reuben_c

March 9, 2006

For bright light, the plain Gold 100 (or Kodak bright sun 100) is good and cheap.

I agree that Gold 100 (by whatever name they label it this week) is an excellent film -- a very excellent film, that wouldgo have been unimaginably amazing not all that many years ago.

However, I would disagree with the "for bright light" qualifier.

I remember when, "for bright light", we used ASA 10 Kodachrome. Hand-held. With f/3.5 lenses. With good results.

BTW, in addition to "bright sun", we also used it in "hazy-bright", "cloudy", and the rest of the conditions listed on the "paper light meter" packed with every can of Kodachrome. At ASA 10, hand-held -- with good results.

You'd be surprised what you can do with a "slow" film.

An ASA 100 film, of the quality delivered by Gold 100, would have been a godsend. Absolutely unbelievable technology back then.

Zipping fwd in time a coupla decades, we find "High Speed Ektachrome" being the raging HOT film, at all of ASA 160. Grainy, too. (There was a faster film, Anscochrome 500 -- but, it was a nonstandard process, hard to find, and literally so grainy that you could see the grain on a slide with the naked eye, no magnification.)

No one from Big Yeller suggested "'For bright sun', use High Speed Ektachrome" (less than a stop faster than Gold 100). They'd have been laughed at. Seriously. ASA 160 was considered F-A-S-T for a color film at that time. And about 20 yrs prior, circa 1959, ASA 200 was very high speed for a B&W film -- I'm speaking of Tri-X Pan, which was rated at 200 prior to The Great ReSpeeding around 1960, which resulted in the doubling of nearly all B&W films overnight, with no change to the emulsion. (And there are fossils who will still shoot their B&W films at "half speed" (i.e., true speed), cutting back on developer time by about 10%, to gain a nice benefit in terms of gradation and image tonality. Roughly similar to going up one format size.)

So, don't look down your nose at the humble Gold 100, nor should anyone consider it someting restricted to "bright sun" applications (unless you're also limited to an f/12.5 zoom lens P&S). Marketspeak may change, and the "faster is better" hype may sell, but there are things that remain true, regardless of hype. And one of those things is that an ASA 100 film is not particularly "slow", nor is it something that should be relegated solely to "bright sun" conditions.

March 8, 2006

<blockquote>This guy has been using film for over 28 years and he's the best pro photographer in my small art centric town. Do you think digital would make him any better?<A

href="http://www.partainphotographs.com/sensamp2.htm">Portr ait Photography</A></blockquote>

He's already there: "<a href="http://www.partainphotographs.com/pitch.htm">The Pitch</a>"

Note digital buzzwords that pepper that page -- "chip", "CD", "digital"... I haven't looked at the rest of the site so I have no idea if he's got other "digital stuff" on his site (I clicked the link to his pricing page out of curiosity, and this is what I saw).

March 8, 2006

Why couldn't they simply sell "bulk" lengths of 220 film, that people could use with "recycled" paper ends and spools?

Oh, I know it'll never happen. I'm just injecting a dose of comic sanity to the mix.

March 7, 2006

<blockquote>Assuming that hoarding now means less film bought later on as one draws down one's stockpile, then the overall amount of film purchased would remain about the same. It's therefore hard to understand how hoarding film will help ward off the evil spirits. It seems like an irrational response to uncertain times.</blockquote>

If you "hoard" now, and then use your "hoard" (the scenario you paint above), then you are not "hoarding", you are merely engaging in a pathological, frenetic, manic behavior, with at best a zero-sum outcome.

The purpose of "hoarding" is to be able to ensure a supply of the product after it is no longer available on the open market.

Therefore, if one is to intelligently "hoard", it is imperative that he also continues to purchase the amount of film his normal usage demands -- in addition to the "hoarded" quantity.

Of course, it would be prudent to engage in a rational "stock-rotation" regimen, so that new purchases would go to the "back of the hoard", with currently-needed film drawn from "the front of the hoard". This will ensure that the hoard is always as fresh as possible. It is the same kind of inventory management used in grocery stores, restaurants, and kitchens.

If you go on a mad buying spree, and acquire a "hoard", and then begin using your hoard, you will be at severe risk of irony. It's entirely likely that your "hoard" will be drawn down to nothing, just as the film is withdrawn from the market. What to do then? Start a new "hoard"? In a mad market, driven by panicked buyers paying top dollar for anything they can find?

