Did I do something wrong?
Old 08-17-2018   #1
sara
Registered User
 
sara's Avatar
 
sara is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MY+LDN
Age: 32
Posts: 519
Did I do something wrong?

Soooo.....
I recently tested out a Lomo f2/400 film (I never, never use this. It was just this one time and I got it back from the shops and a little confused at what's going on.

I noticed that there was a lot of grain in very bright daytime shots and I"m not sure what's going because I was using the Leica M6, there was a lightmeter etc.





I did ask the lab guy and his response was "you're out of touch with your cameras. Back then, this would be have the right exposure but these days, our photos are a little brighter. It happens to everyone so I understand."

But the problem was, I've always been using my Leica and was a little offended by what he said, as a month before using this film, I used Fuji Pro400H and my images were nothing fine? I'm not a total beginner (which he seems to think so, but I'm not an idiot either. )



So to tell me that I basically don't know how to use my camera is BS.

I'm thinking either the film didn't get handled very well when I bought it (maybe it went through x-rays) and quite worried now about the film I have in stock (iso 400) that if I were to bring it on my upcoming trip, I would get grain like this (as it has gone one round of the usual safe scanners at the airport but wasn't used).

The only thing different was that, for the Fuji Pro400 image I used a newer lens. But for the ones above it was the first lens I used and have got amazing images from it.
__________________
Hello
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #2
akptc
Shoot first, think later
 
akptc's Avatar
 
akptc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas. OMG. Kansas.
Posts: 1,689
It looks like the 1st two were heavily underexposed and the lab corrected it, with this result.
__________________
Andy K
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #3
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,086
akptc is right. They're underexposed. Just because you used the light meter doesn't mean the exposure is going to be right. The meter in a camera assumes what what you are photographing is a middle tone, so if you photograph a scene with a lot of light tones, like a bright sky or the light colored concrete in the first pic, the meter will give an exposure that renders that light-colored subject as a middle tone....which is underexposure.

Here's a metering tutorial that I wrote that explains this in more detail:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...d.php?t=163658
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #4
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 715
Isn't Lomo film supposed to be grainy? I don't really know, but when I think Lomo, I think grainy for some reason, sort of like Color Implosion.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #5
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,701
Hi Sara,

this Lomography film is very old, long expired Ferrania film.

This film was even quite grainy when it was fresh. And now, being long expired the grain is worse, and the sensivity is of course also significantly lower. Both lead to the results you've got.
You've bought crappy film, and therefore you've got crappy results.
It's not you, it's the film.

You should not expect excellent results like you've got from your Fujifilm Pro 400H.
If you want quality, buy quality films. And avoid long expired films. Buy fresh film.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #6
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnuyork View Post
Isn't Lomo film supposed to be grainy? I don't really know, but when I think Lomo, I think grainy for some reason, sort of like Color Implosion.
Her film was underexposed; even if the film was supposed to be a grainy film, the empty shadows are a dead giveaway that she didn't expose correctly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #7
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Her film was underexposed; even if the film was supposed to be a grainy film, the empty shadows are a dead giveaway that she didn't expose correctly.
I don't see it that way, but OK. Just looks like grainy old film to me. The exposure looks Ok.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #8
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Her film was underexposed; even if the film was supposed to be a grainy film, the empty shadows are a dead giveaway that she didn't expose correctly.
She certainly exposed it correctly as an ISO 400/27 film. Because it is labelled as that.
But as I've explained above, this film is very old original Ferrania film (Lomo even said it at the introduction). So this film is about ten years old. And probably not completely cold stored over the time.
So this film does not have its original speed anymore.
It needs 1-2 stops more exposure.

But with Lomo you always have the risk to run into these problems. Because films are labelled incorrectly, flaws are covered by marketing bla-blah, or you get QC problems (e.g. with the 120 film converted for them in China).
If you want really excellent and reliable products, stay away from Lomography.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #9
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
She certainly exposed it correctly as an ISO 400/27 film. Because it is labelled as that.
But as I've explained above, this film is very old original Ferrania film (Lomo even said it at the introduction). So this film is about ten years old. And probably not completely cold stored over the time.
So this film does not have its original speed anymore.
It needs 1-2 stops more exposure.

But with Lomo you always have the risk to run into these problems. Because films are labelled incorrectly, flaws are covered by marketing bla-blah, or you get QC problems (e.g. with the 120 film converted for them in China).
If you want really excellent and reliable products, stay away from Lomography.

Cheers, Jan
Agreed. The end result is underexposure though. As you said, its not her fault, its the crappy film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #10
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnuyork View Post
I don't see it that way, but OK. Just looks like grainy old film to me. The exposure looks Ok.
Its not ok. Look at the shadowed area of the cliff and the woman's black clothes. They are empty areas of grain with almost no detail. Properly exposed images will have full detail in those dark tones, even on a naturally grainy film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2018   #11
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 407
If she metered with the M6 more or less where the average center is on that photo, the white marble should normally not cause underexposure, since it's center-weighted.

The lab guy should have said that you are using a "hip" old-ass grainy film and you need to give it 1-2 stops more exposure, or you will experience underexposed shots like these all the time, blame Lomo .
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #12
sara
Registered User
 
sara's Avatar
 
sara is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MY+LDN
Age: 32
Posts: 519
Ok thanks guys. I’m just going to go with the fact that it’s the film. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve shot photos the way I’ve shot for the past 10 years. I didn’t change anything.

Wasn’t expecting fab results from Lomo. Haven’t used this film before like I said and was just trying it out.

If the photos were heavily underexposed, then I would say something is wrong with my camera because like I said, I’ve been shooting the way I’ve shot my photos for a very long time. And my previous roll were all perfectly exposed.

I was in Bali, the sun was shining, it was more likely to be overexposed than underexposed. The whole roll was the same - all grainy, all like this

Ps - I bought the film from some dodgy shop. They prob didn’t handle it very well.

I have a roll of Fuji Superia currently in camera. If the shots are bad, I would know it is me
__________________
Hello
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #13
fireblade
Vincenzo.
 
fireblade's Avatar
 
fireblade is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,143
Can be easily fixed. 2 minutes in PS
__________________
Vincenzo

"No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #14
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Agreed. The end result is underexposure though. As you said, its not her fault, its the crappy film.
I feel like there's some sort of lesson here..?
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #15
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,623
It seems "everyone" believes the film speed on the box.
Old film loses speed plus adding fog, more so in fast film. (400).
Pro film often had additional data, meaning more accurate film speeds..
Using a poor quality film, long out dated in a dubious camera at best invites poor results.
I have seen wonderful work on Holga, Dianna and other 'toy' cameras.
I HATE gambling, so its tests with film..and fine cameras and lenses.
Color for me is now only digital.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #16
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by sara View Post

I was in Bali, the sun was shining, it was more likely to be overexposed than underexposed. The whole roll was the same - all grainy, all like this
This is incorrect. Bright sun is just as likely to cause under exposure due to the fact that the meter may catch part of that bright sun and meter for that, leaving less lit parts of the scene under exposed.

I find bright sun scenes cause the vast majority of my under exposure issues, by far.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #17
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
This is incorrect. Bright sun is just as likely to cause under exposure due to the fact that the meter may catch part of that bright sun and meter for that, leaving less lit parts of the scene under exposed.

I find bright sun scenes cause the vast majority of my under exposure issues, by far.



I agree. Another problem with bright sun regarding underexposure is that, when using negative films, color or B&W, exposure should be set to ensure sufficient shadow detail. In bright sun, the shadows are a lot darker than they are in overcast/soft light. Using a reflected light meter will cause underexposure because the brightly lit areas of the scene, even if they're not light toned, will cause the meter to underexpose the dark shadows.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #18
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Chris describes it accurately. Exposure is an art, not a science; or rather, the science is quite complicated, and requires rather more understanding than most people can be bothered to muster. Many camera meters are designed to avoid OVER-exposure with slide films, and sometimes this means UNDER-exposure with negative films.

This is why I say, in Perfect Exposure (David & Charles 1999), that there is no such thing as a correct exposure but there is such a thing as a perfect exposure.

It's quite amusing to read the one-star reviews first, as some say "It's too complicated" and others say "It's not artistic enough." Then read the 5-star reviews and see why they liked it.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #19
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Its not ok. Look at the shadowed area of the cliff and the woman's black clothes. They are empty areas of grain with almost no detail. Properly exposed images will have full detail in those dark tones, even on a naturally grainy film.
We can agree to disagree. I happen to think shadow detail is overrated in most cases... it depends on the image though really. In the OP's case, if she were to increase exposure, the white concrete would be overblown, as well as the sky in the second image, no?

I'm primarily a slide film shooter for color, so maybe that's why I think that way.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #20
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,638
There are a few learning points that I obtained from your experience Sara.

First, if you intend to photograph in an exotic location that you're not going to go to again for a long time, then don't experiment with your film. The same goes for any pictures of friends, family, loved ones. You would have been far better off with the Fuji film that you were familiar with. I learned this the hard way when I tried out some Cinestill 800 film on a trip back to Canada, to visit my family. My photographs of my father in law were taken on that film. This is movie film that has the black layer on the back of the film stripped off. Well, Cinestill didn't do a very good job, as the entire roll had streaks throughout from the incompletely removed remjet. He died last month, so I'm never going to be able to do a reshoot.


Your photographs in bright sunlight recreate the same high contrast dilemma that wedding photographers face regularly. Summer wedding, with bride in white, and the groom in a black tuxedo. Some of the things you can do to help with this situation:
1) shoot closer to dawn, or sunset, when the contrast range is less extreme, and the shadows come at a more flattering angle than straight down
2) use lower contrast film, such as Kodak Portra, or Fuji NPH, which are meant for these situations
3) fill flash to bring up shadow detail.


The M6 meter, if it's the same as my M7 meter, is center weighted, but it's not a spot meter. The surrounding white concrete in the first picture, as well as the broad expanse of sky in the second picture are going to fool the meter into thinking everything is so bright it needs to give less exposure. Thus, you get into underexposure. In situations such as this, you need to get in close to your subject (first picture), or meter off a suitable patch of grass near you that has similar lighting to what you want to be correctly exposed (second picture). If you can carry yet another gadget, then a spot meter or an incident light meter will also help in situations such as this.

As far as Leicas go, the CL and the M5 are the only film Leica rangefinders with true spot meters. The area of the spot reading is clearly marked out in the viewfinder of the M5.

Finally, it's because of situations like this, that I try to get my wife and kids to wear clothing equivalent to 18% gray when we travel. I have a gray shirt that I wear routinely. In a pinch, I meter off my shirt.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #21
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,261
In bright sun there’s a lot to be said for setting manual exposure by just using Sunny 16, and with colour negative film erring on the side of overexposure. For instance 1/250 at f11 would have been fine here. There is the temptation to assiduously balance the M6 meter’s LED red triangles, and so often it gets it right. Your lens doesn’t look to be wider than 35mm, but with 28mm and wider the sky contributes too much to the meter’s calculation, causing underexposur, and this is probably the case with the M6 as well.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #22
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
I agree w/ fireblade, it's very easily fixed.

I ran it thru my Noiseware Community Edition software (free to download) on the default setting to deal w/ some of the grain, then opened it in PS and hit Auto Levels. Took about one minute. Here it is. It's not perfect, I could have made it look much better (that horizon line needs to be addressed), but now it's at least presentable.

I think those shadows on the other photo were outside the film's latitude capability. Bright sunny day, and that part of the cliff was in shade. Could have been metered a little differently perhaps, but that side of the cliff was probably very dark in real life.

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #23
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
Here's the cliff shot w/ the horizon line fixed w/ a crop, and the same software fix as the above photo. The dark side of the cliff is what it is. It's just dark over there on the back side w/ a bright sun lit day. If you meter to show detail there you blow out the rest of the pic. It's over sharpened, but that's an easy fix too. I ran out of time and have to run.

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #24
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 1,017
For already expired colour negatives from dodgy sources/sellers, I usually over-expose as possible as I can, say 2 to 4 stops. There will still be bigger grains but the colour would not look so "bleached" as shown in the first two shots.



This one was shot on Kodak Portra 400 from a dodgy source, I think it might have expired for 5 or more years. I overexposed it for 2 stops.
__________________
tumblr

flickr(abandoned)

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #25
ultra8
Registered User
 
ultra8 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 29
The scans are all not the best - your lab should be able to scan the tonal values for a better contrast overall. Or try a better lab for better scans (aka MeinFilmLab in germany). Or correct the files with your software. Lomofilms are wonderful effect films, no fineart films. Better you expose the Lomofilms one or two steps more (Your Fuji Pro400H performs best at 200!). If you want great effects, unpredictable colors, mistakes or anything else, Lomofilms are really great. But it is better for the manufacturing industry to buy fresh films from Fuji, Kodak or Ilford.

Last edited by jsrockit : 08-19-2018 at 06:45. Reason: Mistaken identity complaint...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #26
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnuyork View Post
We can agree to disagree. I happen to think shadow detail is overrated in most cases... it depends on the image though really. In the OP's case, if she were to increase exposure, the white concrete would be overblown, as well as the sky in the second image, no?

Nope. She is using color negative film. You expose it for the shadows, not the highlights. Neg films have the ability to hold detail in highlight areas even overexposed a few stops, unlike slide film, which has no overexposure latitude.


Quote:
I'm primarily a slide film shooter for color, so maybe that's why I think that way.
Your experience really isn't relevant to the OP's situation. Slide film and negative film have very different exposure requirements and different capabilities. Slide film has a limited dynamic range; in high contrast scenes you often have to sacrifice either shadow detail or highlight detail. Most people find blocked up shadows less ugly than blown out highlights, which is why people expose slide film to maintain highlight detail.

You don't have to make that choice with negative film because its much greater dynamic range can usually maintain detail in both shadows and highlights even in contrasty light, though in extreme cases it requires advanced printing or scanning skills to do so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2018   #27
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,156
Thanks for this post Sara. It is interesting to see how this film responds. I recently received some of this film and I suspect that others, like myself, who have purchased some of this film will learn from your experiences.


I do have to agree with some of the other comments regarding Lomo films in general. I love using them from time to time but for me they are fun film and I only use them when I am interested in exploring my creative side. I don't really expect much and most of the time the results don't turn out the way I had hoped. In my case I really haven't lost anything except for a bit of time and some money.



However, I never treat Lomo as serious film where I need the results to be correct. In many cases you won't get repeatable results; not even with exposures on the same roll. I am pretty sure that even if you take a roll of this film and overexpose it by a couple of stops it probably will not consistently come out the way you would like.


Fortunately, in our current digital world, even poor exposures can often be fixed to some degree and your memories can be rescued. If you have any interest I am pretty sure this would be good training to improve your digital editing skills.


You did nothing wrong here, and even though you may have been able to improve your exposure technique a bit, most color negative films have adequate exposure latitude to survive our occasional over or under exposure bloopers. Unfortunately for you this particular film is already pretty old so it has lost much of that forgiving latitude.



All that being said this was a great learning experience so thank you for taking the time to post your experiences. Both Roger and Chris are great resources for improving our technical ability with regard to exposure and it doesn't hurt any of us to refresh those lessons from time to time.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

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

Old 08-18-2018   #28
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Nope. She is using color negative film. You expose it for the shadows, not the highlights. Neg films have the ability to hold detail in highlight areas even overexposed a few stops, unlike slide film, which has no overexposure latitude.

Your experience really isn't relevant to the OP's situation. Slide film and negative film have very different exposure requirements and different capabilities. Slide film has a limited dynamic range; in high contrast scenes you often have to sacrifice either shadow detail or highlight detail. Most people find blocked up shadows less ugly than blown out highlights, which is why people expose slide film to maintain highlight detail.

You don't have to make that choice with negative film because its much greater dynamic range can usually maintain detail in both shadows and highlights even in contrasty light, though in extreme cases it requires advanced printing or scanning skills to do so.
Dear Chris,

Bloody FACTS again! You've been warned about using these before.

Cheers,

R
  Reply With Quote

Thank you both, Chris and Roger!
Old 08-18-2018   #29
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 394
Thank you both, Chris and Roger!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

View Post
Nope. She is using color negative film. You expose it for the shadows, not the highlights. Neg films have the ability to hold detail in highlight areas even overexposed a few stops, unlike slide film, which has no overexposure latitude.

Your experience really isn't relevant to the OP's situation. Slide film and negative film have very different exposure requirements and different capabilities. Slide film has a limited dynamic range; in high contrast scenes you often have to sacrifice either shadow detail or highlight detail. Most people find blocked up shadows less ugly than blown out highlights, which is why people expose slide film to maintain highlight detail.

You don't have to make that choice with negative film because its much greater dynamic range can usually maintain detail in both shadows and highlights even in contrasty light, though in extreme cases it requires advanced printing or scanning skills to do so.

Dear Chris,

Bloody FACTS again! You've been warned about using these before.

Cheers,

R
__________________
https://www.patreon.com/rogerandfrances
www.rogerandfrances.eu
www.rogerandfrances.com

Dear Chris and Roger,

I've learned more from your posts back and forth than I would have ever learned by accident burning film.

Whether I ever apply what I've learned is another story entirely, but I'm glad I got to learn a lesson here today. Too bad it wasn't lesson about double quoting though!

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA
__________________
Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2018   #30
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Nope. She is using color negative film. You expose it for the shadows, not the highlights. Neg films have the ability to hold detail in highlight areas even overexposed a few stops, unlike slide film, which has no overexposure latitude.



Your experience really isn't relevant to the OP's situation. Slide film and negative film have very different exposure requirements and different capabilities. Slide film has a limited dynamic range; in high contrast scenes you often have to sacrifice either shadow detail or highlight detail. Most people find blocked up shadows less ugly than blown out highlights, which is why people expose slide film to maintain highlight detail.

You don't have to make that choice with negative film because its much greater dynamic range can usually maintain detail in both shadows and highlights even in contrasty light, though in extreme cases it requires advanced printing or scanning skills to do so.
OK, man, lol. I already know this, however, I see enough detail in her shadows for my taste, might be my screen vs yours. Just looks grainy due to the film stock.
  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 02:10.


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.