Rangefinderforum.com

Rangefinderforum.com (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=130)
-   -   Lengthy, but important... (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166945)

Bill Pierce 11-29-2018 08:32

Lengthy, but important...
 
It's lengthy, but important - perhaps the most important piece on your photography that the NY Times has published in awhile. I encourage you to read it and tell us what you think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/s...age-purge.html

bmattock 11-29-2018 09:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pierce (Post 2851371)
It's lengthy, but important - perhaps the most important piece on your photography that the NY Times has published in awhile. I encourage you to read it and tell us what you think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/s...age-purge.html

This has come up before. In terms of the Flickr mass-deletion of photos, it has happened several times with various companies in the form of digital music files. Much like digital photo storage it only lasts as long as the company - or their promises - does.

The article also touches on the relative permanence or impermanence of various forms of storage. This has also come up many times on RFF in the past. One I particularly remember was just after 9/11, when it was discovered that an important vault of negatives from the JFK era had been stored in one of the towers which was destroyed in the attack. Gone forever. So much for the permanence of single-points-of-failure.

I recently made the decision to pay for a year of Flickr Pro while I decide what to do with my 58,000+ photos I have on that service. Although each and every one of them is also on my local storage and not in peril of permanent deletion, I still don't relish the task of dealing with this, so I paid their blood money and pushed the decision off for a year. I have not yet decided what to do about it. Flickr was a reasonable platform for me when I put the effort into tagging my photos, and I sold more than a couple that way. Even got a magazine cover once.

EDIT: I recently looked at a photo trove posted on Flickr by a gentleman who served in WWII - and amazing archive. However, he was in his 90s by the time he stopped posting and he is no longer online - I presume he has gone to muster with his troops in the next plane of existence. He's not around to save his photos. When Flickr whacks them, that history, his work and contribution to the future, is gone forever. That's sad, but it was probably predictable.

What I have in my physical possession is about 1TB of digital photos and digitized film images. I have several plastic tubs of sleeved negatives and slides and some prints going back to 1979 or so.

The film is not organized, and they are not all digitized. If my house burns down, they're gone. I'm sure I've lost some here or there over the years as well.

My digital photos are largely in good shape, going back to my first foray into digital photography in 1998. I do have a rigorous storage regimen, which includes tagging, storage by date, and backups. I've lost hard drives, but I haven't lost photos. At least not so far.

Over time, I hope to get more of my film archives digitized and stored. I'll keep the film as well, of course, in case scanning capabilities get better and I want to do it again later on.

However, I also need to accept the reality of the situation. The overwhelming majority of my photos are interesting to no one . They are not historically important. They don't matter much to anyone but me. I'm not saying they are naff - I'm reasonably proficient - I'm saying they are irrelevant. When I am gone, no one but perhaps my wife will care, and she will only care about the ones important to both of us, maybe not so much my infrared experiments with dilapidated houses in rural North Carolina so much. It's ephemera of the highest order.

So we strive to avoid the inevitable, and I accept that it's a battle I will eventually lose and who cares? One of my more fatalistic observations about maintaining camera gear is that it isn't going to be 'passed on' and treasured by the next generation as one of grandpa's old cameras. It will be on eBay, or more likely in a thrift store or a garbage dumpster within weeks of my passing. It just doesn't matter.

It matters only while I'm alive to care, and I do care, so it matters - for now.

Timmyjoe 11-29-2018 09:38

I've told this story before on this forum. Back in 2011 I had a small publishing client who did not have an FTP server for me to upload assignments to, so they asked me to post the images on a Flickr page they controlled. Within six months other publications were stealing the images I uploaded, so we terminated that contract. Haven't put up any images on any photo site since. As a more experienced PJ told me, "You put them up on line, you just gave them away for free."

Got many hard-drives full of images, and tubs full of negatives, and photo albums full of prints. But none of them online. For extended-family images, I used to post to Facebook, and Instagram, and still do to Twitter, but those aren't really archive sites. Those are site to share "Hey, here's cousin Joe at the wedding last weekend." which can be quickly taken by cousin Joe's family and stored wherever they please.

I never really got into the storing images on Flickr, or iCloud or anywhere else online. Not sure if it seemed too risky, too impersonal, or too "you can't get something for nothing" and the fear that somehow those internet entities would come asking for money, or giving my images away for free.

Best,
-Tim

kshapero 11-29-2018 09:43

The article is spot on. It is a huge problem. When someone figures it out, let me know. Presently I live in a state of photo storage denial.

ptpdprinter 11-29-2018 09:49

Thr real problem is that with unlimited storage people don't edit their photos or make any effort to organize them any more . They just throw them - good, bad, and indifferent - in a big shoebox called their hard drive or the cloud, and never look at them again. Along comes Flickr and tells them that they will have to edit their photos down to 1000, move them, or pay $50/year. Rather than view this as an opportunity to cull through their images and put them in order, and throw out the photos of what they had for lunch for the past five years, they bitch and moan and pay the $3.00/month so they won't have to go to the trouble. When they die, some relative will either go though them and save the ones they want, something the person taking them didn't care enough to do in his lifetime, or most likely not fool with them. Yes there are some valuable photos there, but most of it is detritus. Really, if you don't care enough to edit and organize your photos, who should? Maybe some day there will be photographic anthropologists who will go through these orphaned archives like they go through old landfills now, trying to figure out what the hell people were thinking.

bmattock 11-29-2018 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmyjoe (Post 2851386)
As a more experienced PJ told me, "You put them up on line, you just gave them away for free."

Well, maybe. As I mentioned, I have sold a few photos via Flickr. I'm not a pro, I don't have an agent or shoot for clients. The photos I have sold would not have been seen by potential customers had I not put them on a service where they could be found.

As to giving them aware for free, I have discovered a few of my photos used by others. Mostly in accordance with my Creative Commons license, which permits attributed non-commercial use, but a few people have 'stolen' them.

One I found had used one of my photos for a commercial blog. I notified them of the violation and we worked out a license. I got paid, they no longer infringed on my rights. Several sites that refused to talk to me found their websites gone when I served their ISP with a take-down notice and proof of my copyright. A couple sites were in Russia and no one was able to do anything about it; they won and I lost.

One also has the option of uploading with watermarks, digital signatures, restrictive rights declarations, or simply a reduced size and quality.

Of course, you can choose not to upload. I get it. I am not that worried about it, but it's not my living I'm fighting to protect, so I'm probably not seeing it the same way you are.

Bill Clark 11-29-2018 10:15

Prints help.

When I was doing weddings, potential clients would ask me about numbers of photos. I’d review an album with them. Then I would ask, after review of the album “do you think this covers the wedding?” Usually they’d say, “yes.”. I would tell them this album has 56 photographs, a larger one maybe 75. A few were more and a few less. I’d say, “get the picture?”

Don’t need to use the camera like a machine gun.

Moral of the story, it’s quality not quantity that counts.

dmr 11-29-2018 10:17

I have just less than 1000 photos on a regular non-paid Flickr account. I use it mostly for dead storage of stuff I post on various sites. I did get my own domain a few years ago and most of the newer stuff I have on line is there. That's what I plan to use for the immediate future.

I've also learned (some the hard way) to have backups, as in more than one, of any significant work.

bmattock 11-29-2018 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Clark (Post 2851407)
"I" Donít need to use the camera like a machine gun.

Fixed that for you. I happen to like using a camera like a machine gun and there's nothing wrong with it.

Jerevan 11-29-2018 11:58

Subsidized lies, indeed.

As mere mortals, we are tied to physicality, however much we want to float freely in a binary space.

I don't have much at all online really, especially since I don't have a smartphone. Most of my mementos are in the form of negatives and prints and lately photo books.

I cherish the tactility, as fleeting as that might be.

Mackinaw 11-29-2018 13:39

Ptpdprinter, I like how you think.

Jim B.

JeffS7444 11-29-2018 13:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmattock (Post 2851382)
It matters only while I'm alive to care...