No, done properly, "hoarding" is an intelligent countermeasure to a likely "bad scenario" involving the removal from the marketplace of the desired commodity.

I leave as an exercise to the reader the likelihood of a currently favorite emulsion being discontinued at some time in the foreseeable future. (Apply statistical bias as deemed appropriate for cases involving "specialty" films, i.e., anything other than highest-volume consumer C41 products.)

October 20, 2005

"endeavler" shoulda been "endeavor"

Begone, thou fatfinger!

October 20, 2005

Pentax and Minolta made high-end 110 SLR cameras. Minoltas had fixed zooms, and Pentax had interchangeable lenses (indluding a zoom). Soligor made a 1.7x teleconverter for the Pentax SLR.

The Kodak Pocket 50 and Pocket 60 (and later on the flipflash-equipped Ektralite 48) had a painfully sharp 2.8 Ektar lens. (This was a REAL Ektar too, a very well made Tessar formula, NOT a micro-coke-bottle-bottom with the Ektar name slapped on it.)

Kodachromes shot in that little camera are capable of incredible magnification. Projected, they look as good as most 35mm work. (Projected to 11x14 size, they are still razor sharp and grain-free.)

Kodak also made a series of "Pocket Carousel" projectors. Beautiful little devices. They did not cut any corners on them.

The format had a lot going for it. With newer emulsions, it would have been capable of incredible quality. Even older emulsions would have really shined in that format. Can you imagine 110 spoolings of Kodachrome 25, Panatomic X, or Tech Pan?

Don't scoff if you haven't seen any images that show off what the format was capable of, when used with decent equipment, and a steady hand.

What killed the 110 market was Kodak's decision to supplant it with "Disc Film". Even with the "modern" emulsions coated on those discs, the format simply was not suited to greater than wallet-size prints.

Even today, there are people buying and using the Pentax 110s (and the Kodak Pocket 60s, which require "home-made" Size-K batteries). Some of the rarer Pentax lenses (the 70mm, the zoom, the 18mm "Pan-focus", and the Soligor teleconverter) will still fetch a pretty penny on ebay.

Unfortuantely, it's impossible to find any slower emulsions in the format anymore, unless you "roll your own" (a difficult, but not impossible endeavler) using 16mm film, or "slitted" 35mm film.

October 20, 2005

I suspect it is. I've read analysis suggesting that it sensitometry is the same, as well as is grain size. I've also read complaints about it behaving as if it was overexposed (highlights blocking up, etc.) when exposed at 100.

And isn't that the same butterfly example photo they use for the 100 film?

My cynical side is whispering in my ear that they may have badged it as a 100 film domestically because of the complaints about them no longer having a 100 speed film "premium" film (the only 100 film left standing was Gold 100, after they axed Royal Gold and Supra).

October 20, 2005

"Making film and photo paper is a bit more high tech than making a circular iron mounted on a wooden box."

Not much!

Stretch that "cirular iron" into a drum, turn it sideways, fill the "wooden box" with liquid emulsion, and there ya go.

October 20, 2005

I've read that Gigabit is rebadged Agfa Copex. What is to become of it, now that Agfa is kaput as of the end of the year?

October 20, 2005

"Bob, you need to meet a better class of photographer. Apple still totally dominate the high-end editorial and advertising market."

Wow, that doesn't say very much about the size and scope of the photography market, does it.

I mean, with the Mac having approx. 1% market share (down from 2 or 3 percent a year ago), if half the photographers are using it, that means that -- presuming that photography is only PART of Apple's customer base -- we're talking about 1/2 of a small sliver of 1% of the market. This kind of market segment is the kind of stuff that gets included under the "Other" label that points to a tiny slice of a pie chart.

October 13, 2005

A shame to discard that silver! I have a Rotex electrolytic recovery unit that makes it very easy to extract the metallic silver from the fixer, but in lieu of such, you can place some clean copper sheets in the fixer, and the silver will self-plate onto them.

October 13, 2005

Your RG25 looks like it was damaged in processing. Lots of "drop-outs", scratches, etc.

I've used RG25 that was about a decade out of date, unrefrigerated, and gotten excellent results. I suspect something was amiss with the processing on your test roll.

