A question about future generations

copake_ham · Jan 20, 2007

timbo10ca said:
Haaang onaminut. I'm not "denegrating" the accomplished. I'm pointing out the fact that most people these days looking at a start in photography have this point of view. This is the struggle film faces. Cudos to those that have embraced and mastered the realm of Photoshop (I'll be the first to say it's an extremely complex tool), but do you think that these masters of the digital realm can be lured back to film? They've made the move forward as they see it. More and more people are going in that direction because it is perceived as easier. How many people do you know actually "master" Photoshop? I would bet that the majority of weekend warriors muck around and come up with something they can be proud of. If you read my posts, you and I seem to be arguing the same side of this discussion- no need to get hostile .

Where we disagree is in the generalization that people are lazier now than in the past. I think that is just plain wrong.

The vast majority of today's "lazy digiusers" are shooting P&S's. These folk were just as lazy when they were dropping cannisters into film P&S's!

As to how many folk do I know who master PS? Simply put, how many film shooters ever master (or even enter) a darkroom! I never have.

Processing, be it analog or digital, has always been a "minority" interest within the overall world of photography. In fact, I'd be more likely to use PS than learn wet DR at this stage in life. I still have to work every day - so just finding time to shoot is hard enough.

I prefer film over digital by many magnitudes - but I think it is wrong to characterize those who are of an opposite mind as being lazy. And I also think that if you really believe that the solution to saving film photography is to get kids into the darkroom - then film really is dead. Even at the height of usage only a very few people processed their own - why would they want to do so now?

firecracker · Jan 20, 2007

copake_ham said:
Huh?

Have you read anything here I wrote that would even begin to suggest I am interested in coating 35mm film?

I have zero, zip, nada interest in doing so.

And if that is what would be required to still shoot film then I would go digi! The reality is that I have an investment in good quality Nikkor glass - and I will use it. Preferably with film, but I will use it!

I think that is the clear point I have been making.

Then you're not contributing any useful ideas and thoughts to this thread to find a solution! Dude, you don't really count...

Anyway I feel that to preserve the art of film for the future generations is to start gathering all the abandoned pieces of equipment (35mm and MF film cameras) and have them back in a fair use. As I said before I think a small non-profit type of business (like the windmill eco-energy thing) could work to suppy for the 35mm users if the current market dies completely.

Okay, so if 35mm roll film cannot be made in someone's darkroom, we go after the industrial machine with an operator or a bunch of operators, I don't know. What's the minimum size of a factory space that we will need? How big of an investment are we really looking at? What about the MF(120 and 220) film production? Please throw ideas in.

HerrBremerhaven · Jan 20, 2007

Motion Picture Films in Still Cameras?

Photo Engineer said:
Gentlemen;

. . . . . . .

I DO NOT WANT TO RELEGATE ANYONE TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY. However, it may take place in spite of me. Believe me, you will not like anything I coat in 35mm nor will you come up with much better.

I want better than digital for the future. But all of us have limitations. We may need an emulsion preservation conference, but notes to fellow emulsion makers (not Kodak - they respond with indifference) are either unanswered or answered with vituperation. What is wrong with people? Why are the best emulsion makers here unwilling to respond in a civil manner?

PE

Just going back in history, 35mm still cameras came about using motion picture film. I can see a far longer life for motion picture films (world-wide, not just EU and North America) than any still camera films. So that leaves a question of what difficulties we might encounter using current motion picture films in still cameras. If Oskar Barnack could do it, why can't we?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

firecracker · Jan 20, 2007

I found this poem to be essential for encouraging those who know the situation well but don't move their half-frozen asses:

It goes on one at a time,
it starts when you care
to act, it starts when you do
it again after they said no,
it starts when you say We
and know who you mean, and each
day you mean one more.

From The Moon Is Always Female, by Marge Piercy
Copyright (c) 1980 by Marge Piercy

This was part of the speech by Bill Moyers from the media conference, but agenda there is quite similar (I think) to what we are feeling about the current state of film photography.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0118-20.htm

So, what do we really need to do about the film we use? Let's not split up the discussion because we have different tastes for differen formats, etc. We are all connected in one way, and we have to bring this to the FUTURE GENERATIONS, not just to us for god's sake.

