Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

“Our autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selects”  

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."  

 

Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking "if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow."  I looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a starving man.  Bill has worked as a photojournalist  for 25 years, keyword: WORK.  Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's  life that Bill has earned and enjoyed.  Probably Bill's most famous pic is Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still waving. 

 

Bill  has been published in many major magazines, including  Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match.  :His published books include  The Leica Manual,  War Torn, Survivors and Victims in the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America,  Human Rights in China,  Children of War.  Add to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums.  Magazine contributions include  Popular Photography,  Camera 35, Leica Manual,  Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist, and now RFF.  Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad,  and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award. Perhaps an ever bigger award is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."

 

I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson.  In person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his writing.  He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography.  I am happy to say he has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF  From time to time Bill will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions.  Sit down and enjoy the ride!

 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Wet or Dry?
Old 08-29-2018   #1
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,171
Wet or Dry?

Just a quick question to ease my own curiosity... If you are a film photographer, do you print in a wet darkroom or scan your negatives and make inkjet prints (or jpgs for computer screens)? And, of course, why did you make that choice?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #2
jbharrill1
Registered User
 
jbharrill1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: NC
Posts: 115
WET WET WET. I'm about to be using a community darkroom that has c41 developing capabilities, but not color printing, so any color prints will be digital.

I see it as if I'm going to be shooting black and white film I may as well go the full distance and print traditionally as well. It's so much more fun and satisfying. Also a friend donated her father's old enlarger to me and everything else I needed to buy to get up and running was only around 75 bucks so it came out to be a hell of a lot cheaper than buying an inkjet printer and ink.
__________________
www.baxterharrill.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #3
Deardorff38
Registered User
 
Deardorff38 is online now
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 677
Wet. That's the art/craft I learned & it works for my photographs & my photographic vision. It's a little like music. As a musician do you play acoustic or electric music? Me...I choose not to plug in. Neither the process or the outcome satisfies me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #4
Papercut
Registered User
 
Papercut's Avatar
 
Papercut is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Westchester county, NY (and Chongqing whenever I can get there)
Posts: 1,019
Wish I could say, "Wet", but space and plumbing considerations mean that I'm "dry".
__________________
-- Kevin

=========
Only connect.
=========

flickr photostream
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #5
mbisc
Silver Halide User
 
mbisc's Avatar
 
mbisc is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 619
WET all the way -- I spend 40+ hours every week on some of the finest computer hardware for my day job. The last thing I want to do in my personal time is sit in front of a computer screen. I don't have space for a darkroom in my house, but my local community college has an art studio class in the evening and a great darkroom.
__________________
Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too short for cheap film

Flickr
----------------------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #6
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,665
I wet print silver gelatin. Although I have done it, for new work, I can't really see the point of shooting film, scanning, and digital printing. Just shoot digital. Most of my platinum palladium is now digital -> digital negative.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #7
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,951
Wet from 1976 until 2003. Dry since. Still have most of the wet darkroom equipment, just in need of a good space.

A move from our home, which had a great darkroom space, in 2003 caused the change. Started scanning negs (all negs naturally still processed wet, at home) and found I could do most of what I needed w/o the wet darkroom, so for now, that's how we roll.

I keep telling myself, someday I'll set back up, we'll see if I live that long. ;-)

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #8
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,201
I do both. BW and Color. I do print both.
BW in the darkroom a.k.a. bathroom, color via inkjet in the room beside.
And then here is dry. The slide a.k.a. positive film. I also do at home, but just a very few rolls.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #9
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,522
Only print black and white negs in darkroom.

The rest I have someone else make the prints.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #10
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,207
Both. Wet prints for what matters, scans for stuff that isn't shot digitally and goes into one of our newspapers. The darkroom process is nice in itself and I like wet ptints.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #11
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,535
I mainly scan the negatives, and use my inkjet to print. Why? The adjustments I can do to the negative with Photoshop are much better than what I could ever do in a wet darkroom.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #12
dfranklin
Registered User
 
dfranklin is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Cambridge, MA, USA
Age: 43
Posts: 91
Wet print. I like the look and feel of the finished product better, and enjoy the process more than sitting at a computer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #13
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,922
Scan. Been doing it that way for 17 years now. I have had serious health problems all of my life, and the chemicals began making me even sicker so I had to stop.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #14
kiemchacsu
Registered User
 
kiemchacsu is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Age: 38
Posts: 1,014
Scan. It’s convenient and results are good. I have excellent scanner Nikon Coolscan if it counts.

I have tried wet print several times but i found that digital print is serving me well.

I guess in the end it all depends all what you need and what makes you satisfied. That’s why we have both mediums existing together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Cheers,
Trung Nguyen

RF
F
photo essays: Hanoi | Hoi An | Ha Giang | Fish Market
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #15
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,274
Wet printing, since 1967. Also for use online I prefer wet prints. Most recent one:

Leica M2, Summicron 50mm f/2 rigid, 400-2TMY, Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2018   #16
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Wet.

Looks better.

Otherwise, why bother with film? I don't shoot colour film any more. By the time it's been strained through a scanner and a printer, I might as well use digi.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #17
trix4ever
Registered User
 
trix4ever is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: New England, Oz
Age: 60
Posts: 49
Wet.

Prefer to see the image IN the paper, not ON the surface like squirt prints.

Nearly allergic to inkjet prints, don't even like them much in colour.......

http://filmisadelight.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #18
sjones
Registered User
 
sjones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 121
For about the past ten years, scanned and used inkjet. This summer, finally got my act together and started doing wet prints for the first time. Lots to learn, lots of negatives to go through, but loving the results.
__________________
Smugmug Site

RFF, the best joint to get your fill of rangefinder bashing!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #19
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I wet print silver gelatin. Although I have done it, for new work, I can't really see the point of shooting film, scanning, and digital printing. .
+1

(The following sentence has been added to meet the minimum post length requirement.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #20
B-Cochran
Registered User
 
B-Cochran is offline
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 3
I do both. I prefer the wet prints, but I'll print the scans first and then decide which merits a wet print.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #21
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 389
Wet for B&W.

Color gets dye sub (DNP) for small prints, sent out for printing on a Lamda for larger ones.

Rolfe
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #22
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Wet printing, since 1967. Also for use online I prefer wet prints. Most recent one:

Leica M2, Summicron 50mm f/2 rigid, 400-2TMY, Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

What the heck's going on Erik? That's not Perceptol! (but still very good...)
John Mc
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #23
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,694
Wet for prints.
Higher quality at lower price.

And reversal film (colour and BW) for the unsurpassed brillance and "3D-Look" on the light table under an excellent slide loupe and in projection.
If I want a print from my slides: High-Res scanning and then wet-print on RA-4 silver halide paper (by my prof. local lab).

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #24
muser53
MUSER53
 
muser53 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: People's Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 435
Due to space considerations I am unfortunately a dry "county" when it comes to printing. I still shoot film but scan and print via inkjet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #25
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Wet.
...Looks better.

Otherwise, why bother with film? I don't shoot colour film any more. By the time it's been strained through a scanner and a printer, I might as well use digi.

...
I agree completely. Once it's digitized, it's not analog. Any criticism of digital imaging becomes relevant.

With one exception, a hybrid workflow never made sense to me. That exception is the experience of using a film camera. About 15 years ago inadequate support of manual focus operation and large, heavy DSLRs were my primary motivations for using a hybrid workflow. For me, in the spring of 2011 this changed and I eventually sold my film cameras.

Furthermore, I reluctantly (very reluctantly) have to admit post-production tools are readily available that can render a raw file that looks as though the original media was film.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #26
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 68
Posts: 4,083
For thirty years a slide shooter so the question never arose.
Had a darkroom for a number of years in the seventies.

These days its a hybrid system all down the line for black and white .
Scan the negs and any that get printed go to Ilford who project the digital file onto photographic paper and wet print it.