September 12, 2005

"I liked the Kodak Royal Gold 100, but ....that seems to be gone. Is that what the 100UC replaced ?"

I believe that 100UC is more like RG200 in drag. I've seen what looks like that emulsion sold as a 200 speed film on one of Kodak's European web pages, and I've seen comments about it behaving better exposed at 200 than 100. The grain is also more like RG200 than RG100, unless I'm mistaken.

I wonder what the possibility would be for someone to respool the 50 speed movie neg film Kodak is manufacturing. They promote it as having extremely fine grain and high resolution. I wonder if it hs Remjet backing.

September 12, 2005

"I would prefer to have Ektar 25 grain in a 100 speed film but I'm weird ..."

I'd settle for getting Ektar 25 grain in a 25 speed film, but I'm anachronistic. If my freezer holds out and they keep making C41 soup, I'm probably OK for the rest of my life. Photographers shouldn't have to be scroungers, "progress" shouldn't run bass-ackwards, and marketing departments shouldn't be headed up by brain-twisters who majored in Orwellian Studies.

August 20, 2005

The old 203mm Ektar was called the No 70 Kodak anastigmat 8 inch F7.7 before WW2

I have that lens -- a barrel mounted KA 7.7 -- from what I can ascertain, the only difference (between the badge change from KA to Ektar) is the lack of coating.

That said, I will have no compunctions about using it for color work (once I am able to find a reasonably priced shutter for it, or a decent condition derby hat :) Flare might be slightly greater than one would experience with an uncoated Tessar-type lens, due to the additional air-glass surfaces due to the lack of the Tessar's cemented pair, but I do not believe it would be significant. Uncoated Tessars deliver beautiful results.

The view on a groundglass is beautiful. I do not believe that placing the image on film would degrade it beyond what I see on the glass.

Regarding cleaning marks, they will reduce contrast, but do not as a rule degrade resolution, unless they are on the rear element (rear element defects are something to avoid at all costs), or, on the front element of strong retrofocus lenses. (A sufficiently strong retrofocus lens will even resolve raindrops on the front glass.)

August 20, 2005

Remember that in the late '70s and early '80s, the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the silver market. The price went from something like $4/oz to $50/oz. Film and paper prices skyrocketed. When the scheme collapsed, the price of silver came back down. Naturally Kodak and the other film companies immediately lowered their prices back to proportionate levels. NOT! Not one little bit. They just raked it in for another decade. The only thing that drives prices down is competition, and we don't have that today. The price of materials will go up, but just like the days of the silver fiasco, fewer people will use those materials ever more sparingly and will continue to do silver based photography.

If you do some research, I think you will find that even at the peak "hunted" price of silver (something like $55/troy oz), a typical roll of 135-36 film had under fifty cents worth of silver in it.

Go figure, eh?

June 15, 2005

I would not be amazed to find that Kodak's medium term plans are to shift everything to C-41 and do only chromogenic B&W.

Be amazed.

They're killing their RA-4 chromogenic B&W paper too.

June 15, 2005

RA- 4 Process

They're killing off their chromogenic B&W papers too?

So what now is their rationale for maintaining two chromogenic B&W film varieties (one for chromogenic papers, one for real paper)?

May 26, 2005

Those revenue and cost figures are per month.

You might want to get with the owners of that site and tell them to publish a correction. I was using their figures, which they asserted to be "From an interview with Brian Mottershead, site administrator, on May 1, 2003," which I assumed to be correct, since the page does give the appearance of being fairly current ("Date modified: 2005/01/06"), and I'm assuming that no issue has been raised by Photo.net as to its contents (prior to today).

May 26, 2005

I can see how the "pub" metaphor looks like a good fit at first blush, but I don't think it's really all that good of a metaphor. For example, any pub that monitored conversations at the tables, and told the patrons what topics were off limits, and enforced it with things like orders to stop discussing various matters, or being expelled from the pub, would likely find himself in an unenviable situation before too long.

The problems with web fora is that they're not like pubs, they're not like park soapboxes, they're not like anything in the real world. The only thing they're like is web fora. They are unique.

As a result, attempts to enforce "pub rules" or any other "real world" rules on a web forum results in what might at best be described as a forced fit producing awkward moments.

I've seen (on other fora) even more complications, in the form of written "rules", which are in practice meaningless, as the moderators rule by fiat, and anyone pointing out the fact that their rulings are at variance with the written rules is banished for being a troublemaker. This sort of thing sometimes seems almost endemic to the medium, and IMO is something that needs to be guarded against. The problem is that the traditional means for "guarding against" that sort of thing is what's commonly termed "checks and balances" -- and the mere mention of "checks and balances" inevitably results in indignant reminders that "this is NOT a democracy!", often followed (on other venues I've observed) in waves of banishments. The result is that the "survivors" walk on eggshells for a while, meek as mice, afraid that they might offend "the rulers" (something difficult to avoid when the real rules bear little if any resemblance to the "offical" rules, and are in reality unknown and unknowable except in the breach). This systemic fear is then interpreted as "good behavior, good attitude, smooth sailing, everything is fine" by the rulers. Kinda pathological, when you think about it.

I would not want to administer a web forum in any capacity, and I do not envy those who do. Unfortunately, "moderator" status is generally viewed as "status". Any "RHIP" tendencies therefore must be guarded against for the obvious reasons, and the aforementioned systemic obstacles to guarding against them ("checks and balances"/"this is NOT a democracy!") makes it very difficult in the best of circumstances.

May 26, 2005

I probably should have read that a bit more carefully, since it does seem to raise some additional questions. I plead "Barbie Syndrome" ("Math is hard!")

From the numbers given in that article, it looks like net revenue is something less than $6,000 a year ($10K gross, minus $6K for bandwidth, with an unspecified amount assumed for things like equipment cost, maintenance, utilities, and other overhead).

If the numbers in that article are correct -- and, the corporation is covering Brian as a full time employee, and Bob as a "part-time consultant", then either those two guys could tutor sparrows on how to live economically :) or (perhaps more likely) someone is investing/injecting funding into the site on an ongoing basis.

Realistically, I think the latter is more probable than the former (wage and hour laws being what they are), so the "additional questions" raised would be who, and why?

All I can figure is that it's either pure altruism, or, an investment with the idea of an eventual return on the investment. As to the "who", who knows? (Well, someone knows, but it ain't me, babe! :)

May 26, 2005

<blockquote>I'm the wrong person to ask about ownership, but photo.net is owned by the Luminal Path corporation. I'm not exactly sure who the shareholders of that are, but I imagine it's a matter of public record somewhere. There were a number of investors in the original photo.net (someone had to put up the money) and I assume they have some share in luminal path. The board of directors is public information (see the "About Us" link below). My understanding, at least as of a year or two ago, was that nobody had actually made any profit out of being a "shareholder" in photo.net (luminal path)...I may or may not be wrong on that point. I have no direct knowledge of photo.net finances.</blockquote>

Thanks, I guess that's as good a starting point as any. I punched "Luminal Path" into Google, from the first link it returned (<a href="http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/pcce-ccop/reana/pubs/economic_model/6_e.cfm">Ensuring the Economic Sustainability of Online Cultural Projects: Far from Standard Models</a>), it would seem that there are only two individuals deriving any income from photo.net (apart from any revenue gained by the corporation itself, which my brief parse doesn't seem to reveal):

<blockquote>In 1996, Photo.net, to which a number of discussion forums had been added, became a test bed for Ars Digita programmers. By 1999, business at the parent company kept Philip Greenspun so busy that he transferred Photo.net to a separate company (Luminal Path), of which he owned 50%; three financial partners shared the rest. The company now has one full-time employee (Brian Mottershead), a part-time consultant (Bob Atkins), and about fifty volunteer moderators. </blockquote>

Other than mentioning that as of 1999, Luminal Path was owned 50% by Phil, with the other 50% owned by three unnamed "financial partners", there doesn't seem to be too much of interest, other than this section, which is probably common knowledge to anyone who's been following this stuff:

<blockquote>Funding The organization's structure is still that of a for-profit company, although it has not turned a profit since 1999. The administrator admits that a not-for-profit company would better suit the members' vision, but states that likely will not happen until the original investors recoup their investment. In spring 2002, Photo.net faced the greatest crisis in its history. Its revenues barely covered the cost of its bandwidth (about US$3,000 per month). There was only one source of revenue: a commission of 1% to 10% on purchases made by members at affiliated photography equipment stores.

Since these revenues were unlikely to increase and the site was vulnerable to the least crisis, several measures were taken to reduce costs and increase revenues. First, the privileges of a tiny group of very active users were suspended until they paid a voluntary yearly contribution of US$25. This resolved some misuse of bandwidth. More significantly, revenues rose as the result of an advertising banner system in April 2003 and more vigorous promotion of voluntary membership, which ultimately provides few advantages. In April 2003, revenues reached close to US$10,000, of which US$4,000 was spent on bandwidth.

In short, under the new business plan, 40% of revenues are generated by clients through a voluntary yearly subscription and 60% by third parties through advertising and affiliation. While modest, these funds have allowed Luminal Path to modernize its equipment and resume paying its sole employee, illustrating how relatively inexpensive it can be for large communities to operate.</blockquote>

I guess I'm still curious about plans for the future, primarily, is the site being groomed for bigger and better things, such as an IPO, or merger/acquisition? I don't really expect an answer, since that's the kind of stuff that's invariably held quite close to the vest.

May 23, 2005

<blockquote>They could have re-engineered Ektar 25 to be a 100 speed now, sure, but Kodak didn't go this route. I think Kodak would have a killer film on their hands if a 100 speed film had a PGI of less then 25 like RG 25 was.</blockquote>

Do you doubt them when they speak of their intention of making the company into an "all-digital Kodak"?

I've made a decision to face reality, and accept what they say as being what they mean.

When I see stuff about "<a href="http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/markets/marketfeatures/10222843.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA">Carp's vision for an all-digital Kodak</a>", I accept that they mean what they say.

I just don't see how films that beat digital's performance are consistent with the goal of an "all-digital" Kodak.

If I was running the company, and my goal was to make it into an "all-digital" company, then I would ruthlessly persue a program of eliminating the emulsions with the highest resolution and finest grain.

I'd first knock off the ASA 25 emulsions, then the ASA 100 emulsions. At least the more "recent art" ASA 100 emulsions, like RG, Ektar, Supra. I might leave the older "Gold 100" emulsion, which doesn't approach the performance of the other ASA 100 emulsions. I might then come out with a new ASA 100 emulsion, but I'd see to it that it didn't have notably different performance from the existing ASA 200 counterpart.

Through the entire process, my goal would be to continually ratchet things in one direction -- film's performance would continue to digress. "Progress" would entail the production of "new" films with resolution that didn't approach that of "old" films.

Little by little, my "death by a thousand cuts" would gradually drive more and more people away from film, to digital. At least that would be my plan, if I was running the show, with a goal of creating an "all-digital" company.

I would try to be more careful with my PR, though. I recall that when Kodachrome 25 was dropped, we were given two contradictory explanations as to why it was discontinued. One part of Kodak told us they had to discontinue it because they could no longer obtain some secret sauce (paraphrase, of course), while another voice within the company assured us that they dropped it because demand had evaporated.

Two things stand out (besides the obvious contradictory nature of those mutually exclusive explanations). The first is that I wonder why they're able to continue coating Kodachrome 40, which from my recollection was originally marketed as the "tungsten version" of Kodachrome 25 (and "with filter" it is "Kodachrome 25").

The second thing that confuses me is why demand would drop, even though they've done no promotion, advertising, etc. for many years, and, have systematically made it more and more difficult to obtain processing for the film.

Finally, as to the oft-repeated mantra about it being impossible to coat film in less than megagargantuanhumongous quantities 24/7/365, I just don't buy the story, for a variety of common sense reasons, not the least of which is the fact that if it's really true, it's a relatively new kind of "true", since in the past, film was produced in much smaller quantities.

Complicating the issue is the famous "salt mine" (deep hole in the ground where film is stored, safe from the ravages of aging due to heat or cosmic rays). I do not see why a single master roll of a particular emulsion could not be coated, and then stored in the salt mine, to be slit and packaged on an as-needed basis.

Whatever happened to the promised wonders of "JIT", which would allow products to be constructed as-needed when needed, instead of mass-produced via virtual cookecutter, in one-size-fits-all fashion?

Like I said, I don't buy it. I don't think the idea is to produce what people want. I think the idea is to make people want what's produced.