Martin Reed · Jan 20, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Making a paint or buying canvas and stretching it for an oil painting is far easier than making an emulsion and coating it in the darkroom. But you don't have to be an engineer to do either.

The big difference is that there are a lot of sources for learning how to make the paints and stretching the canvas, but few on making and coating gelatin. In fact, Silver Gelatin is out of print and it was the only relatively current book on the subject that I know about. That delineates the current level of interest to some extent here.

PE

As the author of the tome, can I put in a few pennorth. There are some members here trying to convey the situation of current emulsion technology, but most people don't seem to be getting it. The modern materials we have all been taking for granted come from a century and a half of industrial research, mainly kept out of the public domain, which has resulted in a technology of labyrinthine complexity. Secrecy has been fundamental to it's progress, and altruism has never come into it.

As an example, Kentmere in their early years were approached by an amateur emulsion maker who had devised a formula which had some characteristics superior to some of their own recipes. In order to use his invention he was given his own laboratory on the site in which to make the emulsion; Kentmere staff were not privy to the formula, and the emulsion maker was not allowed into the coating plant in case he gained an advantage in knowledge of coating.

If all the large emulsion-based manufacturers ceased, any new small enterprises would still largely have to re-invent this particular wheel. The resulting materials would probably be more basic in quality and speed than those we have become accustomed to, but if we want to work with emulsion paper and film then we would have to accept them for what they are, and work within their characteristics (work with the grain!).
When we did the 'Silver Gelatin' book, I experimented with coating 8x10" glass plates using both commercial print emulsion and home-made recipes. Technically they certainly couldn't compare with TriX, but the elation of conquering the limitations to create a unique image made up for that.

Jerevan · Jan 20, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
I want better than digital for the future. But all of us have limitations. We may need an emulsion preservation conference, but notes to fellow emulsion makers (not Kodak - they respond with indifference) are either unanswered or answered with vituperation. What is wrong with people? Why are the best emulsion makers here unwilling to respond in a civil manner?

PE

Frankly, I think it has to do with having a lot of people in "the right positions" who do not understand the paradox of sharing and open source: that what you give away will benefit yourself in the end, both in knowledge and in the bottom line perspective. I think the ones who goes out and at least talks about the options and share (at least some of) what they know will be the winners in the long run.

A few months ago, someone showed a link to a short overview presentation of how to make wetplates. This was available over the internet for all to see. Although it was short and not in-depth, it made some steps in the process clearer to me. Sometimes a film sequence says a lot more than a chapter of words.

Why not use shorter, filmed overviews, for example together with a .pdf book made available on the net, for a sum - with the films showing the more complex steps? Couple this with selling bottled or pre-measured dry products on the same site.

firecracker · Jan 20, 2007

Martin Reed said:
As the author of the tome, can I put in a few pennorth. There are some members here trying to convey the situation of current emulsion technology, but most people don't seem to be getting it. The modern materials we have all been taking for granted come from a century and a half of industrial research, mainly kept out of the public domain, which has resulted in a technology of labyrinthine complexity. Secrecy has been fundamental to it's progress, and altruism has never come into it.

As an example, Kentmere in their early years were approached by an amateur emulsion maker who had devised a formula which had some characteristics superior to some of their own recipes. In order to use his invention he was given his own laboratory on the site in which to make the emulsion; Kentmere staff were not privy to the formula, and the emulsion maker was not allowed into the coating plant in case he gained an advantage in knowledge of coating.

If all the large emulsion-based manufacturers ceased, any new small enterprises would still largely have to re-invent this particular wheel. The resulting materials would probably be more basic in quality and speed than those we have become accustomed to, but if we want to work with emulsion paper and film then we would have to accept them for what they are, and work within their characteristics (work with the grain!).
When we did the 'Silver Gelatin' book, I experimented with coating 8x10" glass plates using both commercial print emulsion and home-made recipes. Technically they certainly couldn't compare with TriX, but the elation of conquering the limitations to create a unique image made up for that.

Please explain to me like I'm a 5 year-old because I'm just one of those who know nothing about the secrecy (trade secrets) you are talking about. So what happens to a coating plant facility when another company dies? If they don't sell out their equipment, are they going to destroy it completely and act as if nothing has happened? Is there a way to buy the ceased equipment from them and recruit the staff with the literature as well?

