Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · Armani with Attitude...
  
 
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Armani with Attitude...


I got a laugh last week when I saw RustyBug make a comment in a Pro forum thread regarding pricing comparing Nordstrom vs. Walmart. I found it funny because we live near a Nordstrom Rack outlet store where my wife regularly finds designer duds at Walmart prices. The dress in this shot is typical, Armani silk dress for less than the cost of Walmart polyester. It was an out-take from our 2010 Christmas Card session but I just uploaded it as an example in a People Forum thread C&C and thought I'd share it here...







It's a "formula" feminine pose with weight shifted to back hip, which raises the front shoulder and angles the shoulder line back (submissive body language) but rather than turn and tilt the head towards the higher shoulder in for the more feminine demure look I had her tilt it the opposite way to convey a more assertive look one I get frequently

I used it in the other thread to illustrate how to pose hands in a wider 3/4 view. The problem with hands in photos is that after seeing the face the viewer will typically either jump directly to the hands if they contrast strongly with the background, or alternately follow the stronger leading line of the two arms down to find it.

The problem in terms of composition is: 1) having the hands do something interesting to make the trip to see them worth the effort, and more importantly; 2) get the viewer back up the the face again on a different path so there isn't the type of ping-pong linear dynamic I mention in C&C frequently.

Here I solved the problem by connecting the "strong" leading arm on the right with gentle bend to the hip and then putting the other hand holding the necklace. That connects the hands with a short jump from one to the other and gives the eye a different path up the necklace over the dress back to the face in a circular path.

I did the background by adding a new layer, filling with the tone sampled from the background, then used a mask to knock her out. The vignette at the bottom acts like a buffer to keep the viewer up in the photo rather than falling out the bottom when following the arm down.




Feb 29, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Skarkowtsky
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Armani with Attitude...


The lighting seems very flat: no depth to convey that shapes of a body and facial structure.


Mar 01, 2012 at 02:15 AM
Kaden K.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Armani with Attitude...


My biggest beef with this kind of portrait is the glow flowing from head down and totally drowning the bottom of the image into another ERA.

Check out the term - Opalotype. That is when it was last fashionable to do that.



Mar 01, 2012 at 03:12 AM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Armani with Attitude...


Appreciate the feedback...

The flat lighting was intentional in this instance. The absence of shadow clues on the face, particularly the nose, makes the nose more or less disappear and the eyes and mouth become stronger focal points (my goal there). The dress is heavy silk with a lining so it's not form fitting and admittedly doesn't show off the curves much. As for the curves? You go with what God gives you and what's left after dodging the big C. Here an out take from last year's card session with a big more modeling of the features...







As for the glow and it being from another era? That's a personal bias regarding style I simply don't share. I wasn't trying to copy any style / era here. On white field in gray clothing it's the color contrast that pulls the eye to the face, not the lighting. The eye movement is from lighter > darker tones so to me vignetting the edges lighter on a white background is just a subliminal clue that the darker more colorful tones on the face and hands are more important.




Mar 01, 2012 at 02:24 PM
Skarkowtsky
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Armani with Attitude...


In the future, you can manipulate any garment to more flatter the subject. Clips, T-Pins, Dressmaker pins, even 1" A clamps, all work wonders.

Not every dress is flattering, though you'd be surprised how all of said tools are implemented on a daily basis on fashion shoots to embellish designer garments, and the models that wear them.



Mar 01, 2012 at 04:04 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · Armani with Attitude...


+1 @ clips, etc.

I had a modeling book (circa 1980's) that showed the back side of fashion shoots ... clothes pins, wrinkled garments, etc. ... things the camera never saw, and people never knew. It was a VERY good book ... wish I could find it again. I used it to help aspiring models understand the difference between modeling and pictures of "pretty face/sexy body". Props to Julie Hodgson (Ocean Pacific Swimwear) & Kellie Near (Coppertone) ... wherever you are.

