Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > OPF Welcome Hall > Breaking News

Breaking News Updates, innovations, equipment: moderated!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 06:17 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Thumbs up A Parcel Arrived from China! The Chamonix 8x10

Ever since I first saw my late father-in-law's 11x14 Deardorff camera I have been fascinated with large format film. We have, I feel, an innate affinity for such simple and well made works of the hand.

Well I want enlargments of landscapes, people and buildings and not compromise. Well, I've tried stitching and that works well. In fact I'd say I'm an addict. But it occurred to me I ought to now reconsider the simple wooden Large Format Camera. I already own several 4x5 cameras, a Crown Graphic and A Busch Pressman. They are limited in movements but quite functional. I want to explore the possibilities of designing planes of focus that selected what I want from the background. Since it means a new camera with swings tilts and shifts, I thought, let's get this right first time. So I decided to really go "big". After all, with just a moderately good scanner, I'd not have any further jealosy and lust for the MFDB, at least, that's the theory! Scan a piece of 8x10 film at just 2000 dpi and one has a super file to work with. Alternatively, 8"x10" makes impressive contact prints using silver gelatin, platinum or other chemistry. IOW, this camera can be an analog-digital multipurpose camera for me!

Well today a simple unimpressive cardboard box came by US Post Office, wrapped in sealing tape. Inside, safely packed with styrofoam panels, a sturdy handsome and well made carrying bag: the womb for my the 8"x10" test camera!



Chamonix 8x10 Camera: "Walnut in Womb" Photo by Asher Kelman





Chamonix 8x10 Camera: First Breath of California air Photo by Asher Kelman


Chamonix Kindly made a reduction back to take 4x5 Graflok back attachments. This I'll be discussing later. The idea is to be able to use 4x5 sheet film, pack film from Fuji or Kodak, Polaroid film, a 6x7 back and a digital stitching back (review to appear shortly).



Chamonix 8x10 Camera 4x5 Reduction Back: Carbon Fiber Protector over Ground Glass Photo by Asher Kelman





Chamonix 4x5 Reduction back: Seeing Color Photo by Asher Kelman


So there it is, a new baby. I will be reviewing it and will report to you.

Asher

Thanks to Hugo Zhang for getting this for me so fast!
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Last edited by Asher Kelman; December 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 06:25 PM
Ray West Ray West is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK - Somerset
Posts: 1,703
Default

Just promise me, no sepia toned prints ;-)
__________________
All images posted in OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated Comment Only or Edit and Repost.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 06:43 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

I first have to set it up. For that I need my new Ries tripod to arrive! In the meantime I'll gingerly see how it balances on one of my gitzo tripods. There's lenses to mount, film to buy, developing (hmm!!) and ideas a million on what to photograph.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 06:44 PM
David A. Goldfarb David A. Goldfarb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 236
Default

It looks fantastic, Asher. I've seen one of the 4x5's up close, and it's a fine camera. How much does this one weigh, in case I might be thinking of replacing my ultralight 8x10" Gowland PocketView at some point?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 06:55 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

David,

This is one of the most beautiful cameras I've seen. there are just 8 workman I believe making these cameras and it's a slow careful process. The 8x10 camera weighs 3820g in Canadian White maple and 3920g in Black Walnut.

I have chosen Black Walnut for the Camera and Canadian White Maple for the film holders.

I have not even opened the camera except for looking at the Graflok back on the 4x5 reduction back to check it works with my Crown Graphic 6x7 rollfilm back, and it fits perfectly. Well it should since I had kind Hugo Zhang personally take the rollfilm holder to China with him just to make sure. I'll be describing that separately.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 11:38 PM
Kathy Rappaport Kathy Rappaport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: So. California
Posts: 1,793
Default New baby? No, new Mistress...

Congratulations on the new Mistress, Asher. Quite sexy. Weight is about 9 lbs if my math is correct so portable enough to bring over my new baby...to my studio to play with if you choose!
__________________
You can call me ChatKat
********************
I created this piece of fine art. It's Fine Art because it's mine, I made it and I say it's fine art...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 01:00 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathy Rappaport View Post
Congratulations on the new Mistress, Asher. Quite sexy. Weight is about 9 lbs if my math is correct so portable enough to bring over my new baby...to my studio to play with if you choose!
Kathy,

It is so portable but one has to also think of lenses and film holders plus the tripod. Not really any issue for visitng your studio! I'm looking forward to a shoot together.