Should we consider applying UESCO's World Heritage program or something to lock down the location and save the coating plant that has provided materials to establish the photo cultures in the modern history? Is there a way to make another dying or dead company with its property somehow more public? I mean UNESCO thing is a joke, but if there's something that helps to preserve it as a public property, what will that be?

Martin Reed · Jan 20, 2007

Wet & Dry

Talking small scale coating leads to a dichotomy - while self-coating is certainly possible with emulsion it is difficult and time consuming, and for practical purposes really only suitable for scaling up to an industrial process, which is where Alfred Harman (Ilford) came in. So self coating leads inexorably back to wet plates - are we seriously going to go back to that on a broad front?

Martin Reed · Jan 20, 2007

firecracker said:
So what happens to a coating plant facility when another company dies? If they don't sell out their equipment, are they going to destroy it completely and act as if nothing has happened?

Most probably all is lost, Photo Engineer has gone into this quite a bit (see Forte thread now closed). If there is no financial gain the emulsion formula stays locked up until it is destroyed or lost. Kentmere used to make a POP until maybe the 1950's, but when they started making again for Chicago Albumen that formula could not be found, and they used a recipe supplied to them. Maybe something good occasionally happens, eg there is some talk of Kentmere aquiring the Forte Polywarmtone formulations.

Jerevan · Jan 20, 2007

Martin Reed said:
So self coating leads inexorably back to wet plates - are we seriously going to go back to that on a broad front?

I'll do it if I have to. If I can buy stuff instead, with a good enough quality I prefer that, of course.

FrankB · Jan 20, 2007

Martin Reed said:
If all the large emulsion-based manufacturers ceased...

I think this is the key point which a lot of posters on this thread are disregarding - as yet they have not. If we want quality materials to be available to "future generations" of traditional photographers it is in our best interests to keep these manufacturers going.

There's nothing wrong with having a Plan B, but while Plan A is still viable (as it is) for God's sake let's make the most of it.

For positive suggestions on easy ways we can do this see my post 'way back at the bottom of page four of this thread.

kjsphoto · Jan 20, 2007

FrankB said:
I think this is the key point which a lot of posters on this thread are disregarding - as yet they have not. If we want quality materials to be available to "future generations" of traditional photographers it is in our best interests to keep these manufacturers going.

There's nothing wrong with having a Plan B, but while Plan A is still viable (as it is) for God's sake let's make the most of it.

For positive suggestions on easy ways we can do this see my post 'way back at the bottom of page four of this thread.

Like I said, people need to BUY the materials or they will be gone. It is that simple!

Martin Reed · Jan 20, 2007

kjsphoto said:
Like I said, people need to BUY the materials or they will be gone. It is that simple!

To assume all materials will go is playing devils advocate.
But perhaps we need to qualify what materials we're talking about; colour materials are by far the most complex in formulation and construction, and rely on the continuation of a sizeable mass market - it's doubtful if we would want to pay the price if this came down to a tiny niche. Or indeed if a company with the necessary resouces would opt to continue, witness the withdrawal of Konica.
Monochrome is a different issue - Ilford has already been forced through the downsizing process, and judging by the good accounts they're showing has stabilised with this bottomed-out market, which already IS a niche. Even if further decline does occur, I think we can assume the continuation of quality monochrome materials from a number of players.

firecracker · Jan 20, 2007

FrankB said:
For positive suggestions on easy ways we can do this see my post 'way back at the bottom of page four of this thread.

I agree, but your suggestions are only for creating the demand, I think. We need the supply, and that's what we've been discussing. My suggestion is to take over one coating plant or whatever the minimum set of producing film and paper in popular formats and sizes is. And we sell some portion of our finished products back to the manufacturers and other sellers. Otherwise we'll likely have to fight over a small piece of a pie to share.

Now, how can we do this with all the APUG members and more people from the outside? How can we approach the people who want to join us on this venture but have no way of knowing this film photography community exists? How can we reach them?

One dilemma I have obviously that I'm one of the only half a dozen APUGers currently living in Japan. Only half a dozen of us from Japan? I thought many Japanese people carry cameras and they take pictures all the time... Where are they? Okay, I've been doing my best to have them come check this site, but maybe the language issue is the real issue for them to not participate here, I don't know. But my point is that we can recruit as many people as we want to and grow this community to the level that we make an impact and become more independent.