I much prefer wet prints but at my time of life have no intention of re learning darkroom skills and having to deal with the fumes so my current workflow (dislike that word) suits me fine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2018   #27
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Furthermore, I reluctantly (very reluctantly) have to admit post-production tools are readily available that can render a raw file that looks as though the original media was film.
I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on this. I’ve gotten pretty good results using programs like Silver Efex, Tonality Pro and Dxo Filmpack. Probably a little better at achieving a “silver” look with just the adjustment controls in Lightroom, often dropping out the lowest tones in the digital file with Dehaze and boosting the midrange contrast with Clarity. I’m sort of obsessed with the trying to match older film work with current digital work in my prints and appreciate any thoughts on the process.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-31-2018   #28
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,299
Mostly I am more interested in monochrome rendering tonality than trying to completely emulate film. I use Lightroom and Silver EFX. I also get "pretty good results". For better or worse, almost all of my film B&W work was done with Tri-X. This naturally affects my digital-image rendering preferences. For me, the most recent LR CC updates render monochrome from raw files better than older versions. I'm using Silver Efex less and less even though the Silver Efex U POINT® dodge and burn tool is amazing.

There are so many variables and "silver looks" possible with a pure, wet workflow. The diverse aesthetics with film exposures, development strategies, and wet printing techniques/media seem endless.

My view is the final test is the print. But this adds another set of variables and subjectivity. I suggest relatively recent advances in monochrome printing technologies and media options make a difference when it comes to reproducing B&W film aesthetics with raw files.

Now I mostly use monochrome rendering for raw files with very low S/N due to unavoidable low ambient-light levels. LR Classic Cloud renders these well. While I rarely try to simulate film grain with high S/N files, the Grain section in the Develop Module's Effects panel is works well. Also, I do not attempt to remove or minimize grain from scans. I just try try to achieve similar grain perception.

I am facing a project where I want to produce sets of images from 1970-1072 high-quality Tri-X scans. My lack of training and experience resulted in inconsistent development. The goal is to render images for different Series within the project to be similar.

Negative scans can be compromised by grain artifacts. Grain artifacts are caused by aliasing and it is possible to minimize them (link, scroll about 1/2 way down). A hybrid workflow does not guarantee results that are indistinguishable from a pure analog workflow.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-31-2018   #29
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on this. I’ve gotten pretty good results using programs like Silver Efex, Tonality Pro and Dxo Filmpack. Probably a little better at achieving a “silver” look with just the adjustment controls in Lightroom, often dropping out the lowest tones in the digital file with Dehaze and boosting the midrange contrast with Clarity. I’m sort of obsessed with the trying to match older film work with current digital work in my prints and appreciate any thoughts on the process.
I must admit that I am curious why you would wish to "match" film with digital? Is that really authentic? I mean why not let film be film and then digital develops its own aesthetic? . . . which I believe is happening.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-31-2018   #30
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveler_101 View Post
I must admit that I am curious why you would wish to "match" film with digital? Is that really authentic? I mean why not let film be film and then digital develops its own aesthetic? . . . which I believe is happening.
Making a set of b&w prints with a common theme or subject, but which were taken over a period of years on both film and digital sensors, I would like them to have, in general, a relatively consistent appearance, to "match." Beyond that, if there is a "silver look" and a "digital look," being an old person who grew up on "silver," I prefer that look.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-31-2018   #31
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,278
Wet printing since 1977, I rarely scan film anymore. I did do all my color scan/inkjet for a while, but now color is all digital save an 8x10 project, which hasn't progressed past the contact print stage yet.





Getting all set up to spend a long fall and winter in the darkroom printing up two bodies of work I've recently finished editing. Just ordered in a bunch of Bergger VC CM, will do some testing to finalize my developer mix next week.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-31-2018   #32
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfingon View Post
What the heck's going on Erik? That's not Perceptol! (but still very good...)
John Mc
It is absolutely Perceptol, but the negative is printed on Adox MCC 110. That is not a developer, but photographic paper!