I Have not yet mounted a lens in it. Chamonix uses Sinar lens boards and I do have one. I'll deal with that tomorrow. I'm cross posting also in LF forum but will try to keep the posts here succinct and complete.

I'll show what I think is significant at each stage. I have purchased a used A 100 Ries Wooden Field Tripod with an A200 Ries Tripod Head. This will make a very sturdy platform. This is needed especially when out in the elements. For now, I've taken the risk of setting up the camera on a Manfrotto Carbon fiber tripod, after checking with the muses that it would be safe inside! So let's look at the mechanisms for lengthening the bellows.

First, not marked, theres' a series of 5 holes into which the front standard can fit and be secured with the black knob in at the lower open base of the front standard.

Next, at the rear of the camera there are two independant ways of adding length. The rear walnut sliders take each side of the rear bellow forward or back. A little assynetry allows about a 15 degree lateral reaer swing too.

The fine worm drive place center below the rear standard, allows for both major forward movement of the machined metal base holding the front standard as well as providing convenient and subtle focus adjustments too. that I still have to test with a lens!



This is fun, I guess the next best thing to a train set. I'm learning how it works by careful inspection as there is no instruction manual. However, the camera is very well designed and the adjustments once they are discovered are practical and easy to use.

Asher

Next I wil deal with how true the Camera is!
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Last edited by Asher Kelman; December 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 01:32 AM
janet Smith janet Smith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,355
Default

Hi Asher

How exciting that you have a new baby, I would love to use a camera like this in Scotland, you really must bring it over here sometime. I look forward to seeing more of your results, Congratulations!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 04:39 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
This is fun, I guess the next best thing to a train set.
Asher, congratulations with this new tool, nothing wrong with having fun at the same time. I can imagine the excitement, it's going to be much better than a train set, I'm sure. Besides the workmanship of the tool, the creative impulse from working with a LF camera is also something to value.

Thanks for sharing your exploration.

Bart
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 08:04 AM
Jack_Flesher Jack_Flesher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 549
Default

It's a beauty Asher, enjoy!
__________________
Jack
www.getdpi.com
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 01:03 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher View Post
It's a beauty Asher, enjoy!
Yes and I must thank you for feeding my interest! We plan to come up to S.F. for a Chamonix shoot. I'll bring the 7x17 too and you can get together the guys!

First here's the detail of the front standard and behind on each sides there's the slot in the Black Walnut that allows the bellows to extend. This gives about 15 degrees of rear swing too when used asymmetrically. Notice the front standard is set in the 2cd threaded hole in the machined base. This is a simple procedure and allows the lens to be progressively set back,as you wish. The wing nut is also undone to put the camera away and then the front standard is inverted (without the lens) to lie on the base. The camera is then folded shut.



Now to your request, the camera fully extended:



The Specifications for bellows total draw 680mm
Measured fully extended 673mm
Specifications for minimum extension 95mm
Measured minimum mm

The missing 7mm extension is accounted for perhaps in where one measures. I did my best to measure from the back of the lensboard to the front of the ground glass.

I have yet to mount a heavy lens, but the Chamonix 8x10, so far, appears close to being true at full extension and pretty sturdy. I used a large spirit level andf tested ther camera base and back for it being orthogonal. (The with the front standard in the second peg hole and the rear focus knob in its default fully retracted position.)



The tiny ~ 12mm level bubbles are reasonably accurate but not perfect. Using a large spirit level, when the camera is not fully extended, the camera is perfectly true. That is, when the front base is absolutely horizontal, the back is perfectly at 90 degrees.