We need to start to get rid of our manufacturer-dependent attitude. I know this sounds unrealistic, but I think the only way we have more control over the situation is for us to actually get our hands on the business, but the one for non-profit to not overdo. We have to be the one to be able to make the decisions to influence and sustain the market, otherwise, we will endlessly suffer from some sleep deprivation.

Martin Reed · Jan 20, 2007

firecracker said:
....
We need to start to get rid of our manufacturer-dependent attitude. I know this sounds unrealistic, but I think the only way we have more control over the situation is for us to actually get our hands on the business, but the one for non-profit to not overdo. We have to be the one to be able to make the decisions to influence and sustain the market, otherwise, we will endlessly suffer from some sleep deprivation.

The nearest we'll ever get to that is with Ilford - for once there is a company run by 6 directors who know emulsion materials inside out, and worked their way up from the bottom in the original company. Forget about workers co-operatives, these products are too complex to make as a hobby or part-time career. And profit is the enabling force.

A few years ago I researched Autochrome, and went some way down the road to recreating it, as far as getting the dyed starch to just (barely) reproduce the colours from a Macbeth colour checker (see Ag Magazine, about 5 years ago). I found out enough to know that it could be recreated, but it would take the rest of my life, and the cost would be colossal and open-ended.

FrankB · Jan 20, 2007

firecracker said:
I agree, but your suggestions are only for creating the demand, I think. We need the supply, and that's what we've been discussing.

Yes, you're quite correct. With one (fairly feeble) exception my suggestions are purely aimed at creating (or at least maintaining) demand.

My point is that with that demand there will be supply.

Ilford have restructured to meet the lower demand and are not only profitable but bringing out new products and restarting production of old ones. Kentmere are doing well. There are other threads on the forums about Agfa and Maco IR films making a comeback. Fuji stated their commitment to film a while back.

If demand dwindles away to next to nothing then, true enough, supply will dwindle right along with it. IMO the best way to ensure that high quality materials are available for future generations is to support the existing manufacturers of those products by -

Buying and using their products
Opening channels of communication between the manufacturers and APUG
Raising the public profile of film photography by getting out there and being seen in numbers using traditional equipment

These are realistic positive actions that can be taken right now by any member of APUG.

I think the successful takeover and operation of a coating plant or high-quality / consistency home-coating of film is a much taller order, would be limited to a very small minority of the APUG membership and (while I understand your intentions are honourable) may not be turn out to be the best way of helping traditional photography.

Alex Hawley · Jan 20, 2007

FrankB said:
I think this is the key point which a lot of posters on this thread are disregarding - as yet they have not. If we want quality materials to be available to "future generations" of traditional photographers it is in our best interests to keep these manufacturers going.

There's nothing wrong with having a Plan B, but while Plan A is still viable (as it is) for God's sake let's make the most of it.

For positive suggestions on easy ways we can do this see my post 'way back at the bottom of page four of this thread.

Frank, I went back and read your post again. Those are all good points.

Photo Engineer · Jan 20, 2007

copake_ham said:
Have you read anything here I wrote that would even begin to suggest I am interested in coating 35mm film?

I have zero, zip, nada interest in doing so.

Yes George, this earlier statement of yours:

"Perhaps the real issue exposed in this thread is that non-35mm shooters here are now prepared to toss us off the lifeboat to "save the rest". Once you do so, who's next? "

This statement implies that emulsion makers are going to pitch 35mm overboard, and I was answering that implication. We are not going to do it by choice, but if we coat our own, 35mm will go out. We will have to revert to pre-35mm LF and MF days. Even MF will be threatened in the sense that roll film will be difficult to make.

As for using motion picture, I would say that Kodak and others will stay in film as long as film motion picture is around. The minute motion picture film sales start the drop that is being seen in consumer films then motion picture will vanish as well.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jan 20, 2007

Now to address the issue of "What happens to equipment when big companies shut things down".

Here are a few answers to that.

The equipment is so confidential, it is scrapped.

It is worth more as scrap than you can pay to own it.

It is anchored to the company property on concrete posts to prevent movement and prevent defects. You cannot pay enough to move it and the company won't let you use their plant.

So, there are a few reasons. The bottom line is that the equipment is generally either useless or destroyed. Some companies in financial difficulties actually use their equipment until it fails. Then they go out of business because they have no funds for repair.

