Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Film vs Digital

Film vs Digital Discussions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of Film vs Digital are important as they can help us understand our choices as photographers. Each medium has strengths and weaknesses which can best be used in a given circumstance. While this makes for an interesting and useful discussion, DO NOT attack others who disagree with you. Forum rules are explained in the RFF FAQ linked at the top of each page.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Why don't you like digital?
Old 12-10-2017   #1
chiller
Registered User
 
chiller is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 13
Why don't you like digital?

I do ask this as a serious question. I don't want to hear from digital fan boys explaining to me the errors of my non digital ways.
I would like to know why people don't embrace digital as their creative outlet. I'm not asking for a technical digital vs film battle, that has been done to death. I'm more interested in the very subjective personal "Why don't you like digital?".
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2017   #2
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiller View Post
I would like to know why people don't embrace digital as their creative outlet.
I embrace both as my creative outlets. No dogma or religion.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Because digital is such a PITA
Old 12-10-2017   #3
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,159
Because digital is such a PITA

Rather than make photography easier, as everyone promised, digital made everything far more complicated and harder to do. Unless you were a programmer or loved sitting in front of a computer editing things compulsively, digital just was not as nice as film.

BUT...Now that someone finally got smart and put the camera in the phone where it really belonged all along, it is finally easy. Now I can take pictures of anything I want and instantly share it with everybody.

Digital photography finally has a purpose for being. Up until now it has always been the poor stepchild of film photography; always trying but never quite good enough to make the grade at anything but newspaper photography.



EDIT - I actually love digital and film. Both different but both are great fun.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan

Last edited by Pioneer : 12-10-2017 at 20:09. Reason: A little bit more to say.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2017   #4
Lux Optima
Registered User
 
Lux Optima is offline
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 66
I love not seeing what I have shot on a display. Not looking back but always following the pictures I have in my mind.

And I love talking with people about why I shoot on film.
__________________
Cheers, Stefan
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2017   #5
Carey M
Registered User
 
Carey M is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Finland
Posts: 73
I don't hate digital, but I do find shooting film a lot more exhilarating. Hard to put into words why exactly, but probably in large part because of what Stefan talks about above. Doesn't really matter if I'm using a P&S, a manual rangefinder or a TLR, if it's film, I'll enjoy it more than using any digital camera. I also like the look of film and using different film stock, but I admit much of this can be replicated very well in digital realm.

I just purchased an M9 to try and get back to digital, and even though I'm liking it just fine, I have to admit that so far I'm not really "feeling it". I'll persist, but secretly I'm already thinking of replacing it with a lens or two or another film body
__________________
Analogue at heart.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2017   #6
Scrambler
Registered User
 
Scrambler's Avatar
 
Scrambler is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 1,279
I like doing stuff differently.

To be honest, my most commonly used camera is an Epson R-D1 - a digital you use like a film camera. Even down to hiding the screen. Mind you, you can use my wife's Canon digital SLR that way if you want :-)

The fun for me with film cameras is that with careful selection I have 90 years of camera history (over 100 if you consider base designs rather than specific models) with functional cameras. I can take a photo just like they did in 1900 (albeit with a camera from the 1920s) right through to doing it like they do today. I have a film SLR from the first 12 months of 35mm SLR build, and it takes entirely usable photos in the modern world. I have a Leica of essentially the same age, and lenses from the 1930's forward to 2000's that fit it.

I suppose I'm just backward. It's a pleasant feeling to generate a fully functional photo out of an old camera. And I have gradually acquired cameras and lenses to allow a range of approaches, though the number of 50mm lenses at times appalls me (I think I've got about 12 in good working condition...)
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2017   #7
Tom R
Registered User
 
Tom R is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiller View Post
I do ask this as a serious question. I don't want to hear from digital fan boys explaining to me the errors of my non digital ways.
I would like to know why people don't embrace digital as their creative outlet. I'm not asking for a technical digital vs film battle, that has been done to death. I'm more interested in the very subjective personal "Why don't you like digital?".
I don't dislike "digital," per se, but I think that anyone considering that path needs to take into account its various tradeoffs. And while every technology has its tradeoffs, I think that the 21st century has oversold and over invested in technology for technology's sake. We see this especially in "niche" or boutique areas, such as photography (at least in the 21st century).

One can make photographs with either digital or "analog" technology, and one the challenge is to choose the most appropriate tool for the task and not vice versa.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2017   #8
mbisc
Silver Halide User
 
mbisc's Avatar
 
mbisc is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 639
I spend 40+ hours a week playing with some of the finest computing equipment out there for my day job - the last thing I want to do in my spare time is sit in front of a computer. That, and I love seeing a print "popping" in the developer...
__________________
Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too short for cheap film

Flickr
----------------------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2017   #9
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbisc View Post
...and I love seeing a print "popping" in the developer...
Somehow seeing the image come up on a display just is not the same. Nowhere near the same magical feeling
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2017   #10
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,124
I think a couple of the reasons why I've not bothered with digital are:

Any digital camera I can afford has too many buttons to push to get the settings the way I want but with analogue all I do is turn an aperture ring, a film speed dial and a shutter speed dial and press one button.

Those digital cameras that do have dials are too expensive. One make seems to be prone to sensor corrosion after a few years even though the cameras cost thousands. I don't know about other makes. Analogue cameras are far cheaper and seem to be far less prone to corrison of any sort.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2018   #11
Ted Striker
-
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiller View Post
I'm more interested in the very subjective personal "Why don't you like digital?".
Because it is very very very boring to me. It's that simple.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2018   #12
Tom R
Registered User
 
Tom R is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiller View Post
I do ask this as a serious question. I don't want to hear from digital fan boys explaining to me the errors of my non digital ways.
I would like to know why people don't embrace digital as their creative outlet. I'm not asking for a technical digital vs film battle, that has been done to death. I'm more interested in the very subjective personal "Why don't you like digital?".
It's not that I "dislike digital." Rather, it's that I'd prefer NOT to depend upon digital technology for my photographic output. I would gladly swap "features" and "the ephemeral" for dependability and the enduring qualities that I've experienced for nearly forty years using Leica M bodies and associated lenses.

At the end of the day, cameras are tools that I use to express something about the world. I prefer to focus more on my vision and less on my toolkit with the caveat that a good set of dependable tools frees me up to do just that.

Now, I do own one digital Leica body--an M 8.2. I use this, often, as a "sketch pad" for vetting ideas. Sometimes these sketches stand alone; more often, I study the sketches and return with a film body to complete the task. For what it's worth, I use the same lenses (all pre-ASPH) on the digital as well as the film bodies ... never saw the need to justify the expense ... or maybe I'm just not that discerning.

I'm sure that others on this forum will have different opinions in this regard.

TR
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2018   #13
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,714
I shoot both film and digital. They are both tools used to make images. I don't understand all the antipathy, the choosing of sides, the us and them mentality. Is it just a sign of the times, a reflection of current society?
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2018   #14
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,261
I'm fine with the digital process--I happily use it with film negatives, and I don't miss the darkroom even a tiny little bit. There are really only two problems for me.

One is the digital dynamic range. I like full, open shadows and contrasty highlights, not blown out at either end. One of the delights of the digital process from film negs is the ability to harvest 15 to 20 stops of dynamic range without abrupt dead ends. My Nikon D7200 supposedly captures 14, and really, that is getting pretty close to good for me. Another two stops or so, and I'll probably be happy.

The other problem is the cameras themselves, and to some extent my stubbornness is the issue. I would like to use my current full frame lenses on a full frame digital optical-finder camera that is reasonably sized, like my Nikon FGs and Leica M4s. If I were willing to start over again with a new system than Nikon, I could perhaps beat that. The other option is to turn my film Leica system, which is also extensive, to digital, but I can't afford that. . . No, actually I could, but at this point I don't trust Leica's record with digital system failures and rotting sensors. When they make a digital camera that won't amortize to more than a thousand or even two thousand dollars per year of life (!!) I'm in.

Without a small full frame camera using my lenses as intended, and without an expanded digital dynamic range, I'm not ready to switch. If these things become possible, and I believe they eventually will, bye-bye 35mm film.

I don't forsee giving up large format film, which performs an entirely different function for me.
__________________
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Mostly 35mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton
Large format: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton
What? You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2018   #15
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,263
I love my set of primes more than my blocks. I own both film and digital blocks and both work with that set of primes.
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2018   #16
jgrainger
Registered User
 
jgrainger is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 58
To lay my cards on the table (as an amateur), I have a digital compact and slr, both capable of excellent pictures, my phone camera too, obviously.. And a 35mm rangefinder, SLRs, 645, 6x6 folders - and I've previously owned some others including 5x4.

For me it's a little like playing piano - or how I've never stuck with the electronic keyboard (even a hammer action model). An acoustic piano embodies craftsmanship in a pleasing mechanical form, and making music is a physical process, in which you can appreciate someone's work and the natural ingredients present to arrive at a pleasing sound - quality furniture for the the senses.

Mechanical rangefinder cameras tend to embody some engineering and craftsmanship, in a pleasing form, which can yield good results when used correctly - and it helps that while disassembling a mechanical camera isn't necessarily something people can just do, we can appreciate the basics of how they work. I appreciate the process of taking pictures, not messing with switching, settings, or looking at the screen.

There are other things too.

I feel little love for SLRs generally, and tend to prefer the standard focal length mostly. My Canon 7 provides a reliable, repairable, and fairly flexible package for not a lot of money, and occasionally I bother to make a print the analogue way.

Admittedly I mostly prefer MF negatives, and actually particularly dislike the Canon 7 focussing (especially compared to a Contax II which is much quicker/better for action).

Besides, digital doesn't work in a practical sense for rangefinders - affordable full frame or go home.. to put it another way, I'm not holding my breath for an affordable digital Contax/ Kiev adaptation which retains the controls.. There's simply nothing to compete with an old film rangefinder for the price (excludes Leica), longevity, and feel.

Those digitals I do have are mostly used begrudgingly, except for my phone due to its convenience.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-06-2018   #17
sportster44
Registered User
 
sportster44 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Ottawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 21
I really enjoy digital; however I also really enjoy film. Film gives me a different esthetic that I can't be bothered trying to recreate digitally.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2018   #18
nickjb
Nick Bedford
 
nickjb is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 32
Posts: 11
I learnt for years with digital cameras, and have produced a large proportion of my work on digital until the last few years as I finally started to love the process of shooting film and making the workflow... work. I don't hate digital at all, I just find the process way too automated, "electronic" and lacking in self-trust.

I own both a Leica M (240) and a Leica M7 and have grown so fond of the physical process of loading a roll of film to advancing each frame to previsualising and doing the work in my mind first, to trusting my decisions and waiting sometimes days and weeks to see the result, that I no longer like making photographs with the digital Leica. There's no "process" involved other than getting the exposure right. It's frankly boring and too immediate in comparison.

Shooting film has made me a better photographer, from seeing photo-worthy light and composition to efficiency with my frames and level of care.

TL,DR
  • The physicality of film rolls and film cameras — camera process.
  • Imagining the photograph in your mind's eye — pre-visualisation.
  • Moving on without second thought or chimping to see if you got it right — self-trust.
  • Waiting to get the film developed and see the results — slowing down.
  • Learn lessons more effectively — no free lunch.
  • Getting "film" results because... it's film! — not faking it.
__________________
www.nickbedford.com/ | Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2018   #19
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 4,104
I'm changing careers so I no longer have to be "on" as a photographer. I may use photography in my future research or practice but it is now at my pace. That pace allows film to be used. What I grew up with and began serious work on. I had a digital phase and now I'm back to film. I also really don't like staring at a screen for more than I already have to.
Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2018   #20
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,352
I don't give a rat's patootie about film or digital cameras.
I care about the photographs I make with both.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-26-2018   #21
:: Mark
Registered User
 
:: Mark is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 218
Film and digital are just different media with different aesthetics and different equipment that can affect the results. It is not so much a question of disliking one medium or another as understanding what works in a given situation and then using that intelligently.

I also do not understand the comments about digital needing a lot of time in front of the computer. I find *film* far more demanding of digital editing time, since the majority of my images are viewed online and not in print. Finishing a scanned negative digitally to remove dust and then dodging and burning digitally takes more time and effort than doing the same with digital.

I think that there is a lot of potential frustration for individual cameras, but that is largely not a function of the medium itself.
__________________
Mark
PhotoBlog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #22
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by :: Mark View Post
I also do not understand the comments about digital needing a lot of time in front of the computer. I find *film* far more demanding of digital editing time, since the majority of my images are viewed online and not in print. Finishing a scanned negative digitally to remove dust and then dodging and burning digitally takes more time and effort than doing the same with digital.
I would agree here. I must admit that digital images are cleaner. I'm still trying to get the dust spots and "ickies" on my processed negatives to an acceptable minimum.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2018   #23
JPD
J. Patric Dahlén
 
JPD's Avatar
 
JPD is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern Sweden
Age: 48
Posts: 423
Digital is convenient. I can take a picture and seconds after have it on my computer screen, ready to be saved on a hard drive, posted in an email or on a forum. I use a digital compact camera with a sensor that can't be changed and a mass produced zoom with no personality. It just takes pictures. It does what it's supposed to do, and that's fine.

Films have more personality, with different grain structures, different looks and "feeling". Chemical photography has a history of almost 200 years. Old lenses also have their personalities and "feeling". It's fun to experiment with different films, cameras, formats, lenses and developers. It's a combination of photography, history and chemistry.

Digital photography is computer tech, and I sit in front of a computer several hours a day. It's all well and good, computers are fun, and I build my own, but it's nice to leave the computer to do something else that isn't digital.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2018   #24
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
Rather than make photography easier, as everyone promised, digital made everything far more complicated and harder to do. Unless you were a programmer or loved sitting in front of a computer editing things compulsively, digital just was not as nice as film.

BUT...Now that someone finally got smart and put the camera in the phone where it really belonged all along, it is finally easy. Now I can take pictures of anything I want and instantly share it with everybody.

Digital photography finally has a purpose for being. Up until now it has always been the poor stepchild of film photography; always trying but never quite good enough to make the grade at anything but newspaper photography.



EDIT - I actually love digital and film. Both different but both are great fun.
Interesting take! Not saying I agree, but I agree that film has a genuineness that digital lacks and I also dislike sitting in front of my main work tool - the computer - when I am doing what for me is a hobby. Nonetheless, I do both digital and film and I find that switching back and forth keeps me interested. I would probably do 75% film but cannot because I don't have the time for developing and scanning. And now I want to do wet prints.

Last edited by traveler_101 : 09-08-2018 at 13:46. Reason: additional thought
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2018   #25
TerryMcC
Registered User
 
TerryMcC is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 59
I’ve been shooting film the past few years because it allowed me to shoot with a rangefinder camera (Nikon, canon, Leica all at various times) and this has given me much pleasure. Scanning then gets me into the modern age. BUT I did buy a Fujifilm X-Pro 2 recently, and I have found the film cameras are staying in the cupboard. The Fuji has all the benefits of a rangefinder and I find the controls intuitive. I love the optical viewfinder and the joystick a treat. If I want to scale focus I can do that too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-29-2018   #26
colker
-
 
colker is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: rio de janeiro
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
I don't give a rat's patootie about film or digital cameras.
I care about the photographs I make with both.

G

Yes. The image is what matters. What i find enjoyable is capturing a good image.

I find digital color much better than film color. Digital made me take color as my preferred medium. I live in a world of colors and should express this reality. BW is an interpretation.. itīs no more true than color. Sometimes i want the BW atmosphere, most of the time i donīt so digital is a necessity for me now. I donīt like slides. Coould never have Kodachrime where i live and i find ektachrome pretty bad so digital came as a liberating thing for me.

Digital cameras become obsolete unlike film cameras. Thatīs the bad about digital but itīs not the end of fun. I have used phone cameras for a while too. NOt bad but too limited when it comes to capturing a moment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-29-2018   #27
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
I use both. I love both. I refuse to choose sides. It's religion and I won't play that nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by colker View Post
I find digital color much better than film color. Digital made me take color as my preferred medium.
True. Because I am color-blind, I find it much easier to work with digital for color - film for B&W.

Quote:
I live in a world of colors and should express this reality. BW is an interpretation.. itīs no more true than color. Sometimes i want the BW atmosphere, most of the time i donīt so digital is a necessity for me now. I donīt like slides. Coould never have Kodachrime where i live and i find ektachrome pretty bad so digital came as a liberating thing for me.
I understand what you are saying, but don't forget that the color you see is not necessarily the color others see. Even people who are not color blind perceive colors differently - perhaps not by a lot, but not all the same either.

Color is subjective, there is no physical reality to it as we experience it. That is true of all of us. We take it as a literal fact, but it's not.

Consider this - because I am color-blind, I see better at night than most people with normal color perception. So someone tells me they can't see something or other because "it's dark out." I see it fine. They cannot believe me - if they can't see it, it can't be seen. But I see it fine despite their disbelief. Make sense? Just because you see blue doesn't mean everyone does. Doesn't even mean it is blue. We take our senses as literal and accurate renderings of reality, but it's far from the truth. It's just *our* truth.

Quote:
Digital cameras become obsolete unlike film cameras. Thatīs the bad about digital but itīs not the end of fun. I have used phone cameras for a while too. NOt bad but too limited when it comes to capturing a moment.
I am still having fun with my 2004 era DSLR cameras. I have newer cameras, but a 6MP Pentax *ist DS still does what I need it to do and I like the output. Eventually it will break and not be worth repairing though.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2018   #28
DougK
This space left blank
 
DougK's Avatar
 
DougK is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Westlake, OH
Age: 50
Posts: 1,548
Digital offers opportunities to play with composition and exposure and receive feedback on those experiments much more quickly than was ever possible with film. I couldn't have learned photography basics as quickly as I did without that first Minolta Dimage 7i; I could read a lesson in a photography book, shoot the examples, and then immediately see what happened and why. Now I can apply those skills to shoot film with the confidence that I understand how to make the camera do what I want it to do.

You could also make the argument that even if you shoot film exclusively, you'll still end up in the digital realm at some point because of scanning, whether that be of the negative to the print. You just moved the digital capture a little farther downstream. You did want to share those images with people, right?

Take the best of what both worlds offer and enjoy. It's all good.
__________________
Doug K.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #29
Sega
Registered User
 
Sega is offline
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 119
I don't hate digital at all.

Photography for me has always been a means of stress release and an old Manual film Camera needs you to stop and think to capture the image, it cuts the world out for a moment and the stresses melt away.

True there are Digitals that work similar but right now Film is still where my budget is and theres something in old negatives that means more than a computer file that can be wiped in a fraction of a second, as if it was never there at all.
__________________
Those aren't left over screws, that's weight reduction.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #30
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sega View Post
True there are Digitals that work similar but right now Film is still where my budget is and theres something in old negatives that means more than a computer file that can be wiped in a fraction of a second, as if it was never there at all.
Not sure about the budget aspect of your reasoning. You have a Nikon D3400 DSLR so digital images are free whereas the cost of film, processing as scanning are all add on costs.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #31
Sega
Registered User
 
Sega is offline
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Not sure about the budget aspect of your reasoning. You have a Nikon D3400 DSLR so digital images are free whereas the cost of film, processing as scanning are all add on costs.
Budget as in Camera that functions mostly like a fully manual Range finder, its similar with Cameras to the performance car world, the less is more models carry the heftier price tags.
__________________
Those aren't left over screws, that's weight reduction.
  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 10:58.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.