how I get this grey tones?
Old 04-11-2012   #1
riceman
Registered User
 
riceman is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 26
how I get this grey tones?

hi,



how I get this classic grey tones:
http://www.costamanos.com/#a=0&at=0&...=10000&s=0&p=1


Trix with Rodinal?
APX with Rodinal?
Efke with Rodinal?

Other combination?


thx and regards
chris
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #2
Araakii
Registered User
 
Araakii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 507
Would the film also play a role? This was taken in 1965 so I assume the film characteristics back then were pretty different from the ones we have now.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #3
Schlapp
Registered User
 
Schlapp is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Outer Hebrides, Scotland
Posts: 291
I would say lower the contrast on a film by developing in Rodinal 1;100. Or if you wet-print, print at a lower grade
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #4
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana. USA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,985
I agree, use a classic film emulsion.. not a TMAX...

Fuji Neopan 400, Kodak TRI-X 400,
Rodinal 1:25 Use ISO 320 though..
A yellow filter will give it pop, but, watch the shadow blocking
Use a Center Weighted Meter and make sure you have good representation in the center 12mm circle of the mid-shadow to highlight.
__________________
Nikon F, F2, D200
Yashica A TLR
My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #5
rlouzan
Registered User
 
rlouzan's Avatar
 
rlouzan is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,504
1) Leica M w/ 35mm f2 Summicron V1 or 35mm f2.8 Summaron
2) Place the highest values on zone VII-1/2
3) Tri-x developed in HC110/D76/ID11
4) Diffuser enlarger + lower paper grade
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #6
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,031
Kentmere 400 for 400 ASA Film D76
Efke 100 for 100 Asa Film in D76
or Fp4 in D76

Overcast sky might help

Dominik
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #7
BobYIL
Registered User
 
BobYIL's Avatar
 
BobYIL is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by riceman View Post
hi,



how I get this classic grey tones:
http://www.costamanos.com/#a=0&at=0&...=10000&s=0&p=1


Trix with Rodinal?
APX with Rodinal?
Efke with Rodinal?

Other combination?


thx and regards
chris
If you can find the original Harvey's 777 (Bluegrass, not any other brand) then try it with the HP5+; the first three rolls only to "mature" the developer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #8
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana. USA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,985
Everyone has their own recipe...

BUT all agree on a Classic Emulsion and a Classic Developer...
BTW, try Kodak D76 1:1 and 1:3
__________________
Nikon F, F2, D200
Yashica A TLR
My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #9
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlouzan View Post
1) Leica M w/ 35mm f2 Summicron V1 or 35mm f2.8 Summaron
2) Place the highest values on zone VII-1/2
3) Tri-x developed in HC110/D76/ID11
4) Diffuser enlarger + lower paper grade
Especially #3 & #4
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2012   #10
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,775
My way is to find my OWN film speed, which is generally a stop less than box speed. Then I use a variation of the old 'exposure for the shadows and develop for the highlights.' I got my variation from D F Cardwell which is expose for midtones (easy with an incident meter), agitate for the highlights, and develop for the shadows:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/...-negative.html

Forget about developers use any you like just be sure that it is dilute enough to give sufficient time to do minimal agitation for your highlights.

The reason, possibly, for the tone scale of the photos that you posted was because box cameras had to have a wide, very wide latitude film. Verichrome was an example of this type of film so it was easy back then to get great tones and still take the film to a drugstore to develop.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2012   #11
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,262
I don't know if this qualifies as the type of tones you want, since what I'm hearing as descriptions doesn't match what I'm seeing in those photos, but I use Tri-X in D23, exposed at 250: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnto...57604231171234 Lots more similar examples in my Flicker stuff.
__________________
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 04-12-2012   #12
Anthony Harvey
Registered User
 
Anthony Harvey's Avatar
 
Anthony Harvey is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 151
I've been searching for the secret of these grey tones and grey "colour" too, for almost forty years, with only partial success but a lot of enjoyment.