I have seen the condition of the equipment of some manufacturers as it exists today. It is in pretty bad shape, considering that some was running at the time I saw it.

Kodak has scrapped hundreds of emulsion making positions and about a dozen small coating machines. I cannot even get one piece of them, not a single pump to help me in my work.

That is why, when I say I did something, I can say you can do it too. I did it without help. It turns out that it really can be done without a huge lab. But, I cannot make any of the modern products. That is the sacrifice I pay. It is what we all may pay if film goes away. It will be worse, if no one learns.

Martin is right. Emulsion making is arcane. It is also fun and rewarding.

PE

Paul. · Jan 20, 2007

FrankB, With you all the way mate. Would add get traditional work seen as much as possible, exebitions,local craft fairs even loan prints to hairdressers and cafes to hang on their walls. Also be prepaired to offer your facilities to interestrd people to try anolouge. In my experiance once you have seen your first print come up in the dev dish you are hooked for life.

Prehaps part of the problem is the percived danger of useing chemicals with younsters being taught to be risk addverse from an early age, one cannot after all get selenium poisoning from toneing useing photo shop. Better then to forget the chemistery and emphisise the magic.

Regards Paul.

timbo10ca · Jan 20, 2007

FrankB said:
Yes, you're quite correct. With one (fairly feeble) exception my suggestions are purely aimed at creating (or at least maintaining) demand.

My point is that with that demand there will be supply.

Ilford have restructured to meet the lower demand and are not only profitable but bringing out new products and restarting production of old ones. Kentmere are doing well. There are other threads on the forums about Agfa and Maco IR films making a comeback. Fuji stated their commitment to film a while back.

If demand dwindles away to next to nothing then, true enough, supply will dwindle right along with it. IMO the best way to ensure that high quality materials are available for future generations is to support the existing manufacturers of those products by -

Buying and using their products

Opening channels of communication between the manufacturers and APUG

Raising the public profile of film photography by getting out there and being seen in numbers using traditional equipment

These are realistic positive actions that can be taken right now by any member of APUG.

I think the successful takeover and operation of a coating plant or high-quality / consistency home-coating of film is a much taller order, would be limited to a very small minority of the APUG membership and (while I understand your intentions are honourable) may not be turn out to be the best way of helping traditional photography.

I share your opinion completely. I think increasing the demand is key to maintain the supply, so the self-coating thing doesn't have to occur. The formation of such a facility/company would be great, but from what I'm gathering here from PE and Mr Reed, next to impossible. I had not known this about Ilford- that they are the closest thing out there to our "dream". Even more reason to support them. It's basic economic theory- If I want a steak, I'm not going to raise a cow in my back garden.

Nevertheless, I feel that your third point is going to be difficult on our own. These companies need a more *public* voice- Marketing campaigns can reach alot further than we can as a group. I'd never even heard of Ilford, let alone Kentmere or Efke until I came to APUG, and I'd been a hobby film shooter for years. I always assumed Kodak was *IT*. I was familiar with Fuji as their main competition. I was vaguely aware of AGFA (mostly from watching F1 races and seeing the billboards). You know why- marketing and market presence. There are many film based products out there I *still* know nothing about. I assume I'l learn of them as I evolve as a photographer (if they're still there).

FrankB · Jan 20, 2007

timbo10ca said:
Nevertheless, I feel that your third point is going to be difficult on our own. These companies need a more *public* voice- Marketing campaigns can reach alot further than we can as a group. I'd never even heard of Ilford, let alone Kentmere or Efke until I came to APUG, and I'd been a hobby film shooter for years. I always assumed Kodak was *IT*. I was familiar with Fuji as their main competition. I was vaguely aware of AGFA (mostly from watching F1 races and seeing the billboards). You know why- marketing and market presence. There are many film based products out there I *still* know nothing about. I assume I'l learn of them as I evolve as a photographer (if they're still there).

I couldn't agree with you more. It would be great to see materials manufacturers promoting themselves more. We can only do so much to raise awareness, but I do think that we should all do what we can.

timbo10ca · Jan 20, 2007

Paul. said:
FrankB, With you all the way mate. Would add get traditional work seen as much as possible, exebitions,local craft fairs even loan prints to hairdressers and cafes to hang on their walls. Also be prepaired to offer your facilities to interestrd people to try anolouge. In my experiance once you have seen your first print come up in the dev dish you are hooked for life.