The back cover was a tight shot of a woman wearing jeans and the back pockets were embroidered with "STOP" and "THINK" ... two words I've tried to carry into my work over the years. I'll never forget seeing for the first time how "crude" the behind the scenes parts could be ... it was cause for a paradigm shift in my thoughts @ peerfection.



Mar 01, 2012 at 05:31 PM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Armani with Attitude...


Skarkowtsky wrote:
In the future, you can manipulate any garment to more flatter the subject. Clips, T-Pins, Dressmaker pins, even 1" A clamps, all work wonders.

Not every dress is flattering, though you'd be surprised how all of said tools are implemented on a daily basis on fashion shoots to embellish designer garments, and the models that wear them.


Agreed.... Have all the the above mentioned items in the home studio and have done that on occasion when doing more serious work but keeping things in context these shot where just out takes from annual Christmas Card shoots for our own amusement, not an advertising campaign for Armani...





Mar 01, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Skarkowtsky
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Armani with Attitude...


I understand. But like you've told me, there's always room for improvement. Your particular Christmas card concept wasn't just a snap of a family member, it was a thought out, controlled scenario, just like a commercial shoot would be approached. Why not put your best foot forward?

Just saying you can take a dress of beautiful material that falls short in its form and make it look stellar, regardless of the viewership.



Mar 01, 2012 at 05:47 PM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Armani with Attitude...


Are you married? If so how often do you tell the wife, "That dress you just bought looks like a feed sack, let me fix it for you with these straight pins and A-clamps"... ? That might win you points with the judges on Project Runway, but you'll be sleeping with the dog in the garage afterwards.



Mar 01, 2012 at 06:09 PM
Skarkowtsky
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Armani with Attitude...


I thought this was a photo forum? I thought this was the critique section of said forum? I thought the goal of posting in here was to attract feedback for improvement, and at times, share our examples of excellent photography?

In the context of the photo, and all that that entails, the dress, not the wife, can be improved. You said it yourself, "The dress is heavy silk with a lining so it's not form fitting and admittedly doesn't show off the curves much."

Controlling the scene of your photograph will hardly land you in the doghouse. And yes, I can tell my girlfriend, "That doesn't do you justice, and here's why". She certainly reciprocates the feedback, too. However, I still look foolish in my clothing.




Mar 01, 2012 at 06:13 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



KaaX
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Armani with Attitude...


cgardner wrote:
Are you married? If so how often do you tell the wife, "That dress you just bought looks like a feed sack, let me fix it for you with these straight pins and A-clamps"... ?


Which is why you actually say "That dress you just bought is very nice, but look how much more pretty you will look if I adjust that dress to better suit you...'' :-)





Mar 01, 2012 at 06:18 PM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Armani with Attitude...


KaaX wrote:
Which is why you actually say "That dress you just bought is very nice, but look how much more pretty you will look if I adjust that dress to better suit you...'' :-)


No matter how diplomatically the suggestion is made, if I start doing mods with A-Clamps I'll wind up sleeping with the dog... Sometimes the best solution is to keep the suggestions like that to oneself, not destroy the flow or the mood and roll with the results. YMMV



Mar 01, 2012 at 06:35 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · Armani with Attitude...


Photographing one's dearly beloved is about as safe as plowing a Bosnian minefield. Just sayin'....


Mar 01, 2012 at 08:46 PM
silvawispa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Armani with Attitude...


...and aunti, as usual, nails it!

Speaking of diplomacy, it's not my strong point. Sorry.

I'm typing now out of a genuine desire to see you produce better photos than the ones I've seen posted on this site. Bear that in mind. I'm being nice and not looking to give myself license to be rude or in any way personally attack you.

Charles, in general, do you ever suspect you might be overthinking your photography?

You have all the information and seem to try and cover every base and yet end up with photos that just don't do justice to your subjects. I'm basing this on the whole variety of shots you've put up on various threads.

I suspect you're so focused on the minutiae, that the overall image is escaping you.