I first noticed and loved them in the photos of Cartier-Bresson but I soon realised that they were also present in many of the photos of other European and Magnum photographers, and I wanted to know how they did it.

Over the years I've found various clues. For example, "Photography Magazine (Great Britain) Ltd" used to publish an annual book known as "Photography Year Book 19xx" in which they printed selected prints from well known photographers of the year in question, usually about 200 mainly black and white prints. In an appendix the book would present thumbnail versions (about 1.5 x 2 inches) of each print from the main print pages, and adjacent to each thumbnail would be a short summary from the photographer giving fairly extensive technical details of the photo eg camera film, developer, paper, print developer, and probable exposure details. Not all these details were present in all cases (minimal for Cartier-Bresson for example) but most photographers tried to give as much as possible, probably because it was a requirement for submission for publication that such details were given, or at least guessed at.

Some years ago I bought the Year Book for 1960 in a second hand bookshop and was delighted to find a lot of useful information, often from very well known photographers of the period and well known names even now. The list includes: George Rodger (M3, Summarit, HP3 in Microphen), Rene Burri (Pentax or Leica M3 with Canon 35 and HP3), Alfred Camisa (Leica M3 Ilford HPS and Microphen), Robert Doisneau (Rollieflex, HP3 and Promicrol), Cartier Bresson (only the camera was mentioned unfortunately - M3), Bert Hardy (only D76 mentioned), Bill Brandt (the photo of Picasso in his villa near Cannes (Rollieflex, Tri-X in Microphen), Leonard McCombe (Contax and Tri-X), Frank Horvat (Leica, wide angle Biogon, HP3 and Promicrol), Willy Ronis (Foca camera with 28mm, Plus-X and Microphen), Inge Morath (Leica M3 with Summarit, HP3 in Microphen), Harold Feinstein, a good friend of Eugene Smith (Ansco Super Hypan in 777), Alfred Eisenstaedt (Leica MP with Plus-X), Jean-Philippe Charbonnier (Tri-X in Microphen), Ian Berry Leica (M3 with Canon wide angle and Gevaert 33 film), Denise Colomb, portrait of Marc Chagall, (Ilford HPS in Microphen), Jean-Loup Seiff (M3, Summicron, Plus-X in D76) Denis Thorpe (Rollieflex, HP3 in Promicrol), Edward Boubat (Leica, wide angle Summaron, Plus-X in Microdol), Larry Burrows (Leica M3 and wide angle lens, HP3 in D76), and William Klein (Canon camera, Tri-X in D76).

The 1964 Year Book included: Louis Stettner (Plus-X in Microphen), Graham Finlayson (Guardian newspaper in UK: M2 HP3, Microphen) and Frank Herrmann (Sunday Times in UK: HP3 in Microphen).

Of course these techniques etc are what the photographers say they used for the particular photos that were printed - they might have forgotten the details and simply guessed at what they used, and anyway the techniques may not have been typical of their work in general at that time. But it does gives us something to go on.

What's relevant here is that the print tones in the book were just like those we are are talking about in this post and what I was searching for, and this was true especially for the prints that used Microphen. Note how many photographers used Microphen at that time, partly no doubt for the extra speed but also I believe for those beautiful tones. The above are only a small sample: many others used Microphen too. Other developers that were often used were Microdol, Promicrol and of course D76 but Microphen predominated.

Some years ago (about 1973) I therefore settled on Tri-X (with the particular emulsion of that time of course) and straight Microphen, rated at either 500 or 650, and found that I could get near to the tones I wanted. I got the effect immediately, using the same equipment and lenses I had been using before, so in this case the developer made all the difference.

My advice would therefore be to try Microphen. I used it straight (Tri-X at 500 or 650, 7 mins at one minute agitation intervals at 20 C). I found that I had to use 7 mins with the Tri-X of that time - my simple mnemonic was 7 but not 8. I never got round to trying 1:1 on an extensive basis (I was emotionally well adjusted in those days and preferred to take pictures rather than agonise over technical details) but what little experimentation I did with 1:1 suggested very similar tones with slightly increased sharpness.

I must emphasise that I used Microphen just for the "colour: of the greys, not to get extra speed or for sharpness - in fact I actually got reduced sharpness over D76 1:1 and over the original Aculux from Geoffrey Crawley. Even now I prefer tones over contrast and sharpness as long as sharpness is good enough.

Over the years I've found that Microphen gets me as close as I can to those greys. I found that Microdol-X was close to Microphen but not quite as good and it loses speed.

I found that Rodinal can in certain circumstances have similar tones but only with Tri-X at 400, 1:50 with very gentle agitation (2 extremely gentle inversions) at five-minute intervals for 25 mins (yes 25) at 20 C. Of course with Rodinal one gets the amazing sharpness too. By the way, I couldn't get HP5 to work at all in Rodinal.

Incidentally I find that the prints of our colleague, Erik van Straten, are similar to the tones I'm seeking, and I believe he uses Ilford Perceptol and perhaps used Microdol-X in the past.

However, from research I suspect that, as suggested by BobYIL, the best method is to use Harold Harvey's Panthermic 777. I haven't tried it cos it seems such a fiddle to do properly, such as having to condition it first, only using very large tanks, and so on.

Of course there are other factors besides negative developer that can help get these tones: larger format films eg 6x6; lenses, their coatings and contrast; films and emulsion type; paper and paper developer if wet prints are made (I used to use Ilfobrom); whether the print is enlarged through a lens or scanned; the enlarging lens and its contrast; etc etc. For example, I find that my 35 mm Summaron 3.5 (M mount) gets me half-way to the right grey tones even if I'm using a film-developer combination that's not helpful in producing those greys. It’s an amazing lens for both sharpness and tones, and mine was made in 1954!

Anthony
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2012   #13
ChrisN
Striving
 
ChrisN's Avatar
 
ChrisN is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 4,435
Tri-X @ 250, ID-11 1+3, continuous rotary agitation 20m 20c.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg BW390_-10.jpg (65.0 KB, 417 views)
__________________
Chris


"The mission of photography is to explain man to man and each to himself. And that is the most complicated thing on earth."
Edward Steichen

RFF Gallery

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2012   #14
ooze
Registered User
 
ooze is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Harvey View Post
I've been searching for the secret of these grey tones and grey "colour" too, for almost forty years, with only partial success but a lot of enjoyment.

Anthony
Very interesting and thorough post Anthony. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

I would have guessed that the OP's photo looks like plain TriX in D76. Having said that, it's clear that you have much more concrete information to back up what you're saying.

I still wonder though whether the use of Microphen was mainly to counter potential underexposure, and the resultant tones were just a byproduct, i.e. not the main motivation to use Microphen in the first place.

Cheers
__________________
My film photography and darkroom blog (Turkish language): http://www.geldurkal.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2012   #15
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,685
I feel like I'm missing something here.

Is this just about shooting in the right light and perhaps over exposing/pulling the film a bit to cut contrast? Maybe use a filter to reduce the brightness of the sky and increase contrast where you want it? Maybe a little bit of dodging and burning?

If so, I'd wager the film/developer pair (and lens for that matter) isn't very important compared to getting the exposure aligned with the development.

This seems like classic, light weight zone system stuff.
__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2012   #16
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
all said already .. I second Tri-X in Rodinal unpushed or even pulled. Also the Ilford P3 I'm shooting in the moment gives that kind of grain look (XTOL).

APX100 also has a wide latitude but less grain when exposed right
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2012   #17
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
APX100 also has a wide latitude but less grain when exposed right
I use to use APX and liked it:



Can you get it anywhere now?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2012   #18
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,262
Probably it is, basically. Shadow detail is the only secret, in my opinion. Then once you have the detail in the neg, you can do anything you want with it in printing--that's just printing skill. What you can't ever do is print detail that's not on the film--you can always throw it out in printing, though. You can push tones up and down, separate them, anything you want. If you convert your film to digital, the various possibilities are accessed even easier.

