examples.

I think you are on to something there.

Although he epson raw software for my R-D1 seems to do the best job simulating filters of all the software I've used and I 've used quite a lot, I've recently bought some.

I have the same idea in mind to do some experimenting and comparison shots.
__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #56
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,236
Carsten, I agree with you about in-camera filtering for B/W, and have done so for sometime now, despite criticism from forum lurkers who tout the flexibility of shooting unfiltered in color and doing channel-mixer conversions in post.

The thing is, many experts will tell us how important proper white balance is to getting good highlight exposure, ensuring each color channel is adequately exposed. Filtering in-camera works this way, permitting the camera's exposure system to properly expose each color channel after it's been filtered, so that you have adequate bit-depth in each channel for B/W conversion.

Too many times, when I've tried doing B/W conversions on color images unfiltered in-camera, I notice each color channel taken individually is often under-exposed. This leads to B/W images with poor highlight separation.

Thanks for posting, and your example images are great.

~Joe
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #57
C_R
Registered User
 
C_R is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: germany
Posts: 183
Thank you :-) Many cameras, like the M9, let you shoot (filtered) color, but show a monochrome preview. I use this feature to learn "seeing in B&W".
Joe, your explanation is spot on, I think. To get the best tonal quality, tech experts advise us to "expose to the right" with digital, like slide film. Indeed, a comparison of filtered and unfiltered shots show that one or two channels are often underexposed, and filtering in-camera puts more exposure to the right, where the bit depth is higher. Software like SFEX pushes those underexposed channels, and when pushed too strong this will affect tonal quality.

Carsten
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #58
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,620
I agree that DXO film pack and silver Efex II are good short cuts compared to spending more time in LR, or PS (or similar) to get exactly what you want. The same tweaking can be done in these dedicated conversion programs, however. Expecting great results from any cookie cutter solution is asking a bit much, I think, but I have never been able to understand why digital B&W images need so much darned tweaking and why two seemingly similar images require such different treatment. In the darkroom, a limited palette of materials seems to give great results more widely, but I have no idea why.

The one area where I feel Silver Efex is great is on the grain pattern. Much better than LR.

I used DXO film pack and Silver Efex II as trial software and did not end up buying either in full, but that was largely due to the limited amount of digital B&W I do (I'm a film user). In the near future, I will be probably buy silver Efex, or DXO film pack, just to have a little more by way of options compared to LR only, but that said, I think LR allows you to get 95% of the way there.

On the topic of injecting a little colour for improved tonality, the same is true in the wet darkroom. In both, however, I feel the routine use of colour toning can often be a product of deficiencies elsewhere in the workflow. Quite a few years ago, I shot landscapes exclusively, with the occasional nude. Most prints were toned, often subtly. However, when I started documentary work I needed to make straight neutral B&W prints that really sang. I learned a lot more about printing as a result of that simple challenge. I see a similar journey in my B&W digital experiments. Toning can become a crutch, which is best pulled away to force deeper learning.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #59
dasuess
Registered User
 
dasuess's Avatar
 
dasuess is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Age: 63
Posts: 350
I have been watching this thread with interest, hoping to find a great (but cheap and easy) solution to producing a B&W rendering from my color digital images. Not seeing that so far in the thread, I have taken a deeper look at something I've had under my nose almost since I first started using Aperture on my Macbook over 18 months ago. It's a free B&W editor that can be easily used to round-trip in Aperture. It has sliders for R/G/B/Contrast/Grain/Sepia. I did a quick compare of doing a B&W conversion within Aperture and then using this B&W converter. I did not spend much time on either, minutes really. The B&W converter wins - I think I have a keeper, and it's free.
__________________
"You can't count on others to think or see for you." David Vestal, The Craft of Photography

David A. Suess
Nikon Df: 28/f3,5, 35f/2, 55f/3.5 Micro, 85f/1.8, 105/f2.5, 180/f2.8, 200/f4, 300/f4.5
Olympus EM-5: 12/f2, 17/f1.8, 45/f1.8
http://DavidSuessImages.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #60
fstops
-
 
fstops is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 229
Here is a simple test.

Photoshop B&W adjustment layer:



Photoshop B&W adjustment layer with green filter preset (green plant):



Photoshop LAB color mode lightness channel:

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #61
DNG
Fuji X-E2 / Nikon FE
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasuess View Post
I have been watching this thread with interest, hoping to find a great (but cheap and easy) solution to producing a B&W rendering from my color digital images. Not seeing that so far in the thread, I have taken a deeper look at something I've had under my nose almost since I first started using Aperture on my Macbook over 18 months ago. It's a free B&W editor that can be easily used to round-trip in Aperture. It has sliders for R/G/B/Contrast/Grain/Sepia. I did a quick compare of doing a B&W conversion within Aperture and then using this B&W converter. I did not spend much time on either, minutes really. The B&W converter wins - I think I have a keeper, and it's free.
Look at Post 48, and click on the link... If you use LR there is a version for that...
It has over 20 BW films, with most having 4 options for developer times (more/less contrast), and also over 15 paper selections most are multigrade papers (more/less contrast). plus a host of darkroom adjustments. So over 100 combos, plus fine tuning for in between exposure/developing/contrast settings
PLUS, a large selection of Correction Filters for B&W and Color.