I understand you've been shooting for 40 years, I understand you have theories on lighting worked out over time and passed down from elders, all based on goal dominated thinking, but right now, you're in dire need of some fairly honest c&c.
Since these shots are in the c&c forum, I'm going to give you my thoughts...

Goal: 'christmas greeting'.

In a silk evening dress, is it appropriate to do 'high street studio' lighting, or would, perhaps, softer lighting, redolent of candlight, or a ballroom, have brought out the best in both the frock and your wife, as well as setting a romantic mood. (Just sayin'...)
Couple that with a warm background and a soft smile and your christmas cards could be things of beauty rather than looking rather threatening. Of course, I don't know the recipients, so the look could be intentional! (I know, I know, they're messing around out-takes.) But if your intent was to create drama, then underlighting and generous use of shadows would surely be the order of the day.

In fact, I think it might be that, in winning your battle with shadows, you've lost the war for great photos. Make the shadows your friends, they are what creates the contrast that you want to create in order to create that single dominant Centre of Interest.
But there's more than that, composition has more than one element. There must be a symphony of shapes and colours, all linked in an aesthetically pleasing way. I don't see that in your photos, (except the mantis, that rocks.)
What I see is the results of blind rule following taken to extremes.
"The face must be all!" and all we're left with is face. It's not enough. We want context, we want drama and we want the story.

Here's an example of where your rules have tripped you up
When you vignette the bottom of the photo 'to stop the eye falling out of the shot' you killed the shot.
Stone dead.
And not in a stylistic sense.
Very much in the sense of "yeuuuurghhh, why am I looking at a woman chopped in half?" dead.

Overall achievement: 'Death threat'

We can only judge your photographic skills, and from that, the validity of the information and advice you offer, by what you show.

Can I recommend a quiet period of self-reflection, research and listening.

There is a lot of awesome advice on this forum.

Sadly most of my really early shots are lost to the great internet void.
Take it from me, they were really terrible.
Now, I'm in demand.
Quality models come to me paying for shoots.
I don't deserve that yet, I don't ask them to, but I can't stop it.
I shoot my first minor film star next week. I'm excited, and scared.

How did this happen?
I listened to aunti, to Kaden, to Bob and the other regulars.
I listened to other people too. I went out and found information.
I didn't always agree, but I listened, and I practiced what I heard about, kept what worked for me, and discarded what didn't.

If I hadn't changed my ideas, I would still take photos that looked like crap.

Kindest regards, Paul Silver.



Mar 03, 2012 at 12:52 AM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Armani with Attitude...


silvawispa wrote:
Charles, in general, do you ever suspect you might be overthinking your photography?



No I actually don't give all that much thought to it most of the time when shooting, I do things instinctively out of habit formed by practice.

The goal in the shots I've posted here wasn't "Christmas Greeting" it was an out-take done for fun for the wife, who I rarely get in front of the camera, after taking the Christmas shot of the two of us. It wasn't an formal portrait it was a snap shot under the lighting I set up for the group shot. So much of the C&C here, while appreciated in the sense that you've and others have taken the time doesn't fit the context of the circumstances the photo was taken or my goals for it.

As for creativity? Go talk to your dog and you'll get a better response. He'll wag his tail but like me he will not be a more creative dog for the encouragement and coaching. Photography isn't a creative outlet for me and never has been, which is why I don't "paint outside the lines" much with a camera. My initial interest was photo journalism and that's still my approach recording what winds up in front of the camera not creating something interesting and putting it in front of the camera to record it.

If photography was a creative outlet for me in an artist sense I'd put more effort into it, but a camera for me at this point in my life is a tool, like a hammer, I pick up when I have a job that requires it. Most vacations I leave the good cameras at home and bring the P&S; nowadays the iPhone.

With any tool I use I like to be competent when I use it. My approach to golf is similar and the results about the same. I'll never make the PGA tour or even break par on an 18 hole round, but I understand how a golf swing works, keep the ball in play most of the time, and when I don't understand what I did wrong. For photography "right" for me means understanding how to render what I see by eye in a photograph naturally despite the shortcomings of the recording medium. I don't often venture beyond that creatively any more than I go out to the garage and pound nails for fun.

I have a very conventional approach to studio portraiture because I like conventional portraiture. If I liked some other style I'd do it. Most of the other shots I take and post as examples are spur of the moment candids taken with speedlights. I can count on my thumbs the times I've gone out with a camera with the objective of making the photography the priority in the past ten years. That Mantis you liked was living outside my front door for about three months before I bothered to photograph him.

To the extent I offer advice to others here it's to make them more competent in the technical sense and aware of physiological and psychological reasons we accept 2D patterns of contrast as representations of real 3D objects they might not have considered; the aspects of photograph that interest me the most at this point. I have a web site full of free tutorials that do the same. Based on the feedback I get many find they help in understanding the underlying cause and effect.

I don't try to inspire people to be more creative, just how to use the tools more competently and how they might tell a story with a photo more effectively than in one they posted for comment. There are tricks to things as simple as pounding a nail effectively which aren't always obvious until someone who has pounded a few and still have thumbs to count on shares the trick.







Mar 03, 2012 at 02:10 AM
silvawispa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Armani with Attitude...


"I don't try to inspire people to be more creative..."

No, you don't. You do promote rules as gospel though, and apply them without thinking of the holistic view. The textbook way to kill creativity.

A good and wise woman told me once, if it's got too specific, generalise, if it's got too general, specialise. You have managed to take it so far to the specific it's become pathological.

To borrow your hammer analogy, even though the carpenter is actually 'saying' mostly the right things, I'm unlikely to take his advice because he has no thumbnails and a nail sticking out of his leg.
And he hasn't even noticed!

I have no doubt that your intentions are good, and that indeed you have a lot of information.
However without the understanding of how to apply that information it all becomes meaningless.

Why not make a serious attempt at some really quality work, that involves taking guidance from others? I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. A lot of others would be too, and it would validate a lot of the information you have.

Take the same amount of time as it takes you to write 'another' three of your essay/posts and go and take a picture in a completely different way.

Here's a challenge, instead of designing your lighting and pose to manipulate your audience, cut it down to basics, Just window light, no minutiae directing of poses, not even neccesarilly a person, just a simple joyous mood.

Don't edit it, just post it and we'll take it from there. Have you got the balls to try this?
Don't give me any guff about not photographing stuff these days, it's obvious it's really, really important to you.

If you want to be more than king one-eye and his blind entourage. You're going to have to open the other eye, and both your ears. Ears don't work well while the mouth is flapping and new ideas won't take root whilst the weeds of the old ones are still rife.

Less talk, more walk. Life is so much better that way.

Paul.

Edited on Mar 03, 2012 at 03:36 PM · View previous versions



Mar 03, 2012 at 10:33 AM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Armani with Attitude...


Those who look at the world around them in terms of rules to follow or avoid following put themselves in the same box of limiting possible solutions to a problem. My worldview is one of cause and effect, not rules.

With nail and hammer the biggest problem it driving them efficiently is not bending the nail when hitting it the first time. The solution to that problem? It starts by recognizing that the arm holding the hammer naturally swings in a arc causing the head of the hammer to hit the head of the nail at a angle when it is sticking up. It's not a problem caused by the hammer or the nail but by the physiology of the arm holding the hammer. You can't change the design of the arm, and already have the hammer. The solution? Angle the nail sideways so it's head is parallel to the angle of the hammer face at first impact and the force vector of the impact is aligned with the nail. Once that minor adjustment in nail position is made it is possible to raise the hammer higher and give the nail a mighty whack without fear of bending it, driving it with less effort (gravity does most of the work) and more efficiency.

I learned that by watching a master carpenter pound nails an observing that he always drove them at an angle. I asked why and he said, "They don't bend that way?" Did he understand the physics and why angling the nail caused it not to bent when struck? Probably not. More likely the carpenter who taught him told him on day one on the job, "Angle the nail towards the hammer and it won't bent when you whack it."