On my film, the only clear area is usually the border outside the image. This was something I picked up in a David Vestal workshop, about 40 years ago. His pictures were so creamy and full of detail they looked almost like roll film. Basically, he recommended over-exposing (by conventional thought) and pulling development a bit to be sure of capturing ALL the tones in the frame. I use D23 because it's inherently soft, anyway. As I said upwards somewhere, Rodinal has never given me (or anyone else, as far as I can see from posted examples) the shadow detail and softness that's needed for this way of thinking.

His point at the time was that we don't use all the potential highlight density that the film is capable of, yet we settle for empty shadows--in modern digital histogram terms, most people today expose film way to the left. By giving more exposure we can get shadow detail and still not lose anything in the highlights. One of the reasons I don't use T-grain films is that they don't have the highlight headroom of Tri-X.

Anyway, the bottom line is IF you have all of the tones rendered on the film, then you make anything look like anything in the printing, but you can never print what isn't on the film.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Legge View Post
I feel like I'm missing something here.

Is this just about shooting in the right light and perhaps over exposing/pulling the film a bit to cut contrast? Maybe use a filter to reduce the brightness of the sky and increase contrast where you want it? Maybe a little bit of dodging and burning?

If so, I'd wager the film/developer pair (and lens for that matter) isn't very important compared to getting the exposure aligned with the development.

This seems like classic, light weight zone system stuff.
__________________
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 04-13-2012   #19
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,775
mdarnton, all true, I like my negatives just like David Vestal did. I was living in South America when I first read some of this essays (1970). They were a revelation, luckily I had a father that would buy any book I wanted and send it to me then. It was very much a treat to have his works sitting there and when bored I would pick one up and two hours later I was still reading. I lost one of his works, I think I'll go on Amazon right now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2012   #20
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
I use to use APX and liked it:



Can you get it anywhere now?
looks good

it's available everywhere in germany and by far one of the cheapest films. they are still selling the last agfa batches, also rebranded as Rollei Retro 100
check fotoimpex.de or maybe macodirekt.de will ship worldwide
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2012   #21
riceman
Registered User
 
riceman is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 26
hi,

thanks for the manifold and interesting answers.

there are some nice ideas and experiences.

may workflow at the moment is trix in rodinal, 1:100, stand development for 50 minutes.


an example from my shots:

scanned with a cheap plustek 7400
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2012   #22
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
looks good

it's available everywhere in germany and by far one of the cheapest films. they are still selling the last agfa batches, also rebranded as Rollei Retro 100
check fotoimpex.de or maybe macodirekt.de will ship worldwide

Thanks for the info, it will be worth a shot. The real stuff was really great. I used some fill in that shot.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2012   #23
MiChAeLsIo
Registered User
 
MiChAeLsIo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 8
take a look at this....
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-04-28.shtml
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2017   #24
edwliang
Registered User
 
edwliang is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 63
QQ??20171128232051.jpg

QQ??20171128232058.jpg

QQ??20171128232223.jpg


Foca 35 3.5+rollei rpx 400+rodinal 1:50 21mins

is this the tone ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2017   #25
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Araakii View Post
Would the film also play a role? This was taken in 1965 so I assume the film characteristics back then were pretty different from the ones we have now.
Seven years later this thread resumes with another negatives scans. And this is why I quoted the comment above. This is the key to the common misunderstanding five years ago and in the current.

Which is:
People are asking about 1965 pictures on the internet - how do I get this look? They keep on asking this question but almost nobody is looking at the picture. What is pictured? If it is from 1965 it is scan of what?
Bingo! It is scan of the darkroom print.
And what most of the people are keep on asking? Right, how to make my negative scan looks like the print scan.

I have no idea and I'm finding this exercise useless. If you want it to look like a scan of the print, then do the print and scan.

Once you start to print, all talks about film developers and film types quickly becomes next to irrelevant.... Because where is negative developed to print from and where is negative developed to scan from.