+1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvKbbHKpwnU

BillBingham2 11-29-2018 13:52

While I have a bit in iCloud, mostly I've moved from CD-R to DVD-RW to IDE drive to SCSI drive to USB drive to USB 3 drive, transferring stuff as the technology changes.

Unlimited, forever, I used to think that of Craftsman hand tools.....Sears was Amazon in it's day. Houses to spoons to unmentionables and everything in between.

B2 (;->

Michael Markey 11-29-2018 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptpdprinter (Post 2851390)
Thr real problem is that with unlimited storage people don't edit their photos any more or make any effort to organize them. They just throw them - good, bad, and indifferent - in a big shoebox called their hard drive or the cloud, and never look at them again. Along comes Flickr and tells them that they will have to edit their photos down to 1000, move them, or pay $50/year. Rather than view this as an opportunity to cull through their images and put them in order, and throw out the photos of what they had for lunch for the past five years, they bitch and moan and pay the $3.00/month so they won't have to go to the trouble. When they die, some relative will either go though them and save the ones they want, something the person taking them didn't care enough in his lifetime to do, or most likely not fool with them. Yes there are some valuable photos there, but most of it is detritus. Really, if you don't care enough to edit and organize your photos, who should? Maybe some day there will be photographic anthropologists who will go through these orphaned archives like they go through old landfills now, trying to figure out what the hell was going on.

This .

Can`t see the article because its subscription only.

Michael Markey 11-29-2018 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmattock (Post 2851382)
So we strive to avoid the inevitable, and I accept that it's a battle I will eventually lose and who cares? One of my more fatalistic observations about maintaining camera gear is that it isn't going to be 'passed on' and treasured by the next generation as one of grandpa's old cameras. It will be on eBay, or more likely in a thrift store or a garbage dumpster within weeks of my passing. It just doesn't matter.

It matters only while I'm alive to care, and I do care, so it matters - for now.

Oh and this ...

Pioneer 11-29-2018 14:24

Negative sleeves in binders, several hard drives and a few (far too few) binders of prints.

I find that I am printing more and more every year. My printing has increased a lot since I (subconsciously) admitted I wasn't going to be able to print everything in the darkroom. But it is still not enough.

My project for this next few months is literally to go through everything I have digitized (which is quite a lot), edit it, and load it onto hard drives for my children. I actually do have a file where copies of the images I have found intriguing have landed over the last few years. Not everything in there is worth keeping, and not everything that should be kept is in there, but it is a start.

But books still seem to be the best chance that any of my stuff will exist longer than I do. But that requires a huge editing effort on my part. But, as has been said, if I am not willing to put in the effort for my own work, who will be?

In the end no one may actually want it, or even more likely, want to maintain it. But that is something over which I have no control. I can't worry about what happens after, only what happens now.

ptpdprinter 11-29-2018 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Markey (Post 2851465)
Can`t see the article because its subscription only.

Copy and paste the url into a "private" or "incognito" window.

Michael Markey 11-29-2018 14:29

Thanks …. will do.

aizan 11-29-2018 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmattock (Post 2851382)
However, I also need to accept the reality of the situation. The overwhelming majority of my photos are interesting to no one . They are not historically important. They don't matter much to anyone but me. I'm not saying they are naff - I'm reasonably proficient - I'm saying they are irrelevant. When I am gone, no one but perhaps my wife will care, and she will only care about the ones important to both of us, maybe not so much my infrared experiments with dilapidated houses in rural North Carolina so much. It's ephemera of the highest order.

So we strive to avoid the inevitable, and I accept that it's a battle I will eventually lose and who cares? One of my more fatalistic observations about maintaining camera gear is that it isn't going to be 'passed on' and treasured by the next generation as one of grandpa's old cameras. It will be on eBay, or more likely in a thrift store or a garbage dumpster within weeks of my passing. It just doesn't matter.

It matters only while I'm alive to care, and I do care, so it matters - for now.

I think I'm going to have to write an article about why vernacular photography DOES matter, historically speaking, and write a guide on family or personal digital archiving and digital preservation. :bang:

Darthfeeble 11-29-2018 14:34

I don't do Cloud, I do very limited portfolios on a couple of photography sites. I have multiple copy hard drives that I intend to curse my children with when I'm gone.

raid 11-29-2018 14:43

I download images from my cameras to some external drives at home, followed by downloading images from the external drives to the computer. Then I upload from the computer to smugmug and some of those get uploaded to RFF. I should be covered.

Benjamin Marks 11-29-2018 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid (Post 2851480)
I download images from my cameras to some external drives at home, followed by downloading images from the external drives to the computer. Then I upload from the computer to smugmug and some of those get uploaded to RFF. I should be covered.

I do what Raid does. (Smart fella!) ;)

I use Flickr and Smugmug to get collections of photos to clients for them to download. They are not, generally, for publication and I doubt that they are being stolen for general use. They are too event-specific, I think.

Ironically, I was (five minutes) ago, noodling between Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic. I have a new laptop, which is finally powerful enough to do some editing and sorting when I travel. This is a huge bonus. But my general practice is to keep historical stuff backed up on HDD's and a master backup(s) in a safety deposit box. I don't do this because I think anyone will be interested in the pictures when I am gone. I do this because my images are the only thing, aside from my family, that I would grieve for if the house burnt down. Everything else can be replaced.

I tried a year of a cloud-based backup service. But when I finally, after months and months, got all of my images for that year uploaded, my "country DSL" speeds ensured that it would take years (quite literally) to download everything in the event of some HDD crash. For me, the cloud is impractical until fiber optics come to the hinterland.

There are versions of this problem all over the internet. I have, for instance, purchased a couple of movies off of Amazon that live on Amazon's servers (I could watch The Godfather series once a year for the rest of my life and be happy). But what happens to my digital rights purchase when Amazon merges or is forced out of business for some reason? I'm pretty sure that "copy" of my movies and my "right" to watch it will go "poof."

Bottom line: if it is important to you, exercise the greatest control practicable over it that you can. Your important books, your important movies, your music, your art. To hand someone else control over when and how you can access these things seems like folly to me, and always has. But hey, these are time/money tradeoffs for all of us.

BTW, the joy of a friend or family member who sees a forgotten photo of him- or herself from 30 years ago is priceless to me. And this is a pleasure I have experienced many times. I'm not putting the control of that set of emotions in Flickr's hands either.

Ko.Fe. 11-29-2018 16:10

Vague article. It is me or author?

Flickr is not archival storage to me.
It is to observe someone else photos. Helen Hill, Junku Nashimura.
It is to see full size example for one lens from thousands of users and in ten of thousands examples (a.k.a. pictures).
It is to see the uploads from museums and archives. Sometimes very small and not accessible other ways.
Does Flicks offered storage under previous owner and now? Why it is a problem then?

Yes, here is messy Google which auto archives and organizes images automatically on google cloud. You are doing absolutely nothing and Google does saves it all.
No idea how to control it, but saved copies are better than no copies.

Would I relay on Google photos? No. On Flickr as storage? No. They are outsourced or greedy morons (one is product of another one, BTW).

But it is disaster recovery anyway. Prints are not. They are hard copy.

The real challenge is not even described in this article, because author doesn't know it.
It is called MAM - Media Asset Management.

Best MAM is storage provider independent application.
This is how it works:
You are defining your own capitalization. It is like forest. Each tree is something.
People-family-kid-names. People-relatives-families-names.People-friends-families-names. One tree. Places-towns-streets-pubs another tree. Photo-cameras-lennses-filters one more tree. For sale-cameras-lenses-cars-furniture. One more tree.
You could search then kid, place, camera. You could find who else was on trip in this place. And which camera was in used. And if you already sold.

But MAM only works if you work on it. On tagging images and making catalogolization.
This is the hardest part with huge bonus.
The bonus is in photos. Once you have metadata written into photo files, it doesn't matter how they are organized as files and where they are stored.
It comes with second part of MAM. All you do is enabling your storage options and assess to it. Flickr, Google, your hard drives. For MAM it is just field in internal database with link address. Another database entry is image proxy.

This is the only way you could get pictures really organized. It includes your prints and negs. Again, it is your work to have prints in labeled boxes and labeled shelves.
This is how it worked in libraries and all you need to do is to be librarian.

Hard? Then take it easy. It is not asset management, not an asset, but just a pile....
And just with anything considered as an asset. If you leave your Bahama account unknown and then finally you are thrown in jail, how is your family and private joy are going access it? You didn't give the keys? Who is the stupid?

aoresteen 11-29-2018 18:55

After the PhotoBucket fiasco last year I deleted every photo I had on PhotoBucket except one: PhotoBucket's place holder image extorting fees.

I do not have ANY images at a public "cloud" site. I have my own domain where I now store images that I share on various internet forums since Photobucket broke all my forum postings that had photos.

I have 4 copies of every digital image I keep (yes I delete the bad images!). Two separate data hard drives in my main PC (the OS has it's own boot drive), one copy on a data server in my house, and a fourth copy on a bug-out USB drive. I sync them once a month or so.

My film images are sorted by year in archival sleeves on 4x6 cards in file boxes and 90% I can not scan as they are medium format. If I bug out I can not take them with me. Such is life.

My bug-out USB drive has all important docs on it as well as the photos.

farlymac 11-29-2018 20:38

I'm getting to that point in my life where I'm not worried about losing stuff. Except when I can't find something around here I just set down a couple hours ago.

I've close to 14,000 photos on Flickr. A lot of them are linked to various forums I belong to, either in separate postings or a link to the complete album. I keep every image in an album, as most of them tell a story, or some basic facts about the location they were taken at. I can sometimes remember better when I took a particular photo, so I know about how many pages back I have to go to get to the album it is in, instead of looking through all the "barn" photos, as an example.

I've been paying for years for my Pro account, and plan on doing so until I eventually pass on. If I know the time is near, I may pay ahead for ten years of storage. After that, it doesn't matter, I'll be even more irrelevant than the day I died. But it would be nice to all those who are constantly searching my camera repair series not to lose that knowledge just because I'm no longer around. Plus, I'll leave control of my Flickr account to my relatives, in case any of them would like to download some of the images.

Photography doesn't define me, but I do define my photography. It's mostly just stuff that pleases me, or that I practice at trying for a certain look for this or that photo. But a style? I'm too interested in different forms of photography to get pigeonholed into any one genre. And I'm past wanting to pursue a career as a professional. Plus, there are many more photos I haven't put on Flickr that were taken before this age of public digital display that at best only my relatives will be interested in after I'm gone.

If this place burned down tomorrow, and all my photos, negatives, prints, computer, CD's, SD cards, external drives, and photo gear went up in smoke, I'd just start all over again, like I've done before.

Permanence is so overrated.

PF

Guth 11-29-2018 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmattock (Post 2851420)
I happen to like using a camera like a machine gun and there's nothing wrong with it.

My kid would agree with you. He'll often set his iPhone camera on video mode and then pick 'n choose the individual frames he likes best as images to keep.

Jerevan 11-29-2018 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan (Post 2851475)
I think I'm going to have to write an article about why vernacular photography DOES matter, historically speaking, and write a guide on family or personal digital archiving and digital preservation. :bang:

Having worked with such stuff, I know how important it is - even though most people don't think it is. There is a lot of stuff in the most ordinary photo that in a decade or two will be of interest.

But what that interesting part is, is hard to know in beforehand. And writing down what/where/who makes the photographs much more valuable in a sense, knowing that the man in the photograph is uncle Bertie and there's old Jeeves, too.

I remember coming across an archive from a man who spent most of his life making ordindary photographs of his hometown (some 20000+negatives and slides). I suppose some people thought he was a bit odd, but looking back at a photo of the town square, made in 1973, it does give you a view what has changed since then - the clothes, cars, buildings, etc.

One does not need to be a hamster, but keeping a record of family and life and neighbourhood is pretty nice and who knows, maybe you'll be a Vivian Maier or a Disfarmer in due time. :)

Bille 11-30-2018 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guth (Post 2851529)
My kid would agree with you. He'll often set his iPhone camera on video mode and then pick 'n choose the individual frames he likes best as images to keep.

Works well with 4K.

FujiLove 11-30-2018 01:38

I have binders of negatives, boxes of prints, boxes of slides and prints in various other people's houses. My digital files (mostly scans) are in Lightroom which is backed-up to the cloud with everything else using Backblaze.

I was always under the impression that flickr and the like compressed files so much that they make a poor place to protect digital photographs.

Out to Lunch 11-30-2018 01:49

Lengthy to the point of rambling. Flickr has contacted each and every Flickr customer informing them about the 2019 deal and advising them to download their +1000 pics if and when they don't want to subscribe. Those who will lose pictures will do so because they don't think it's worth their while keeping them.

robert blu 11-30-2018 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerevan (Post 2851533)
...
I remember coming across an archive from a man who spent most of his life making ordindary photographs of his hometown (some 20000+negatives and slides). I suppose some people thought he was a bit odd, but looking back at a photo of the town square, made in 1973, it does give you a view what has changed since then - the clothes, cars, buildings, etc.

A good point. I agree 100%.

robert

PunkFunkDunk 11-30-2018 02:56

Lengthy, but important...
 
Even Stalin did not live for ever. Why should your photos?

bmattock 11-30-2018 04:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guth (Post 2851529)
My kid would agree with you. He'll often set his iPhone camera on video mode and then pick 'n choose the individual frames he likes best as images to keep.

I just get tired of isms and thou shalts. I do what I please and I won't be told my photography isn't valid because some crotchety old man says so. I can say that because I am also a crotchety old man.

Yokosuka_Mike 11-30-2018 04:13

And, when all is said and done... blah blah blah

What is a valued image? What is worth keeping?

If you love it hang it on a wall, otherwise,

Answer that for yourself.

Me, I don't care. I write my poems in the sand and watch the waves wash them away. And, I can always write more, and some will be even better than before.

Mike

helenhill 11-30-2018 04:14

Between Wars, Enviormental Disasters, Famine, and a throw away society
who the hell cares about saving some Photos ...

At the rate we are going there may be nothing of what we know of as Earth

oops did I say that ... :eek:

Yokosuka_Mike 11-30-2018 04:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by helenhill (Post 2851572)
Between Wars, Enviormental Disasters, Famine, and a throw away society
who the hell cares about saving some Photos ...

At the rate we are going there may be nothing of what we know of as Earth

oops did I say that ... :eek:

Yes, you did say that. Say some more and add a picture or two, we're listening.

Good for you Helen!

All the best,
Mike

kiemchacsu 11-30-2018 04:39

Lengthy, but important...
 
All of my photos are uploaded to Google photos.
While I really appreciate the ability to search anything from Google, I still keep my files locally in 2 hard drives.
If all above solutions dies one day, i am not so worried, as I print a family photo album annually, which I treasure most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dogman 11-30-2018 05:03

My photos are important to me. I have no online presence. No Facebook, Twitter or blog. I don't post photos on any photo sharing sites for many of the same reasons mentioned in the article. I do not try to market my photos. Few people actually see my pictures but that's okay with me. I take a picture because the subject, light or circumstances please me. I then download it to the computer, back it up on four different hard drives, print it on rag paper with pigment inks and store it in one of numerous archival storage boxes. No clouds involved. My negatives and prints from years past are also stored this way.

I don't consider photography a social activity or a financial pursuit. It's just something I do that gives me pleasure. When I'm gone, I expect it all to be landfill.

ColSebastianMoran 11-30-2018 05:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmattock (Post 2851420)
Fixed that for you. I happen to like using a camera like a machine gun and there's nothing wrong with it.

... as long as you have a way to find the "keepers" out of the burst.

I shoot bursts and brackets regularly, and with new camera tech (e.g. 30fps, you pick the keeper) it will become even more effective as a photo technique.

The "4K" button on my latest Point 'n Shoot forces me to pick. iPhone encourages, but will happily keep the whole burst.

ColSebastianMoran 11-30-2018 05:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerevan (Post 2851429)
As mere mortals, we are tied to physicality, however much we want to float freely in a binary space.

Great thought provoking line. Thanks!


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:09.

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.