Kodak Alaris is increasing prices
Old 10-20-2017   #1
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Kodak Alaris is increasing prices

Hi,

I've got an announcement via email newsletter from one of the biggest European film distributors:
Kodak Alaris is again increasing prices for their photo films. Looks like on average by about 8 %. Official reason: Because of increasing personal and raw material costs.

So far here the situation is that lots of / most films from Fujifilm, AgfaPhoto, Ilford, Adox, Foma, Bergger, Rollei are already cheaper compared to Kodak Alaris.
After this Kodak price increase the gap between Kodak prices and the competition will be even bigger.

I hope Kodak will be able to solve its quality control problems soon. The backing paper issue is still not solved.
TMX 120 is not available for more than a year now because of that problem.
Recent batches of TMY-2 120 (No 153 and 154) have also again been affected by this problem. In such a severe way that even the most "hardcore Kodak fan lab" in Germany has warned their customers and recommended them to stop buying Kodak roll film.
And there is still unfortunately the dust issue with all 135 films.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #2
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Thanks for the heads-up.

Out of curiosity, what's the dust issue with 35mm film?
All Kodak 135 films have lots of very small black dust particles both onto the film cassette, and unfortunately also inside the cassette.
These paritcles are from the black velvet in cassette mouth. Kodak is using cheap, inferior material.
If you wipe with your finger above the cassette surface (on and in) you will have these particles on your finger.
Of course I don't want to have this dirt in my camera, therefore before loading I am cleaning every Kodak film cassette.
Nerve wracking, of course.

Other manufacturers don't have that problem.
I've contacted Kodak Alaris via email long ago, and they have said they are aware of this problem (=confirmation). But so far nothing has changed. My last bought batch of Portra 160 was again affected.

Fortunately there are enough excellent alternatives on the market.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #3
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,746
Wow, that's crazy... the dust issue. Good to know.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #4
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,875
My guess is it will take some time for Alaris to find the right balance. Kodak owned their now supply chain for many years. It avoided problems like paper backing. After Fallon Kodak had finance people at the helm. Often QA and engineering folks are ignored over the risk/reward dice role.

I doubt what they are paying people increased that much, but is sound nice.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #5
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 891
Hadn't known about the dust issue on 35mm, so far luckily I haven't encountered it.
Ordered another pack of Portra 120 to have stock. Price is about equivalent compared to fuji or cheaper; I get it from UK, which must be the cheapest and on par with US price.
Ilford is great because has a certain consistency of price along its line over different distributors and retailers.

I guess it's more overhead and less economies of scale encountered.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #6
Scapevision
Registered User
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 469
I've seen someone show the backing paper issue in portra as well
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #7
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,531
Is the backing paper issue the one of the numbers transferring to the emulsion, or of not being able to see the numbers through the red window of most old cameras?

I honestly never experienced the former problem, only the latter.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #8
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
Ordered another pack of Portra 120 to have stock. Price is about equivalent compared to fuji or cheaper; I get it from UK, which must be the cheapest and on par with US price.
Here in Germany Fujifilm Pro 400H 135 is already cheaper than Portra 400 135.
And Superia 400 is significantly cheaper compared to Ultramax 400.
After the Kodak price increase the difference will be even bigger.

In 120 currently Kodak is a bit cheaper here. But after the price increase that will have changed.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #9
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scapevision View Post
I've seen someone show the backing paper issue in portra as well
Yes, friends of mine also have had it with Portra and Ektar.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #10
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Is the backing paper issue the one of the numbers transferring to the emulsion, or of not being able to see the numbers through the red window of most old cameras?

I honestly never experienced the former problem, only the latter.
It's the former problem: The numbers on the backing paper are transferring to the emulsion, and are then visible on the negative.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #11
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,577
Kodak has not lost its arrogance!
Prices inflated for a lousy film,
Tri-X. dust and dirt supplied at no extra charge!
The curl problem remains.
It costs way more than Ilford's choice.
Decades ago, I only used Tri-X and Kodachrome.
Support other Film companies.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #12
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,259
And Fuji had just cut down its film lineup again.