Some might say, "But that's obvious!" To some perhaps, but not those who bend nails when trying to drive them.

With respect to lighting there are no rules regarding light placement relative to the face but where the light is placed will affect how the shape of an object like a face in interpreted. Like pounding a nail the reasons the different placement affect perception of shape isn't obvious. With lighting because it is psychological and for the most part sub-conscious in normal observation, and more importantly when looking at real objects in person we sense them differently relying on parallax shift, shifting focus depth and other factors besides contrast patterns in lighting to sense the shape and size of things we see.

The ability to render a 3D object so it looks 3D in a 2D photo is an acquired skill. Studies have shown infants can't do it. They won't react to photographs of parents or favorite toys until their brains get wired to associate the lighting patterns on objects they see and touch in person with the same patterns in a 2D rendering well Mom points to it and says, "See the Ball?". How that ball will be rendered in that book?

Not like this...





but like this...






The angle of natural light from overhead creates a baseline for comparison with lighting placed at other that natural angle the brain of the viewer will use for comparison. Back when I worked at National Geographic making maps one of my jobs was to reproduce for printing in halftone the relief plate the cartographic artist would draw, by hand, with a pencil. How did he render the 3D shape of the mountains in a way the reader of the map would interpret correctly? The drew the shadows the mountains would cast in mid afternoon when the sun was at a 45 angle. Why? because that's a perceptual baseline we humans relate to and associate with "normal" because we see things lit that way all the time.

Teaching someone how to light a face is similar to pointing to a picture of a ball in a book and telling a 2-year old, "This is what a ball looks like (when rendered in 2D in a book) ."







You'll notice the striking resemblance of that illustration to Thomas the Tank Engine...






Why did the creator of Thomas draw the face that way? Because it looks natural that way. Why does it look natural that way? Because that's the angle natural light hits faces.

The cause and effect relationship between key light angle and natural looking rendering of faces isn't obvious to many starting out in lighting so you sometimes need to tell them to get a ball, or an egg, or a face light to from all directions then decide, by comparison which angles look most natural, and beyond that most flattering.

By suggesting that they try butterfly lighting with the flash raised directly over the camera at 45 or short lighting where the light is 45 higher and 45 to the side you aren't imposing "rules," just giving them a baseline for comparison which has long been used in 2D renderings of faces to depict them naturally.

There is no "rule" that a face must be rendered naturally all the time. In fact in my photo here I intentionally chose not to. By your worldview I broke a "rule" for how a face should be lit and how a body should be cropped. I don't see it that way. I understand that on a cause and effect basis when there aren't many shadow clues on the face, particularly on the nose, the eyes and mouth that convey the expression and trigger the reaction contrast more, which was my goal.

As for the vignette / crop on the bottom? How is it any different than a dark background photo faded to black on the bottom to vignette? If your knickers are in a twist about that you lack in imagination. The only rules I broke in either case are the one's you've imposed on yourself.

As for the way I choose to help people with my advice? Your editorial about it and my abilities are noted. If like a few others you insist on editorializing about my advice in every thread we both participate in your will become an insufferable boor and troll.

If you disagree with anything I say please do make your own suggestions, but please do it without framing your advice around mine being "wrong" or "rule driven". I give the person asking for advice the credit for being curious and intelligent to process the advice from those taking time to offer it and sort out for themselves, without the need of editorial guidance, whether it works for them or not.

For example your advice to go put a person in front of a window and shoot them randomly isn't something I'd do because I start with goal of wanting to find the most flattering angle and lighting for people I shoot to render them in the photo as attractively as I can. So I wouldn't hesitate if taking a portrait for them to move their face into more flattering light or change their pose into one that will wind up looking more relaxed and natural in the photo with angled eye and shoulder lines vs. flat footed and level, which is how people tend to stand unless coached to pose differently. There are tricks to doing that also which I learned years ago from apprenticing with a master photographer, who did all his formal portraits by window light with just a reflector and his expert judgement of what lighting and facial angles flattered each face the most.