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-31-2018   #33
santino
eXpect me
 
santino's Avatar
 
santino is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Autriche
Posts: 1,053
Wet off course.
__________________
Vivent les télémétriques ! -
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-31-2018   #34
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
I use a hybrid process for monochrome - develop film and scan - and I use this process primarily because it gives me results that I like. I have yet to see a digital monochrome image that looks the same as scanned film either tonally or in terms of image structure. I'm not saying it can't be done but I hate messing about in post other than to make a few minor tonal adjustments and sharpening as well as, if necessary, a bit of spotting. I also enjoy using the very wide variety of papers that are available for inkjet printers.

I find it odd that so many who 'dry print' are almost apologetic about it, as if it's necessarily inferior to wet printing. In my view it's simply another choice that one can make not just for convenience but because the results are satisfying. I've seen many monochrome images produced from fully digital processes but find them too clinical, too smooth and in some cases too detailed for my taste. In other words, I like the structure that film grain gives to an image, even when the grain is quite small, and disagree with those who think that a hybrid process is pointless.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-31-2018   #35
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,274
I agree with Lawrence that hybrid processes aren't pointless. In fact are all analog images shown here on RFf the result of hybrid processes.

However, different starting points deliver different results. A scan from a film negative gives a totally different result than a scan of a gelatine silver print of the same negative.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-31-2018   #36
bhop73
Registered User
 
bhop73's Avatar
 
bhop73 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 707
Dry for me.

I don't feel like scanning is pointless. It still looks the way I want it to look, which is like I shot it on film, without trying to make a digital pic look that way. It takes a lot less time for me (once the scan is done) to reach the final product with film, than digital.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to have a darkroom, I just don't have the space/time for it, but i'm perfectly fine with scanning.
__________________
my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2018   #37
telenous
Registered User
 
telenous is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,575
Usually I print with the (apparently) frowned upon hybrid workflow. Sometimes I might fire up the enlarger, especially for the kind of photo whose only purpose is to be printed wet. But past health problems mean I have to avoid contact with chemicals as much as possible, so I don't do that very often.

That said, I never felt strongly (still don't) about printing either way. The exciting part for me, that which stirrs up and flings me to the street, is in committing in a piece of negative or memory card a kind of fleeting testimony, skewed and flawed as it may be, about something that matters to me. Anyway, I am only interested in printing with basic editing modifications as too much darkrooming sometimes alters the purpose of photos. Frankly, I'd have one care less in the world if someone else printed my photos and gave them a simple and polished look, be it in the wet or dry darkroom. This being a rather expensive option I bow my head and print myself.
__________________
- Alkis

flickr
instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-07-2018   #38
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 68
Posts: 4,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by telenous View Post
Usually I print with the (apparently) frowned upon hybrid workflow. Sometimes I might fire up the enlarger, especially for the kind of photo whose only purpose is to be printed wet. But past health problems mean I have to avoid contact with chemicals as much as possible, so I don't do that very often.

That said, I never felt strongly (still don't) about printing either way. The exciting part for me, that which stirrs up and flings me to the street, is in committing in a piece of negative or memory card a kind of fleeting testimony, skewed and flawed as it may be, about something that matters to me. Anyway, I am only interested in printing with basic editing modifications as too much darkrooming sometimes alters the purpose of photos. Frankly, I'd have one care less in the world if someone else printed my photos and gave them a simple and polished look, be it in the wet or dry darkroom. This being a rather expensive option I bow my head and print myself.
That`s how I feel about it .

Hybrid process and then send the files to Ilford who scan onto photographic paper and wet print .
Not that expensive and certainly preferable for my needs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-07-2018   #39
kamil_k
Registered User
 
kamil_k's Avatar
 
kamil_k is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 21
For me only a wet print can close the life cycle of a photo. I use darkroom at the local community college and it's a social event for me as well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-07-2018   #40
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,520
Scan then inkjet.

Why? I don't have the skill, equipment, space (or patience) to do good wet prints.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  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 06:34.


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.