Film renaissance? I'd say just the renaissance of fashion accessories.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #13
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 572
I shoot Kodak color film and Ilford B&W. An 8% price increase is not so substantial, it has been worse before. I'd still rather shoot my Rolleiflex with Portra or Ektar than an M10 or D850.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #14
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,746
A little off topic, but what E6 films are you guys currently using without issues?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #15
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 572
Provia & Velvia work fine in my 7 bath kit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #16
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Is the backing paper issue the one of the numbers transferring to the emulsion, or of not being able to see the numbers through the red window of most old cameras?
Anything written on the backing transfers to the negative. My last pro pack of Tmax 400 had this. Threw out the last two rolls. I'm off Kodak 120 films until I can count on it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #17
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,278
Still waiting on new TMX 120 film. I ended up ordering a couple bricks of Acros. Kodak is rapidly losing business with these problems and now a price increase? I will be sad if I have to move on from TMX but so be it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #18
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
Try Foma 200 in place of Tmax100.
The film is great for hybrid work.
Very supple and limp backing stays nice and flat for scanning.
Sort of a T-grain Hybrid... It's good stuff.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #19
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,278
I tried a roll of that, it was interesting but not a film I would call a replacement for TMX. Much more grain, flatter tones, a bit of 'old world' look. Acros and Delta are okay alternatives...but not the same still of course. Mostly it sucks because I have shot a LOT of TMX so I am well acquainted with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #20
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
As far as replacement for tmax, acros is probably closest for tiny grain and clean look.

I was developing tmax 100 with Rodinal to get a bit of bite and grain to return.
I started usig tmax100 in Tmax Developer (1:4)... it's so sharp and clean and wanted a bit more grit... Foma200 gives that.

"Old world" maybe sometimes. Run it through tmax dev and it becomes pretty clean (although never as "tight" as tmax100.)

Maybe I'm just so happy with flat negatives I see what I want
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #21
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 572
It should also be pointed out that Fuji is killing off certain stocks and quantities next year. I'll take the 8% increase if it means I don't lose Ektar & Portra.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #22
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,278
Fuji is killing off stocks and formats because they keep raising their prices. They made their bed. I hope Kodak is not following in their footprints. Ilford seems the most committed to film (black and white only obviously) but that is no surprise given their less diverse product portfolio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #23
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
I'll take the 8% increase if it means I don't lose Ektar & Portra.
I can't imagine those films are in jeopardy of being discontinued. Both beautiful.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2017   #24
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Try Foma 200 in place of Tmax100.
The film is great for hybrid work.
Very supple and limp backing stays nice and flat for scanning.
Sort of a T-grain Hybrid... It's good stuff.
I gotta try it sometime in the future, 120 6x9. One of the reasons is that in EU it can be cheap at around 3.5 a roll, so not as exquisite to shoot past 8 frames.

Portra seems to have a nice foothold as a color staple. I hope this doesn't mean that the growing interest on film is not really that effective.

The kodak QC peaky issues are annoying though. I just refrigerate my 120 and it seems to help in the imprimpting to not appear.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #25
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillBingham2 View Post
My guess is it will take some time for Alaris to find the right balance. Kodak owned their now supply chain for many years. It avoided problems like paper backing. After Fallon Kodak had finance people at the helm. Often QA and engineering folks are ignored over the risk/reward dice role.
Bill,

the films are manufactured by Eastman Kodak like all the decades before.
Only the distribution is now in the hands of a second company with Kodak Alaris.
I don't think that the QC problems have anything to do with the change in distribution. That are manufacturing problems.
The question whether you get affected films replaced is of course in the hands of Kodak Alaris. They are responsible to the customer.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #26
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
A little off topic, but what E6 films are you guys currently using without issues?
All Fujifilm films are flawless and of outstanding quality. E6, C41 and BW.

Especially the Fujichrome E6 films are unsurpassed and have set the benchmarks in its classes. There is a reason why Fujifilm surpassed Kodak with its Fujichrome films already in the 90ies and became market leader.
I am curently shooting Provia 100F, Provia 400X, Velvia 50 and 100 and all have perfect quality and outstanding QC. In all formats.

With 120 format Fujifilm film you furthermore get the by far best converting / finishing quality of all manufacturers in that format with the unique Fujifilm 'Easy Loading', 'Easy End Seal' and 'Barcode' systems.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #27
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
It should also be pointed out that Fuji is killing off certain stocks and quantities next year. I'll take the 8% increase if it means I don't lose Ektar & Portra.
Fujifilm is discontinuing mainly only certain packagings, but not the films itself.
By the way packagings which the other manufacturers never offered! Not even in their best times.
For example there have never been a Foma 3 or 5 pack in dedicated packaging.
So in the end we're loosing nothing essential.

Also because some leading distributors are also reacting by offering discounts on 3, 5, 10 or 50 films.
So if a certain price/discount gap may exist, it will be likely filled by the distributors.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #28
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
I am curently shooting Provia 100F, Provia 400X, Velvia 50 and 100 and all have perfect quality and outstanding QC. In all formats.
Thanks and all seem to be towards the cheaper end of the scale too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #29
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 58
Posts: 2,800
Thanks, it's been years since we've had a good Kodak-bashing thread here...

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #30
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPlatt View Post
Thanks, it's been years since we've had a good Kodak-bashing thread here...

Chris
It has nothing to do with Kodak-bashing.
It is just a simple description of current facts:

- the price increase is fact, you get the confirmation by Kodak Alaris if you ask them (I've done that)
- the problems with the backing papers with several film types are fact: ten thousands of photographers have been affected by that in the last two years ( I am one of them, too)
- that T-Max 100 is out production for more than a year because of that problem is also fact, confirmend by Kodak Alaris; and I've asked them when TMX will return: they have been so honest to say they don't know
- the dust problem with 135: during the last 5 years every single Kodak 135 film I've bought had that problem; therefore I can confirm the experiences of Jan
- the introduction of Ektachrome has been delayed: Instead of Q4 2017 it is now scheduled to 2018, but without a precise delivery date (that is what Kodak Alaris told me in an email).

I think for us as film photographers and Kodak customers it is just normal to discuss current, real problems which affect us.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #31
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPlatt View Post
Thanks, it's been years since we've had a good Kodak-bashing thread here...

Chris
If they are having the problems with their film that are being stated her, they deserve it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #32
AZPhotog
Keith S
 
AZPhotog's Avatar
 
AZPhotog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Mesa, Arizona, USA
Posts: 81
Well I have been burned several times by their "bleedy" films over the years, and I will not use Kodak films any more.

Too many fine alternatives are available.

I would not be surprised if their "new Ektachrome" had as poor an archival issue as the original. (Fading, color changing, just not holding up like Kodachrome and other non-Kodak films did for me.)
__________________
"My film died of exposure!"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #33
Kamph
Registered User
 
Kamph is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Fujifilm is discontinuing mainly only certain packagings, but not the films itself.
Cheers, Jan
Acros in 4x5 too unfortunately
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #34
MaxElmar
Registered User
 
MaxElmar's Avatar
 
MaxElmar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 588
A quick price check at B&H shows that for equivalent/similar films, Kodak is usually cheaper. 8% wouldn't make up the difference. Example Ilford Delta 100 $7.47 Kodak T-Max 100 5.09 both in 135/36. Delta 400 5.99 TMY 4.99 in 120. HP5 is the same price as Tri-X in 135. With few exceptions Kodak is cheaper than Fuji, too. Sounds like they're catching up.

They certainly need to fix the QA problems, though. TMY is in stock in 120 - TMX is not and hasn't been for a while.
__________________
Chris L.

Still Photographically Uncool
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xenotar/


  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #35
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Bill,

the films are manufactured by Eastman Kodak like all the decades before.
Only the distribution is now in the hands of a second company with Kodak Alaris.
I don't think that the QC problems have anything to do with the change in distribution. That are manufacturing problems.
The question whether you get affected films replaced is of course in the hands of Kodak Alaris. They are responsible to the customer.

Cheers, Jan
I agree, at the end of the day, KA is responsible to the customer.

When I speak of supply chain I am not speaking of distribution but of parts coming in to Kodak. For a while, Kodak had their own herds that supplied gelatin, they printed their on boxes, canisters, and poop-sheets (little fold up paper stuff into the box). I'm not sure they made their own backing paper for MF film, but I bet they did. Similar paper is used elsewhere throughout their product line. As they have cut back I bet they have outsourced making and printing of the paper used for backing. My guess is that either the ink is a different type (used to put numbers on the back) or who ever is printing it doesn't give it nought time to dry.

So they still make their own film the same way they have for decades, fine, but are their suppliers the same or at least the new ones providing the same quality. If it's not the same supplier then KA has a QC issue or two they need to step up their monitoring and perhaps contract writing on a bit.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #36
MaxElmar
Registered User
 
MaxElmar's Avatar
 
MaxElmar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamph View Post
Acros in 4x5 too unfortunately
And 8x10 :>(

That's a real loss, given the reciprocity characteristics of Acros.
__________________
Chris L.

Still Photographically Uncool
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xenotar/


  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #37
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxElmar View Post
A quick price check at B&H shows that for equivalent/similar films, Kodak is usually cheaper. 8% wouldn't make up the difference. Example Ilford Delta 100 $7.47 Kodak T-Max 100 5.09 both in 135/36. Delta 400 5.99 TMY 4.99 in 120. HP5 is the same price as Tri-X in 135. With few exceptions Kodak is cheaper than Fuji, too. Sounds like they're catching up.

They certainly need to fix the QA problems, though. TMY is in stock in 120 - TMX is not and hasn't been for a while.

Ilford is cheaper in bulks. Kentmere even cheaper. I ditched kodak bw few years ago due to overpricing.
And I ditched bw film in rolls even earlier, due to overpricing as well.
The only film which is priced reasonably in roll is Gold and Super Max.
The rest is priced like rip-off for sometime already.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-24-2017   #38
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxElmar View Post
A quick price check at B&H shows that for equivalent/similar films, Kodak is usually cheaper.
At the biggest European distributors, Fujifilm is already often cheaper compared to Kodak. The price increase will strengthen that trend.

To make one aspect clear. I am not critizising Kodak Alaris for the price increase. I am generally willing to pay fair prices for film. To Kodak, Fujifilm, Ilford, Adox, Foma....whoever is offering an excellent film product.
But:
For fair prices I expect an excellent product, and working QC.
Unfortunately that is really a current problem at Kodak.
Fujifilm, Ilford, Adox and so on give me the expected excellent quality.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-24-2017   #39
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamph View Post
Acros in 4x5 too unfortunately
I can understand your sadness. It is an outstanding film. With unique qualities.
Acros and Provia 100F are by far the best films for long exposures with their unsurpassed, outstanding reciprocity characteristics.
No other film manufacturer has that technology and can offer that!

In several areas Fujifilm is technology leader, and cannot be replaced by any other manufacturer!
Therefore it is so important that film photographers keep the Fujifilm lines running by demand, by buying the products. Demand the decisive factor!

Therefore this stupid "Fujinonfilm" campaign started by Bellamy Hunt (JCH), Vishal Soniji (camerafilmphoto) and some other hipster-bloggers and Kodak related labs (like MeinFilmLab) is so counterproductive:
Ten thousands of Photographers follow them and boycott Fujifilm, the demand is then even further decreasing and falls below the critical level. And Fuji had to stop the product(s) because of too low demand.
And then the same people who told you to stop using Fujifilm are complaining that Fujifilm had to discontinue certain products.
What a film community destroying behaviour!!
So please, don't follow these idiots.

Monopolies are very bad for a market. We need both Kodak and Fujifilm!
And Ilford, Adox, Foma, Film Ferrania and so on.

Back to Acros in sheets:
The film distributors have told me that they see increasing demand for BW in 135 and 120 formats, but not for sheets.
So unfortunately so far no revival (yet) for large format.
That and the catastrophic "Fujinonfilm campaign" have led to the demand problems with Acros sheets, and that the demand is not high enough anymore to keep the product economically viable.

At least as large format shooter you have the possibility to use Acros in 120 in roll film backs (6x9, 6x12, 6x17, 6x24) with your LF camera.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-24-2017   #40
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicapixie View Post
The curl problem remains.
Excuse me? Are you talking about Tri-X Curling?

You are drying it too fast. I dry my Tri-X in my darkroom and while it is a bit damp down in the basement it allows for Tri-X to dry without any curling. It just takes a little longer.

If it were a problem that effected everyone sure its a problem that should be fixed but it's not an issue that effects everyone. Sorry.
__________________
Tumblr Youtube
  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 03:43.


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.