When shooting candidly I have the same goal, flattering the subject, and criteria for doing that effectively with lighting patterns and facial angle. I'll observe the person, see when they turn into the most flattering light for the face, then find the spot in the room where can capture the face, in that light, at the most flattering angle. The goal isn't any different than yours "to capture a simple joyous mood", I just prefer to do it with lighting and facial angles I find are flattering.

Indoors all light is artificial and often from so high it creates unflattering shaded eyes so I have no problems aesthetically using flash to manipulate the lighting to make to flattering and put the face in the "spotlight".

Outdoors natural light is also so high overhead most of the time that if you don't find a higher vantage point and have the subject look up the eyes will be shaded by the brow. That's similar to the hammer and the nail. The problem is the angle of the light is shading the brow. The solution is to change the angle of the face relative to the skylight to get it past the brow into the eyes the angle will wind up close to 45 and create pattern like Thomas the Tank Engine that looks like the first face you first recognized in 2D in the kids books you read.



Mar 03, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Skarkowtsky
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Armani with Attitude...


Well said, Paul! Chuck's responses in this thread are but a sterling example of his constant posturing on this site, contradictions and all. It's exhausting, and I'm glad you were able to formulate your thoughts and articulate them in such a specific voice. Yet, he still stands tall and refuses to acknowledge the simple truth.

Chuck, you tear apart people's photos and inject them with how you believe they should be approached. Admitting to us that you take a technical stance and don't consider creativity in your own photography, it's 1000% presumptuous of you to strip other people's images of their concepts by drastically changing lighting, moving elements around and adding arrows all over in order for them to more closely resemble your own images. I'd love for you to sit in front of Phil Marco's book, or Robert Maplethorpe, or try to edit a Gordon Willis photographed film.

Also, stop telling people about their photos, be a bit more earnest and ask questions first. You come across (as a completely wrong) know-it-all

Frankly, respond here how you will. Im finished with this thread, and with you.



Mar 03, 2012 at 01:08 PM
silvawispa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Armani with Attitude...


Bluntly then:

Your photography is uninspiring and deeply flawed.

That's a consensus opinion, not a personal one.

However you may derive your photography methods, it isn't working for you.

If it isn't working for you, why would it work for anyone else? Why would you tell anyone else it will work for them?

---------------------------------

It wasn't advice to shoot a window light portrait. It was a challenge.

I would like to see a demonstration of that technique, that you've said you were taught, done by you, as an illustration of how to do it.

In all seriousness, I want to be taught what you were taught, but not in words, in photos. You owe that to your teachers, not me.

-------------
The vignette.
How is it different on black or on white?
On white you have a photo of half a woman.
On black you have a photo of a half-lit woman. If that subtlety escapes you, then perhaps lighting Thomas is as advanced as your lighting is going to get.

Fortunately Rev.W. Audrey's work has long been a favorite of mine, so illustrating your point with that particular childrens character is in no way patronising or sleighting.

Chuff, Chuff Thomas.



Mar 03, 2012 at 01:39 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Armani with Attitude...


cgardner wrote:
As for the way I choose to help people with my advice? Your editorial about it and my abilities are noted. If like a few others you insist on editorializing about my advice in every thread we both participate in your will become an insufferable boor and troll.

Paul is just one in a long line of others who have correctly pointed out the flaws of your "my way or the highway" attitude.

You dismiss them all by calling them trolls, but you never, ever hear the legitimate points they make. I guess it's your coping mechanism.

No matter what gets posted, you end up singing your very long one note song about dynamic range and lighting. People appropriately call you out on it. That's not trolling.


BTW, I was saddened to hear (if I heard it correctly) that your wife had cancer. It's good news that she is a survivor and and I hope and pray for her continued good health. We have friends who have been through similar experiences and from them I know it's been hard on you as well.



Mar 03, 2012 at 02:25 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password