Donation Ware, and very well done IMO...

Screen Shot in Aftershot Pro


"Camera/Enlarger" sliders = Exposure tweaking
"Density/RAW Stops" sliders = Dynamic Range tweaking
"Film/Paper" sliders = Contrast Tweaking

I do my normal editing 1st for Exposure, Curves, Contrast as normal before I apply my film/paper choice. then I can tweak the final image with optional controls under the film/paper selection.
__________________

iPernity

Flickr (Street Photography)

Tumblr


My Feed Back


Fuji X-E2: XF 18mm f/2_ XF 35mm f/1.4_J9-85mm f/2
Nikon FE: 24mm f/2.8 Ais_ 50mm f/1.8 Ais_50mm f/1.4 NAi

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #62
c.poulton
Registered User
 
c.poulton's Avatar
 
c.poulton is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London
Age: 48
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo_Smith View Post
I'm sure that's not a good method, any method where you throw info away like that..
Let me explain; I've been using L*a*b mode since Photoshop 2 the luminance channel is not a good starter for a mono conversion, its just like a greyscale but sans the residual density you get in the a & b channels so you just end up getting a light greyscale conversion.
Converting to greyscale is throwing info away too, so those destructive methods aren't the way to go unless you wan't weak sterile looking files.

The channel mixer tool is a much better way, as is keeping the file in RGB mode. I have found that putting a little colour into grey images makes them look dynamic, the eye hates that bland grey just putting in 5-6 yellow and 1-2 magenta will give the resulting file more depth.

Try it!– take a sterile grey file and make RGB and put a little yellow makes a world of difference, just the merest hint of colour gives better apparent tonality illusion:


I've tried Silver FX and just about every other 'miracle snake oil' out there and while I still have film I think they are a waste of money, time and effort–if you don't want to mess with film Photoshop and lots of time is a better choice.
Thanks Photo_Smith, that might explain why I've always been a little disappointed in my B&W conversions in the past.

I guess your method of adding in just the merest hint of a colour tone might work just as well for film scans? I'll have to give this a try out - thanks for the advice
BTW, not sure where I picked up the LAB B&W process - too many years ago now to remember.....
__________________
Christian

My Gallery
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Thanks for the input!
Old 09-02-2012   #63
biomed
Registered User
 
biomed's Avatar
 
biomed is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Seattle Area (North)
Posts: 2,908
Thanks for the input!

From what has been presented so far in this thread it is IMHO that there are many good tools available for digital BW conversion. I see from the examples posted here and http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=100694 that these tools work well for many. There is not a universal solution. The problem that I have run into is getting so involved in the process that notes are not taken. Experimentation agumented with suggestions from the RFF membership have been the main course for me. What I am trying to do with my photography is only improved with input from other's visions of photographing the world. Please keep this thread going. It is very interesting.

Thanks,
Mike
__________________
biomed
Things are more like they are now than they’ve ever been before.

2014 Photos

rff Gallery

Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #64
Photo_Smith
Registered User
 
Photo_Smith's Avatar
 
Photo_Smith is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
On the topic of injecting a little colour for improved tonality, the same is true in the wet darkroom. In both, however, I feel the routine use of colour toning can often be a product of deficiencies elsewhere in the workflow. Quite a few years ago, I shot landscapes exclusively, with the occasional nude. Most prints were toned, often subtly. However, when I started documentary work I needed to make straight neutral B&W prints that really sang. I learned a lot more about printing as a result of that simple challenge. I see a similar journey in my B&W digital experiments. Toning can become a crutch, which is best pulled away to force deeper learning.
I disagree wrt toning. I"m 100% wet print, I don't really do any digital mono.
With traditional wet prints you select the paper stock to give the colour you need, you can further enhance this by developer choice and dilution.

For instance my favourite combination was Record rapid in Neutol WA at 1:3 which gave warm green tones perfect for the type of shot i posted.
For portraits I'd use Portriga which had a lovely off white base which is impossible to mimic on ink-jets. Some cooler papers like Ilfobrom were nice in Dektol to give cooler image values.


So far from being a crutch, I see it as part of my pre-visualisation and it is this thinking about the end product that forces deeper learning and improved end aesthetic.

So personally speaking as a wet printer, if I'm forced to go digital I will add a little colour value in order to stop the sterility, no wet print was 100% neutral in colour, the eye doesn't like it–put in a barely detectable hint of colour and see the difference.

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #65
fstops
-
 
fstops is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 229
In my humble opinion toning sentimentalizes the image/subject.