On ex-APUG they did blind test of prints from different films. Conclusion was all looks very similar.

It is paper developer and paper which makes print and scan of the print looks different. This is what you need to know about pictures from 1965. Most, if not all of the papers made in 1965 are not made anymore, but still possible to find. They were single grade, not RC, but FB papers. Grade 4 gives rich contrast, grade one also gives contrast, but also tonal range...
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2017   #26
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,897
When I started out in photography I was inspired by masters like David Vestal and Minor White, and strove to emulate their results in the dark room. Film/developer choice did influence the process somewhat but it was more about the contrast and quality of the negatives that could be perfectly printed on #2 fiber paper - Ilford Gallerie for general photography and Portriga Rapid for portraits. I did not understand how to properly expose a negative nor did I bother to study anything on a technical level, i.e., zones other then blindly rely on the camera center weighted meter until I tried to make a decent print from it. Once I understood what quality of negative I needed for a fine print did I understand how to expose for it. Film/developer is not so relevant other than dynamic range you can get out of it and desired grain. Consistency is more important.

Now my question is: can a 100% digital process yield a result close to classic David Vestal prints?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2017   #27
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Seven years later this thread resumes with another negatives scans. And this is why I quoted the comment above. This is the key to the common misunderstanding five years ago and in the current.

Which is:
People are asking about 1965 pictures on the internet - how do I get this look? They keep on asking this question but almost nobody is looking at the picture. What is pictured? If it is from 1965 it is scan of what?
Bingo! It is scan of the darkroom print.
And what most of the people are keep on asking? Right, how to make my negative scan looks like the print scan.

I have no idea and I'm finding this exercise useless. If you want it to look like a scan of the print, then do the print and scan.

Once you start to print, all talks about film developers and film types quickly becomes next to irrelevant.... Because where is negative developed to print from and where is negative developed to scan from.

On ex-APUG they did blind test of prints from different films. Conclusion was all looks very similar.

It is paper developer and paper which makes print and scan of the print looks different. This is what you need to know about pictures from 1965. Most, if not all of the papers made in 1965 are not made anymore, but still possible to find. They were single grade, not RC, but FB papers. Grade 4 gives rich contrast, grade one also gives contrast, but also tonal range...
You nailed it KoFe. Film was never designed to scan in the first place. In 1965, I was shooting then, scanners didn't exist. Film was different and contained more silver. Everyone's beloved TX since 2006 is a totally different film from the 60's. I shot many thousand feet of TX in the 60's and can attest to that. As KoFe said virtually all of the papers from that time are gone. In that era we had leftovers of Ansco, we had DuPont verilour, velure black and varigam, polycontrast, medalist, kodabromide, ektalure, portriga and brivira to name only a few.

Most people scanning have no idea about using or how to use profiles, curves and levels. The end result of scanning a neg is completely different from wet printing on classic FB paper with dodging and burning. How many of you dodge and burn your scans? Bet not many.

In addition many of our favorite developers are gone as well as many films, Berichrome Pan, PX, KB14,KB17 original TX, Royal Pan, Super Pancro Press B, Super XX, Panatomic X and dozens more from Agfa,Ansco, DuPont, Adox and Kodak.

It's possible to make stunning scans with the right film and developer combo that fits YOUR technique and printing with the right enlarger and especially the right paper.

There are still excellent films and developers and IMO the best paper I've ever used is still on the market, Bergger FB Warmtone. Beautiful results don't happen over night. To make excellent prints takes years and honing all the skills in the process from correct exposure to development and learning excellent skills in printing, burning and dodging.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2017   #28
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,000
When I was sniffin chemicals back in the day..my biggest improvement in printing was doing contact prints on Chloride paper..astonishing results w/o much effort..
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2017   #29
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
When I was sniffin chemicals back in the day..my biggest improvement in printing was doing contact prints on Chloride paper..astonishing results w/o much effort..
Azo and Velox, yes!
  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 18:54.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.