Prehaps part of the problem is the percived danger of useing chemicals with younsters being taught to be risk addverse from an early age, one cannot after all get selenium poisoning from toneing useing photo shop. Better then to forget the chemistery and emphisise the magic.

Regards Paul.

Paul- you've got another good point. Getting traditional work seen is also very important. Preferably in the public domain to reach the masses, but even on a smaller scale. I know all of us here do this, but I'll share a small anecdote: I was over at a friend's place the other day and they had wanted to see some of my work, so I brought my meagre "portfolio". A couple wanted copies of pictures, but what I found interesting is that I had 2 examples of the same image- one as a negative scan printed on my printer, and one of the same negative done in my darkroom. There was an obvious preference to the traditional print. I had them also feel the difference between an RC and a Fibre print. They gained a small, new appreciation for what I do. I told them how I have an LF camera on the way as we speak. They couldn't wait to see it, and see photos I make with it. One woman expressed her interest in doing film photography, and they were all dimayed at the prospect of losing film as an artform. This was an older crowd however, and maybe more "artsy" you could say. Whether that's important, who knows.

Regarding your second point, I have also nurtured my sister-in-law toward film (she's 20, and pretty "artsy" too), and she's been taking classes. The chemical side of it never really seemed to be a factor. It wasn't with me either. I'm sure alot of people getting into film don't think they will be developing their own, but I wouldn't know. And if they do, nitrile gloves are cheap and thin enough not to hinder.

What was my point????? Oh yeah- getting work seen is crucial. People need to see and feel the difference to truly appreciate it. We can't just talk about it with them.

Moopheus · Jan 20, 2007

Alex Hawley said:
Here's another thought. I have an old Kodak 3A folding camera. The bellows is shot, the film size for it went extinct 35 years ago. It makes a post-card size negative which probably qualifies as large format but its not a large camera. It can be comfortably carried and hand-held. I found the user's manual on the 'Net one night and was astonished to discover that a plate holder had been available for these cameras as an option. OK, methinks, if I could somehow get or make a plate holder, this thing could become operable again.

When I was a wee tyke, my first photography teacher had one of those, and it was right around the time the film supply for it was drying up; I actually remember him telling me about buying up some of the last rolls available. I seem to recall that we actually did in fact use film cut from sheets in it; I have a picture of me that I'm pretty sure was made that way.

Sal Santamaura · Jan 20, 2007

Martin Reed said:
The nearest we'll ever get to that is with Ilford - for once there is a company run by 6 directors who know emulsion materials inside out, and worked their way up from the bottom in the original company. Forget about workers co-operatives, these products are too complex to make as a hobby or part-time career. And profit is the enabling force...

At 53 years old and childless, I concluded after it emerged from receivership that Ilford would be my supplier from now on. It's selfish, but I'm not convinced that first-tier quality black and white Ilford products will disappear before I'm unable to lift a camera. If things start to look bleak before then, I hope Simon and his fellow directors give sufficient notice to permit filling one or more freezers which will last until my end.

Ron, what you're trying to accomplish is laudable. Unfortunately, I believe the primary obstacle to your success -- which you'd probably define as a significant number of people possessing the requisite skill and tools to coat their own film/plates and paper -- is the very continued availability of commercial products. You're likely one or two generations too early. While a few folks are currently interested because they love knowledge and craft, most others lack the discressionary time to spend on photographing, much less making photographic materials. In my opinion, only when there are no alternatives left will substantial self-coating activity occur.

Actuarially, I believe neither Ron nor I will be around when that happens. Therefore, I strongly endorse the earlier suggestion. Ron, continue refining your techniques, then document resulting tools and methods in the most graphic detail possible. That would be your best hope to perpetuate chemical photography through future generations.

A question about future generations

copake_ham

firecracker

HerrBremerhaven

firecracker

Martin Reed

Advertiser

Jerevan

firecracker

Martin Reed

Advertiser

Martin Reed

Advertiser

Jerevan

FrankB

kjsphoto

Martin Reed

Advertiser

firecracker

Martin Reed

Advertiser

FrankB

Alex Hawley

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Paul.

timbo10ca

FrankB

timbo10ca

Moopheus

Sal Santamaura

A question about future generations

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency