Professional Web Applications Themes

Query about Photography - Photography

How do we define Photography? According to current tradition, one would regard it as a craft and/or an art using the medium of photography (drawing with light on a sensitive recording medium with the use of an optical train). Is this definition completely irrelevant, or invalid, or wrong? (NB: there's a deliberate difference in the usage of upper and lower case 'p'. The upper case denotes the art/craft and the lower case denotes the medium.) If it's not wrong, if it even approximates the essence of Photography, would it not follow that a Photographer is one who has some command ...

  1. #1

    Default Query about Photography

    How do we define Photography?

    According to current tradition, one would regard it as a craft and/or an art
    using the medium of photography (drawing with light on a sensitive
    recording medium with the use of an optical train). Is this definition
    completely irrelevant, or invalid, or wrong?

    (NB: there's a deliberate difference in the usage of upper and lower case
    'p'. The upper case denotes the art/craft and the lower case denotes the
    medium.)

    If it's not wrong, if it even approximates the essence of Photography, would
    it not follow that a Photographer is one who has some command of the medium
    of photography? In fact, isn't it really the case that the Photographer is
    presumed to have (some amount of) said command, where the snap-shooter is
    not?

    May I presume that the concept of "command of the medium" is accessible,
    that the concept is understood both in principle and in application?

    If that's so, why are we recommending that such a command be regarded as
    optional? Don't the folk who come here to learn, come here to learn
    Photography rather than "Snapshootery"? Is it now the consensus that there
    is no difference between a Photograph and a snap-shot? Or is it the case
    that mere technical excellence of recorded image qualifies said image as a
    Photograph? Indeed, is it now the case that there is no difference between
    Photography and "Snapshootery"?!?

    I know that this is only tangentially topical here, but I'd really like to
    know! Can anyone explain all this to me? What am I missing here?

    Bill Tallman

    William D. Tallman Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    >From: "William D. Tallman" [email]wtallmanolypen.com[/email]
    >Date: 18/07/03 08:59 GMT Daylight Time
    >Message-id: <vhfade31kojk6fcorp.supernews.com>
    >
    >How do we define Photography?
    >
    >According to current tradition, one would regard it as a craft and/or an art
    >using the medium of photography (drawing with light on a sensitive
    >recording medium with the use of an optical train). Is this definition
    >completely irrelevant, or invalid, or wrong?
    >
    >(NB: there's a deliberate difference in the usage of upper and lower case
    >'p'. The upper case denotes the art/craft and the lower case denotes the
    >medium.)
    >
    >If it's not wrong, if it even approximates the essence of Photography, would
    >it not follow that a Photographer is one who has some command of the medium
    >of photography? In fact, isn't it really the case that the Photographer is
    >presumed to have (some amount of) said command, where the snap-shooter is
    >not?
    >
    >May I presume that the concept of "command of the medium" is accessible,
    >that the concept is understood both in principle and in application?
    >
    >If that's so, why are we recommending that such a command be regarded as
    >optional? Don't the folk who come here to learn, come here to learn
    >Photography rather than "Snapshootery"? Is it now the consensus that there
    >is no difference between a Photograph and a snap-shot? Or is it the case
    >that mere technical excellence of recorded image qualifies said image as a
    >Photograph? Indeed, is it now the case that there is no difference between
    >Photography and "Snapshootery"?!?
    >
    >I know that this is only tangentially topical here, but I'd really like to
    >know! Can anyone explain all this to me? What am I missing here?
    >
    >Bill Tallman
    >
    Hmm. Interesting point Bill!

    It's not much help but I always reckon that if someone draws a box around
    something and says it's art, you cannot disagree. You can only decide for
    yourself if it is good or bad. If an artist piles a stack of newspapers in the
    middle of the floor and insists it's art I'm not going to argue, but as far as
    I'm concerned it's crap.

    Perhaps the solution as to whether a photograph is art or just a snap depends
    entirely on whether it is presented as such, not from the skill or craft
    involved in taking the photograph. For example Lomography is clearly presented
    as art yet Lomographers would be the first to admit that they don't even look
    through the viewfinder, let alone focus etc. Similarly technicians working in
    high speed photography probably go further into setting up cameras for a shot
    than any photographic artist but consider their work from an engineering
    standpoint only.

    Does that make sense or just muddy the waters further...?
    Duncan Ross Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    William D. Tallman wrote:
    > How do we define Photography?
    >
    > [...]
    Photography first simply is a way of recording visual information.
    Recording, so we share the experience with anyone not present originally.
    And recording it in a visible way, so this sharing of the experience closely
    resembles (though still far removed from) the original visual experience.

    As such, it involves certain "technical" acts, and thus a skill in
    performing these acts. Like with anything else we do, we can do it good or
    badly. But no matter how we do it, it still is photography as long as it
    involves attempts to record visual information.

    Next, photography (being a recording) is communication. Two more aspects
    appear: there needs to be something to be communicated, and there is
    communicatory skill (and style) involved.
    The subject matter may be extremely common place, boring. But it still is
    photography.
    And there may be a great lacking in communicatory skill; the subject matter
    may be very interesting, but the way it is represented fails to capture
    people's attention. Even then, it still is photography.

    So there are three aspects (technical, subject matter and communication)
    involved. Three aspects of one and the same thing.
    Yet we cannot merge these three into one, "defining" criterium. They are too
    distinct, too different.
    So any verdict about photography, and/or a particular photograph, has to
    deal with all three aspects, or else be incomplete and fail.

    Whether or not a particular photograph is good or bad depends on the balance
    between these three aspects. A (for instance) technically badly performed
    photograph can still be an example of very good photography.
    So when would you call something "snapshootery"? When it fails to meet the
    standards you, personally, use for any of the three aspects (for instance,
    you think that the subject matter is completely uninteresting, you happen
    not to like a formal composition, or there is some motion blur)? That can be
    quite valid to do, though very personal.
    Or when it fails to meet standards in all three departments (boring, bad
    technique, and bad representation/nothing communicated)?
    That too is (of course) a valid thing to do.



    Q.G. de Bakker Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    I dont see how the traditional definition of photography as wrong, invalid,
    or irrelevant.

    Photography (drawing by light) is no different than drawing with a pencil.
    One does not need command the skill of drawing to draw.

    A photograph is a photograph is a photograph.



    k.


    "William D. Tallman" <com> wrote in message
    news:supernews.com... 
    art 
    would 
    medium 
    is 
    there 
    between 


    F100 Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Query about Photography


    "F100" <com> wrote in message
    news:ya_Ra.28728$bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... 
    invalid, 

    Ah... But how can we be stuffy, self-important snobs with THAT definition??
    (I agree with you)


    Mark Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    "William D. Tallman" <com> wrote in message
    news:supernews.com... 

    I am glad you asked, because it saves all those students of art, photography
    and philosophy the bother of some months of research, introspective,
    revelation and debate; we'll simply sort it out for them in Usenet and post
    the answer for all to see. A sort of cheat sheet for Art.

    I won't pretend to have the answers to your questions, because when I even
    think about it I get depressed and either convince myself to minimise and go
    """abstract"""and create "artistic" pieces about important issues (largely
    self-involved), or just say "f*ck it" and set up a brolly and reflector in a
    shopping centre and shoot babies in fruitbowls and scowling thirteen year
    olds in front of brown sheets of "Difference Cloud" backdrop so their
    parents have something nice to give the police (framed with the words "see,
    he's a nice boy deep down"). Or worse still, give up and resign myself of a
    life of selling cameras and film to those who are a) too stupid to see what
    is around them, or b) too blind to look beyond the pages of Practical
    Photography.

    A hawk is a hawk, and taking the 4000000th super sharp portrait of one with
    your 400/1.4 IF AF IS USM VR L G Ubergon ain't gonna set the world on fire,
    and doesn't count as "personal expression".

    Of course, give me fifteen minutes to sober up and calm down and i'm sure I
    can extoll the virtues of NOT looking at the marvels that surround you, and
    shooting the baby in the fruitbowl or the peregrine in the aviary, and why
    technically despicable shots of personal importance (like "ah, so THAT'S
    where we met the transual dance troupe").

    Give me about forty years of uninterrupted thought on the question, and I
    might have a definitive answer for you...

    .... however, the definitive answer may well be 42

    --
    Martin
    http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty


    Martin Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    The way I see it photography (small and/or big "p") is merely a medium, whether
    that medium is used for craft or art or both purposes depends upon the user and
    the intent. I am a photographer but I am also an artist that uses photography
    (if anybody wants to debate this they can go argue w/ my images). There are
    times that I use photography to make art (moving statements), there are times
    when I use photography for snapshooting (w/ or w/o "craft", especially w/o much
    craft when I used a Holga ;-)) and there are times that some of the
    record/snapshots I make are art by defintion regardless of their level of
    craftsmanship (ie. if I had to choose or use program mode for a quick response)
    because there are both elements of the image (or should I say qualities of the
    image) both individually and as an entire whole picture which bring its
    effect/statement beyond mere record keeping and into the real of "art".

    Its not the medium that counts or the degree of skill or craftsmanship (though
    that can help sometimes) or amature or pro status, its what the final product
    does for you/to you that makes it art. August Sander, Lewis Carroll, Julia
    Margaret Cameron, Stieglitz, Winogrand, and many of the F.S.A.'s more skilled
    "P"hotographers long ago proved that "snapshots" (or even record shots) could
    be art. Some of the most famous family snapshots were from Clerge? (I forget
    both the exact name and spelling) from France that were taken of Belle Epoque
    ladies, his family and race car images all taken while he was a child!

    Its the final image that counts. Photography can be defined as anything, in the
    end, it merely _is_, its the people who view photography (either individually
    or collectively) that define and/or redefine one image at a time, photography
    as art, a craft or both.

    Regards,

    Lewis

    This post is...
    2003 Lewis Lang
    All Rights Reserved

    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

    http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

    Remove "nospam" to reply
    Lewis Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    stan wrote:
     
    >
    > I am curious Bill what did you discover? I am not being a smart , i
    > really am curious. This topic has been of interest to me for years. The
    > whole mental masturbation of "What is art" is an interesting one, with
    > no real answer. But each of us have the answer for ourselves. But then
    > again , as Martin posted, maybe the answer really is 42!
    > Stan
    > Visual Arts Photography[/ref]

    I discovered that posts sometimes elicit responses that have little to do
    with the original post. It appears that the more substantial the post, the
    less likely the responses will be relevant. This is probably to be
    expected, as this is an equipment news group, where only straightforward
    questions and issues are appropriate.

    It may be of interest to you that the original issue had nothing to do with
    the definition of art. Unfortunately, in my post, I included the word
    "art", and it seems that it became a keyword and a fixation. it is now
    impossible to address the original issue in this venue, which is
    unfortunate, because that issue will arise again and again.

    Too bad for the lurkers and newbies who will come to find that learning
    photography is not an issue that is well addressed here. I suspect this is
    so because the mindset here is that equipment is the be all and end all of
    photography. The conclusion offered is that one needn't learn anything
    about photography in order to do photography because the automagicameras
    now available will surely provide more than adequate results without human
    intervention.

    That, you see, was the issue. I erred in using the approach of asking if
    there was any way that photography could be viewed as a human endeavor
    instead of a mechanized process, now fully automated. And I got the result
    I should have easily predicted: anything having to do with the human
    aspect of creating photographic images is now universally agreed to be an
    imponderable, and worthy only of philosophical flatulence. Or so it seemed
    to me.

    I gather that the essence of my error was that I presumed the legitimacy of
    photographic skill in the use of 35mm cameras. It would appear that this
    is no longer the case. Perhaps it would be useful to respond to those who
    seek to learn photography with the advise to involve themselves in the use
    of equipment of another (larger) format, where this restriction does not
    exist.

    It may be that larger format equipment is not yet prohibitively expensive
    for the would-be learner, but it also usually requires more involvement
    with image processing than just the use of a camera. Maybe that's how it
    should be; I dunno.

    I don't know what to make of all this. For my part, I'll go on trying to
    apply such photographic skills as I possess to the 35mm format, because
    it's the most convenient for me at the moment (no darkroom). Clearly, the
    current lot of 35mm cameras can be considered as glorified bangshooters,
    but they shouldn't have to be limited to that usage... I guess I'm out of
    fashion, eh?

    Bill Tallman

    William Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    William D. Tallman wrote:
     
    of 

    Like Stan, just (but very) curious: what would *you* say is "photographic
    skill"?

    Am i correct in understanding your post as saying that it is the technical
    bit, and this technical bit only (the bit that "automagicameras" remove from
    the "art")?




    Q.G. Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    >The conclusion offered is that one needn't learn anything 

    Who here said that in response to your query??
    Nobody.
    You seem to have "heard" that, perhaps due to your predetermined feeling on
    the issue.


     
    result 
    seemed 
    of 

    Pompus generalization.
     
    of 

    You're not out of fashion, but you seem to fancy yourself as some sort of
    lonely cowboy, or knight defending the faith.
    I am all for people learning to become deliberate, skilled
    photographers...who know why pictures appear the way they do and who can
    control the outcome themselves. I just don't think you need to pine away
    because it is now more accessable to the less-thoughtful masses. There will
    always be more to an effective photo than exposure...which is really about
    all the fancy cameras help you with these days. They will never do the rest
    for you--like subject selection, perspective, framing, cropping (in-frame),
    exclusion, timing, presence (be there!), patience, lighting, stalking
    (wildlife), and on and on. These things simply cannot be addressed by
    technology, no matter how fancy the rig.


    Mark Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    Dallas D wrote:
     

    If you can mount that booger effectively and sell it to a gallery, it's art.

    LOL!!!!

    Bill Tallman

    William Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
     
    > of 
    >
    > Like Stan, just (but very) curious: what would *you* say is "photographic
    > skill"?
    >
    > Am i correct in understanding your post as saying that it is the technical
    > bit, and this technical bit only (the bit that "automagicameras" remove
    > from the "art")?[/ref]

    Technical knowledge and the skill set in applying that knowledge is a
    fundamental part of photography. It allows one to actually create the
    images one would produce. The sum of technical knowledge required for the
    ability to reliably produce such images is far more than just the knowledge
    of how to manipulate a mechanical manual camera, but that knowledge is very
    difficult to embrace effectively if one doesn't have the opportunity to
    apply it.

    How does one answer the question of what happens when the wrong shutter
    speed and aperture setting are used, unless one has the opportunity to
    experiment? If the camera is expected to always produce technically
    excellent images, how does one avail themselves of such an opportunity?
    The automagicameras remove said opportunity, because the default mode
    forbids it. And the newbie is being told he/she doesn't have to learn all
    that anyway.

    That's bulle!!! (Codswallop??)

    Nothing has ever been said about what images are produced. The only issue
    is whether or not the newbie is given to understand that being a
    photographer implies that one has the skill set to produce the image one
    wishes to produce. It may be art, or it may be doentation, or it may be
    journalistic chronicle, or it may be.....

    In short, give the newbie to understand that all they need is the equipment
    to produce technically acceptable photographs, and they will assume that
    the sort of literal duplication of a scene produced by such equipment is
    all that is required. Or possible. All the rest of photography is
    essentially denied, as far as they are concerned.

    The cynical attitude here is that the newbie will, or will not, eventually
    discover that the advice given here is crap, and the ability to discover
    this is the proper test and winnowing protocol to separate the incipient
    photographers from the snap-shooters. Not me, folks. I respect the
    willingness to learn something new too much to denigrate it thus.

    Bill Tallman

    William Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Query about Photography



    "William D. Tallman" wrote:
     

    I guess you read an entirely different newgroup than I do. For this assertion
    has never appeared in this group. The general consensus when beginners want to
    buy a camera is "Buy a fully manual one". Some people suggest the AE-1 or even
    the K-1000. Your assertion is not valid in this group.
     

    You're finished because you like the last word or because people don't agree
    with you? Because either way you lose. Simply because I feel most people would
    agree with your assertion that the new fangled do-it-all cameras will not
    improve your image capture skills. And I have a gut feeling that many others
    would agree. They certainly make it easier in many ways but this is not an
    inherently bad thing. Anymore than having a built-in meter is good or bad. It
    is just a tool to make life easier. As is Photoshop (though some agrue the evils
    of PS). Maybe you should go back to coating glass sheets in a tent. You can
    have all the control you need. That still will not make you a better
    photographer than someone with a Nikon F-5. But then again you aren't going to
    read this so I waste my time.
    Stan
    Visual Arts Photography

    stan Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    "Mark M" <net> wrote in message news:<g0kSa.10314$Bp2.10210fed1read07>... 
    > >
    > > Bulle!!! That is effectively the message those who recommend
    > > autocameras to newbies are sending forth.[/ref]
    >
    > There's ANOTHER generalization!

    >
    > What you are calling "truth" is a very subjective opinion.
    > Personally, I think many people get permanently turned off to photography
    > because they are often not prepared for the frustration/learning curve of
    > fully manual cameras.[/ref]

    What? 'Learning curve'? Match a needle? Set a shutter speed? This
    takes 15 minutes to learn, and two weeks to master.
     

    Nonsense. They'll never learn that way. the crutch will be used
    forever. 
    >
    > You are making the assumption, it seems, that a camera that has automatic
    > capabilities will somehow PREVENT one from learning. I can tell you from my
    > own experience that this is NOT true. For many people, interest and at
    > partial early success are prerequisites for further study and development.
    > [/ref]
    > of 
    > >
    > > Nope. I'm being an advocate for the newbies and lurkers on this news[/ref]
    > group 
    >
    > That's great, so long as you're willing to apply that to your own opinion as
    > well.[/ref]
    Michael Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Query about Photography


    "Michael Scarpitti" <com> wrote in message
    news:google.com... 
    news:<g0kSa.10314$Bp2.10210fed1read07>... 
    > >
    > > There's ANOTHER generalization!
    > > [/ref][/ref]
    newbie [/ref][/ref]
    learning 
    > >
    > > What you are calling "truth" is a very subjective opinion.
    > > Personally, I think many people get permanently turned off to[/ref][/ref]
    photography [/ref]
    of 
    >
    > What? 'Learning curve'? Match a needle? Set a shutter speed? This
    > takes 15 minutes to learn, and two weeks to master.[/ref]

    IF you care to take the time from the VERY beginning.
    I think more people will become interested in learning these things after
    they experience the limitations of their "smart" cameras.
    I know AT LEAST 9 people personally who have done this. They gave up on
    their point-and-shoots and bought cameras that would let them
    control/correct things.
    I know this because I've spent a great deal of time with these friends
    explaining how their cameras work, and the basics of exposure. They are
    interested! If I had insisted on sitting them down and going through the
    details before they had experienced the hit-and-miss frustration, 7 of those
    9 people would like have said goodbye, simply because they had no
    motivation/understanding at the very beginning that would motivate them to
    look deeper.

    Many people really don't care, and don't seem to notice their grey snow and
    darkly shadowed faces in their snapshots. For them, who cares. But for
    those that DO notice, they are great candidates for moving up to a camera
    that gives them the control.

    You can learn a great deal from watching how an SLR on automatic chooses
    it's settings. Once you look into the shortcomings, and WHY it fails so
    often, you've got a starting point to work up from.

    I am not arguing that this is the only way by any means. I am simply saying
    that this way can lead to expertise too. Manual-only cameras are NOT the
    only way to understanding.
     [/ref]
    full [/ref]
    shortcomings of [/ref]
    to [/ref]
    the 
    >
    > Nonsense. They'll never learn that way. the crutch will be used
    > forever.[/ref]

    Oops! Your statement is false. While SOME people may not care to learn,
    those who do care to learn...will. I'm living proof that you are incorrect,
    because I started out with an automatic camera. It was my frustration with
    it's limitations that got me interested in manual controls. But...it was
    that stupid auto camera that got me interested in photography in the first
    place.

    Let's apply your philosophy to computers:
    Your argument is like insisting that people become interested in computers
    ONLY by FIRST becoming computer programmers! -Never mind getting some
    low-level enjoyment from the computer first (with basic e-mail,
    word-processing, games, etc.) to generate interest... Make sense?


    Mark Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Query about Photography

    "William D. Tallman" wrote:
     

    Drawing with light is a somewhat general breakdown of the word "photography".
    However, there is a complex simplicity of capturing images, and placing them in
    a tangible media so others may also view those same images, which might be a
    better way to think about photography.
     

    I think it is a good starting point. The print is another derivation of
    photography, and sometimes a separate art.
     

    Snap shooter to me implies a careless approach, with minimal concern towards
    the results. However, in the interest of merely recording history, a snap shot
    approach may be all that is needed. Consider that an evidence photographer, or
    insurance investigator, will likely avoid aesthetic considerations, yet by
    definition of usage, and employment, they may be considered photographers.
     

    Sure, but to what depth of command? Should many different formats, films,
    enlargers, software, scanning gear, or even digital stills, and video, be
    considered as levels of command? Where does printing fall into this? How about
    images without cameras?
     

    Some of it may depend upon the end user, and whether or not they care why the
    resulting images appeared a certain way. Please read further . . . .
     

    As in evidence photography (or maybe even Sears Portrait Studio ;-) ),
    sometimes the end results do justify the means. However, I think many who come
    here want better results, as evidence of the effort of asking others.
    Unfortunately, some fo the suggestions can lead the newcomers in the wrong
    directions. It is possible to learn from errors, but I like the
    "do-it-right-the-first-time" approach.
     

    Some people may never pass that point. It is unfortunate, but a fact.
     

    Perhaps I should relate some college photography experience. My first
    photography instructor recommended manual shutter speed and aperture settings.
    However, he was willing to allow more modern cameras, or even fixed lens
    cameras. One thing that he required was that notes be kept of all the images
    for each assignment. These were turned in with a contact sheet, and problems
    where investigated in the images by comparing to the notes.

    While some did cheat, and try to make up the numbers after shooting a roll or
    two, those were also the same people who were completely lost when an image did
    not turn out the way they expected. The usual problems were related to improper
    exposure, though motion blur was another common error.

    A good deal of emphasis was placed upon the historical significance of early
    photography, famous photographers of the past, and differences between modern
    and older equipment. Understanding exposure was emphasized, both in the camera,
    and in the darkroom while creating prints. Everyone was required to start the
    class with the same type of film, which made comparisons even more obvious.

    The instructor can give a great deal of information, but it is up to the
    student to want to learn. Good teachers create that desire to learn. They can
    also lead by example, and impress with results. New photographers coming to
    this news group would do well to check the samples available by following the
    signature links of those who give advice.

    Many current famous photographers prove it is not the gear. However, those same
    photographers have an intimate understanding of how to visually communicate, so
    the gear does not become a limitation. It is too much to suppose that someone
    new can easily overcome any gear limitations, but it is equally true that some
    will not explore any limitations. Automation levels for those individuals will
    be a crutch, but if they want to learn more, they should be able to get past
    the automation.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>


    Gordon Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Query about Photography



    William D. Tallman wrote: 

    Define it by doing it.

    Defining it to death does not change it for better or worse.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    Alan Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Query about Photography


    "Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message
    news:ca... [/ref]
    art 
    >
    > Define it by doing it.
    >
    > Defining it to death does not change it for better or worse.[/ref]

    Hear hear!!!!!!!!!!!


    Mark Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Solved photography
    By savanasudha@gmail.com in forum Brainstorming Area
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 11th, 11:25 AM
  2. IC photography with E-1
    By HD in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 13th, 05:21 PM
  3. 3D Photography
    By 3D Photo News in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 24th, 03:47 AM
  4. New to photography
    By Vinylmixer in forum Photography
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 3rd, 08:00 PM
  5. ?? Regarding the NYI of Photography
    By Catherine Gardner in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 30th, 06:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139