At this point, of course, the camera would like the Ries 200 tripod coming from Scott and I'd add a hanging weight. Although for studio work, this Manfrotto might do fine.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Last edited by Asher Kelman; December 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 01:48 PM
Ken Tanaka Ken Tanaka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,301
Default

It looks like quite an exquisite piece of 19th century workmanship! Even if you never actually use it to take a picture it makes a nice piece of furniture! <g>

Have fun!
__________________
- Ken Tanaka -
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 01:58 PM
Georg R. Baumann Georg R. Baumann is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,482
Talking

I just had some chablis down the wrong tube reading that.... cough cough.... ROFLMAO

Fascinating Asher!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 02:57 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka View Post
It looks like quite an exquisite piece of 19th century workmanship! Even if you never actually use it to take a picture it makes a nice piece of furniture! <g>
Indeed!

Ken,

I am quite taken with the workmanship too. I am enjoying just photographing it with my Canon 5D and 50mm 1.2. It's the latter lens, wide open that led me to this. I love the bokeh and the lens for the Chamonix is the PS 945 219mm cooke Portrait lens which sends light from the outside of the lens to the focused image and gives a unique sensuous softness. If there are bright lights from a window, for example or highlights, these are rendered as one might imagine a gentle glow from heaven.

So I'll use this wide open for portraits and figure studies. First I'll make hhe picture with my 5D and then when I'm satisfied i'll use the 8x10. For detailes of building, interiors or landscape i'll close down the lens to get is as hsarp as you can get with any lens! For events and steet photography I love my DSLRs. However, I just want to leap over the megapixel expense of getting the detail I want for huge prints from a digital sensor. For this, and the low number of images I need to make, nothing matches film for my particular needs.

Besides, it's like yoga without the saffron and squatting.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 06:18 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

This illustrates the 4x5 reducing back. Sometimes we want to use the LF movemets but shoot a small format. Well Chamonix makes a 4x5 reducing back with a Graflok reception for various films that I'll be testing.

So here's the adapter with a carbon fiber protector over the ground glass:





Here's the ground glass and the composition guides for different formats:



Here's the Graflex 220 6x6 rollfilm adapter for usingf 120 film.



Last, here's one small issue:



The 4x5 Polaroid adapter cannot go in straight because it needs an extra 5-7mm to clear the wood frame. Normall on a 4x5 camera, this would be to the side of the camera. The simple solution is to accomodate the Polaroid holder bulbous end by increasing the outside depth of the 4.2"x4.2" frame holding the Graflok setup. This is actually a minor issue for me right now since, my "Polaroid" for checking the shots is the 5D attached to an adapter which I'll discuss later. Still, I want to use 4x5 Polaroids for some projects. Let's see what is possible for a fix for this.

Also I am set up for 8x10 Polaroid. Now that is real Polaroid, but unfortunately very expensive.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Last edited by Asher Kelman; December 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 06:29 PM
Jack_Flesher Jack_Flesher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 549
Default

Asher: We should be able to machine out enough clearance for the Pola holder without making the wood too thin where it accommodates...
__________________
Jack
www.getdpi.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old January 24th, 2008, 03:31 AM
Michael Fontana Michael Fontana is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,557
Default

Good fun, Asher with the new baby.

What's about a 6 x 12 cm-back -- for the 120/220?
I've got one of these from Sinar.

or maybe the 6/17?
__________________
http://www.proimago.net
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old January 24th, 2008, 12:48 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher View Post
Asher: We should be able to machine out enough clearance for the Pola holder without making the wood too thin where it accommodates...
The wood part of the back is 6 mm. Now they are going to make me the reducing back in Dark Walnut as the blonde was an error. So perhaps they can make it 8 or 9 mm thick to allow the bulbous part of the Polaroid holder to recess.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old January 25th, 2008, 01:19 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

Concerning the 4x5 reduction back, Hugo Zhang says that there is a "B" version which accomodates the Polaroid holder.

Some more pictures showing how the camera opensd up. The front standard lies flat on the machined base, so obviously the lens cannot be stored on the camera. The white spot is a fleck of electrostatically charged Chinese Styrofoam!




The underside is really just a solid hunk of machined metal, I guess aircraft grade aluminum. The are two tripod hole sizes to cover what ever thread you happen to have. This does offer the possibility for using one hole for the tripod and the other to add accessories if one is so inclined.