This isn't some wild hare idea I just made up. It's standard modern era MR doctrine, enhanced by BM techniques. Put Skinner on Madison Ave., and what do you get? You get whatever they want you to get! :)

May 23, 2005

<blockquote>There's a constant voice of disent that eventually just blurs into the noise. </blockquote>

It seems like the real griping is coming from a direction other than the "peanut gallery". I'm talking about the "griping about the griping".

I've seen this kind of thing all too often, it's not "a photo.net thing" -- it's an Internet web forum thing.

And if you analyze it, I think you may agree with me that it's one of the main driving forces behind the wild success of weblogs.

What I'm talking about is the surreal doublethink that is imposed on users of most "public fora". On the one hand, the members are told that the service is "a community". They're told how they make it "a community", and there's lots of happy talk to go with the sentiment.

But, at the first sign of criticism, no matter how mild, "the administration" circles the wagons, send out a message that "This is NOT a Democracy!", and lets "the dissenters" (AKA anyone who doesn't drink the koolade :) know that they're skating on thin ice.

This is classic doublethink. Or to put it in more two-dimensional terms, it's like the double corner in the checkerboard. One box is labeled "we're a community", and the other is labled "we're a beneficial dictatorship".

A lot of sites will attempt to use the "livingroom" metaphor, i.e., "This is John's livingroom, and you're all guests in John's home, here at his pleasure. You have no say in how he chooses to run his home, etc., etc., etc."

The argument breaks down of course when you examine the metaphor. I've had lots of visitors to my real life living room, but I've never once solicited donations from them, or even suggested that by "having them over", they were part of some warm cuddly "community" (until, of course, they ticked me off, at which point I slid into the othe corner of the checkerbord, and informed them that "it's my livingroom, I make up the rules, like it, or leave."

I guess I could behave like that in real life. But I think that it wouldn't take long before the only "friends" I'd be able to find who were willing to "visit" me in "my living room" were the type of guys typically found queued up at soup kitchens, or at intersectins with squeegie in hand.

So, the doublethink freaks people out, and the natural outlet is the blog.

What is a "blog"? It's a forum where "the livingroom" metaphor really does fit.

The age of the traditional web forum is at a cusp, and the "industry" as a whole should probably consider itself on a de facto sort of "notice". If it doesn't figure out how to navigate this sea change, it'll quite likely find itself residing next to "the dotcom era" in the dustbin of e-history.

Ultimately, a "web forum" is neither "a democracy" nor "a livingroom". It's a venue, of sorts -- and regardless of its particular particularities, there is one overriding rule that it cannot escape. That's the rule of the marketplace.

Invite "guests" into "your livingroom", and then treat them like dirt, and they'll go elsewhere. Where? The conventional wisdom has been "other fora", but I'm of the opinion that a more realistic answer is "nowhere" (as in politics, more and more people are "voting with their feet -- I find it pleasant to stay home on election day), or, they'll spend an evening setting up a blog of their own. It'll be their "livingroom", and it'll succeed or fail on its own merits. But in any event, they'll be able to speak their peace without being attacked, insulted, demeaned, or threatened for having said what's on their mind.

Getting back to this particular "not-a-democracy"... I've been wondering about something. We've just been told that it's not a democracy, "It's a business run by Brian. He calls the shots."

OK, that tells us that he's either a manager, or an owner, or both.

I suspect I'm not alone in wondering who actually owns the service. I know it was originally owned by Phil, but his absence seems to be pretty consistent for some time now. Did he sell it, or give/donate it to some other party/parties/entity?

Is it a "proprietorship"? A "partnership"? A corporation, or subsidiary of a corporation? I see the copyright notice says that "Luminal Path Corporation" holds the copyrights, and the "about us" page lists the corporation as well as the names of a few individuals as being "involved with the site", but I can't seem to find any actual statement of ownership.

If it's truly not "a democracy" (a statement I do not challenge!), then it must be owned by someone, or something.

I'm curious because whenever I see the sort of iron-fist-like "We will NOT tolerate dissent in our complaint department!" policy shaping up, I get a gut feeling like someone is trying to "groom" a property, perhaps to attract investors, or to sell it to another party, or for some other undisclosed reason.

I expect by now that I'm at the "this is NONE of your business!" zone, but regardless, whether or not I am "permitted" to wonder about these things, I do wonder about them.

Thought crime is so troublesome! :)

May 23, 2005

And, the photo.net editor lost the line I typed!

"in lies of" shoula been "in lieu of"

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by reuben_c