Its like the Hipstamatic of b&w images, because it creates a faux vintage effect that goes back to pictorialism. Its also no remedy for digital b&w.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #66
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 2,966
I just posted over in the Fuji folder about my X100 B&W workflow, so I'll repost it here, as it seems germane to this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by maggieo View Post
...
As for the conversion, I usually start out with a home-brewed preset that combines the "Fine Art Print" factory preset with the Agfa 100 film type setting. Then I tweak overall settings for brightness and structure and will sometimes change the film type until it looks good to my eye in general. After that, I start laying down control points and adjusting brightness, contrast, structure, etc... until everything is just so and the stuff I want to pop, pops. Each frame is handled differently, sort of like printing in the darkroom.

Hope that was a good starting point for your own explorations!

Here's the latest batch of shots from Sunday's trip to Oakland and Uehling, Nebraska:


Somebody's Bar, Uehling, NE, August 26, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Somebody's Bar, Uehling, NE, August 26, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Back Room, Somebody's Bar, Uehling, NE, August 26, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #67
Photo_Smith
Registered User
 
Photo_Smith's Avatar
 
Photo_Smith is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by fstops View Post
In my humble opinion toning sentimentalizes the image/subject.

Its like the Hipstamatic of b&w images, because it creates a faux vintage effect that goes back to pictorialism. Its also no remedy for digital b&w.
Yet in days gone by all traditional prints had a colour. This was because the emulsions were bromide (cool) or chloride (warm) or a mixture to make more neutral.
The greyscale image is not found in traditional wet prints.
That's why adding a little colour makes it look natural, it not 'hipstermatic' or whatever that means, just basic colour science–the eye likes it and it's what's missing from digital, it's why most digi mono images look flat and sterile
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #68
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 6,561
Tried all the possible methods about 9 years ago. Some very complicated, some with presets and sometimes just out of the camera. But they all looked like a digital conversion, which if you like that you are 'in like flint' or is it 'in like flin.' After all the screwing around and too many hours wasted there was only one that was fun and as good as anything was this one:

http://www.photo-plugins.com/Plugins...onversion.html

And in is free.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #69
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: On the Locust Fork of the Warrior River, Alabama
Age: 63
Posts: 9,711
thanks for that, sir. i will check it out ...
__________________
i show what i see ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #70
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 6,561
Be careful, there is a lot of junk with it so it may not be worth it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #71
venchka
Registered User
 
venchka's Avatar
 
venchka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 68
Posts: 6,138
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulfish4570 View Post
i think i might start making color photos of monochrome subjects, and say they were converted ...
sepiareverb, Robert, beat us to the idea. I still plan to steal/copy/borrow his idea if I see an appropriate subject.
I have been harboring a similar idea for a project. Festering now for a few years. Send me a PM.

Wayne
__________________
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
Quote:
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" Kimi Raikkonen
My Gallery
My Blog-Reborn
FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #72
venchka
Registered User
 
venchka's Avatar
 
venchka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 68
Posts: 6,138
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by maggieo View Post
I just posted over in the Fuji folder about my X100 B&W workflow, so I'll repost it here, as it seems germane to this thread:
You lost me at control points.
I must admit: For me, loading a roll of Agfa 100 APX and sloshing it around in Rodinal or Xtol and passing the negatives through my Epson scanner is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more easier (in my best south Luziana diction) than mucking about in software trying to emulate Agfa 100 or any film I may have on hand.

That said, I do see the potential for using a digital camera in places where film would be a P.I.T.A. and then performing some VooDoo and coming up with an acceptable monochrome photo. I have approximately 363 days to decide between digital, film or a combination for a significant trip.

I am, afterall, here to learn. So far, I seem to be merely dazed 7 confused.

Wayne
__________________
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
Quote:
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" Kimi Raikkonen
My Gallery
My Blog-Reborn
FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #73
venchka
Registered User
 
venchka's Avatar
 
venchka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 68
Posts: 6,138
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duane Pandorf View Post
If you use PS, the Nik plugins for PS allow you to save the completed PS file in layers allowing you to go back and re-edit if you need to.

The LR & Aperture versions do not save the final edit in layers and once saved you can't go back to the saved image and make changes to the different filters you may have used. In other words, you would have to start again with the original from scratch.
LR doesn't "save" a file in the sense of a traditional file save. The only way to "lock" a file with LR is to Export the file. The original is not changed in any way and you can browse through the Edit History, create virtual copies, continue to play to your hearts content.
Lightroom doesn't do File>Save>Name.

Wayne
__________________
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
Quote:
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" Kimi Raikkonen
My Gallery
My Blog-Reborn
FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #74
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 2,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
Tried all the possible methods about 9 years ago.
To be fair, that was several generations ago. That's like saying you tired wet plate colloidal photography and that new film stuff can't possibly be better.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2012   #75
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 2,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by venchka View Post
You lost me at control points.
Think of them as dodging paddles and burning masks. Same thing, only a different paradigm.

Photography is photography and if you have a vision, the tools are irrelevant.

The only thing standing between an artist and their realized vision is a lack of imagination and determination.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
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 14:04.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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.