Asher

P.S. I still haven't found where one puts the CF card
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Last edited by Asher Kelman; December 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old January 25th, 2008, 06:03 AM
David A. Goldfarb David A. Goldfarb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Some more pictures showing how the camera opensd up. The front standard lies flat on the machined base, so obviously the lens cannot be stored on the camera.
If you have a compact lens (like a Fujinon 300C or the comparable Nikkor M), and if the front standard doesn't actually have the Sinar light-trap grooves (as most wooden cameras that use Sinar boards don't), you might be able to mount the lensboard with the lens facing in for travel purposes.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old January 25th, 2008, 08:21 AM
leonardobarreto.com leonardobarreto.com is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 953
Default

congratulations Asher for your new camera...

by the way, when is the exact date of your ny trip?

call me when here 917 399 7939
leonardo
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old January 25th, 2008, 03:06 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
If you have a compact lens (like a Fujinon 300C or the comparable Nikkor M), and if the front standard doesn't actually have the Sinar light-trap grooves (as most wooden cameras that use Sinar boards don't), you might be able to mount the lensboard with the lens facing in for travel purposes.
David that's a good idea. We'd need lenses that will cover the 8x10 image circle and hepefully allow some movements. I could make a protective spacer between the lens filter and the metal base of the camera it lies on so nothing got scratched. I wonder whether the new (old stock) Docter lenses are like that? They will be mounted in copal # 1 shutters.


C.Perez from here .

Left to right Nikon 200mm M f/8
Schneider 210mm Xenar f/6.1
Schneider 210mm Symmar Convertible f/5.6
Docter Optic 210mm Tessar f/4.5


I'm buying the 240 mm and 300 mm Docters so they might very well work reversed as you suggest! I'll measure the separation beween the lens board and the back of the ground glass on the rear standard when the camera is folded and closed.

What do you think?

Asher

No, I'm not giving up on my Canon DSLR's. In fact, I'm shooting more than events, portraits, street photgraphy as well as travel. This dark brunette is my well deserved fling. So I am keeping balance!
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old January 25th, 2008, 05:35 PM
David A. Goldfarb David A. Goldfarb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 236
Default

The Docters could work. It's hard to tell without knowing the specifics, but I've sometimes carried lenses this way on my 11x14" camera.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old January 26th, 2008, 01:10 AM
Will Thompson Will Thompson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near the "Out House" of the Mouse (Disneyland)
Posts: 825
Default

Asher, Me thinks theses lenses be too small?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
__________________
Will T.

"Galleries don't hang DxO charts" David Hull
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old January 26th, 2008, 02:23 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Thompson View Post
Asher, Me thinks theses lenses be too small?
Will,

Do you mean coverage or your are just humerous?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old January 26th, 2008, 05:47 AM
David A. Goldfarb David A. Goldfarb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 236
Default

Whatever Will means, indeed those four won't cover 8x10".
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old January 26th, 2008, 06:05 AM
Michael Fontana Michael Fontana is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,557
Default

Correct me, if I'm wrong; it requires at least a 240 mm - for a Symmar-construction-lens, if you want to shift a bit.

Using a Super-Angulon-type, you can go shorter; due to a larger image angle. But Super-Angulons are much heavier, too!
__________________
http://www.proimago.net
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old January 26th, 2008, 09:37 AM
Jack_Flesher Jack_Flesher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 549
Default

Asher:

None of the lenses you have pictured actually cover 8x10 at infinity. They all cover 4x5 though.

You need an image circle of just over 300mm to fully cover 8x10 to the corners, more if you want any movement. As a general rule, Symmar or Plasmat designs don't hit that until about 240mm focals, and your Tesar designs above are even worse.

Lenses that will cover 8x10 at under 300mm focals are usually either really, really large (Biogons, Super Angulons) or tiny with small or really small maximum apertures (Hypergons, Dagors).

Cheers,
__________________
Jack
www.getdpi.com
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old January 26th, 2008, 10:56 AM
David A. Goldfarb David A. Goldfarb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 236
Default

Check the main page of http://lfphoto.info for some good articles and tables on lenses to find out what covers what format, how large they are, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old December 3rd, 2008, 12:43 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,796
Default

Hi Folks,

Hadn't realized how time flies here! So I'll have to update. Meanwhile, anyone else who has a Chamonix, feel free to add your own experience!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:10 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!