That's because they're tearing the buildings down so fast that the satellite's shutter can't stop the motion.
(Sorry, I could not resist...)
KODACHROME a question for photo engineers.
-
A
- Thread starter alan doyle
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale NIKON FM10 70-210mm
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale 2 each 4x5 ground Glass
- Started by waynecrider
-
For Sale Film holders for Omega Chromega B Enlarger; For 35, 6x6 and slides
- Started by waynecrider
-
For Sale Whole plate film
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
Free Beseler Polycontrast Filters
- Started by mgb74
Forum statistics
That's because they're tearing the buildings down so fast that the satellite's shutter can't stop the motion.
(Sorry, I could not resist...)
Bingo.
It's very unusal when the customers are bitching because they LIKE the product and WANT to buy it.
("Oh, no! It's *customers*! Quick, turn out the lights and pretend no one's in -- maybe they'll take the hint and go away!")
Broken analogy. It's missing a crucial ingredient -- the REASON "the house is burning down."
Basically, they're shooing away pesky *customers* -- because they're hurting, because they don't have enough *sales*.
A better use of your metaphor would be the homeowner valliantly trying to put out the fire with a seltzer bottle -- and then turning around and spraying the firemen with it, and he yells at them to get away and stop bugging him, can't they see his house is on fire?
Yeah, that Ford, what a great guy! Gotta love 'im -- that is, IF you love anti-semitic oligarchs.
The thing is, I don't.
Go figure.
Less than *perfect*, is he?
Oh, the *humanity*!
Look up "grammar-cop nitpicking on Internet forums" -- try flexing your grammar-cop muscles on Usenet -- keep at it until you realize that even though some of us -- professional writers, even -- "type reel slopy" when dashing out comments -- it does not warrant The Grammar Police.
This is NOT a book -- or a magazine -- or even a newspaper.
I am accustomed to having editors fix my tyupoes. I try to catch the obvious ones, but frankly, I don't really give a damn, and neither does anyone else who realizes the nature of the medium.
I'll give you this much -- you don't go the full distance, and *edit* (ahem, "correct") QUOTED material. I've only seen *that* bit of Grammarcoppery on rare occasions, and the ossifer in question was lucky to flee with most of his tailfeathers slightly smoking.
In short, lay off the Grammar Cop scolding, and people might take YOU more seriously.
Seriously.
Not really.
Current ASA 400 Kodacolor (by whatever name) is sharper/finer grained than ASA 80 Kodacolor of a few decades ago, which in turn was sharper/finer grained than it's predecessor, IIRC ASA 32.
There is more involved than size of grains. One major factor is grain *geometry* (i.e., "T-griain"). Then, there are sensitizing dyes, 2-photon technology, etc. Films continually get sharper, finer grained, AND faster (presuming R&D continues).
It was not a case of Grammar Police. "iamzip" has a good point. I have trouble understanding some of the things Alan writes. If he does not exercise more care in his communication with Kodak, that might well be the reason he's not getting through to them. That's what iamzip said quite clearly and respectfully, and he might be right.
I did no such thing. "This is an interesting thread" were my words. I don't order people around.
How curious, since I have no problem at all comprehending his posts. Yet, it would seem that *you* on the other hand *do* have a bit of a problem with having *your* content misunderstood, judging by your following comment:
Well, in *that* case I stand corrected!
Clearly, you were NOT directing me to come here and check it out myself. You were merely expressing your personal joy at having read it yourself.
In a similar vein, I have nice shoes.
BTW, for your next exercize, research the terms "literal-minded" and "sarcasm."
Bye now.
I agree, as Fujichrome Provia 100F (1999) is finer-grained and sharper than Kodachrome 25 (1974), as Provia 400X (2006) has the same RMS value (11), but a higher resolution than Fujichrome RD(P)100 (1988), as Fujicolor Superia 800 (4th color layer) shows a granularity comparable to current 200 ASA speed films of other brands, and as current Fujicolor 400 bas been improved at least several orders of magnitude over Fujicolor F-II 400 (1976).
Ektar 100 is an excellent film, a miracle of film technology indeed, but I still prefer the Elite Chrome 100 slide film for its immediate color accuracy. I have also scanned Kodacolor (32 ASA, C-22), Kodacolor X (64 ASA, C-22), Kodacolor II (80 ASA, C-41), and early Kodacolor 400 to preserve some family memories, and Superia 800 clearly surpasses Kodacolor II.
But Kodachrome appears to have become obsolete mainly by its unique and time-consuming processing and by an at least similar quality of current E-6 films, which however have been optimized from the beginning for state-of-the-art reproduction technologies (if only publishers would appreciate the difference!).
No, I think you missed a point here yourself.
Kodak is still selling film, but I can no longer buy it or get it processed easily. This was not their choice for local businesses to quit purchasing products, it was the customer who quit in the first place.
Kodak is not responsible for the huge downturn in film sales. They stayed in there and are still in the market as it implodes all over the world. And, if you look carefully here on APUG there are complaints about the supply and response from many film companies including Ilford and Fuji. Thank God we have Simon here to straighten out some of the problems. But, at Kodak there are not enough people to commit time to do what he says and they don't want to do it either due to the strong negative vibes here on APUG.
Why become a posting member when the members are all going to blame the fire on you personally and start spraying seltzer on you?
PE
All you need is one customer relations liaison to handle external questions being answered by internal personnel. The ROI for that person could be exponentially good. Incidentally, some airline companies now have on staff customer relations people to exclusively handle irate customers whose experience was a disaster, whose luggage was damaged or stolen, and and whose experience all but would make them flee to a competitor. The airlines knew this was crucial to figure out what was wrong, and it seems to be working. They gave out flight vouchers to quell the qualm. Giving out a few rolls of film by comparison is remarkably less expensive, but it would comparatively go a long way to extend bona fide good will to the people who voluntarily offer their patronage to the company's products and services.
It can be done, PE. It's a matter of strategy planning and having a holistic head at the helm of the operation. Kodak definitely has the resources for this, a customer relations liaison (or "Chief Apology Officer"). Pretty much any publicly-traded company which deals with both consumers and vendors alike can do this -- particularly so if they're hurting and need to restore loyalty, faith, and reputation after past turbulence.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
- Messages
- 137
- Format
- Multi Format
film sales implode,that is understood.a difficult environment to do business in.
the question is why not the anger against fuji or ilford.
i called ilford 4 times last week and wow they even called me.
perfect friendly pro customer care.i called not for a chit chat but for business.
fuji is the same..some people will say ilford can afford to talk cos they are small and have nothing better to do.
i do not know what market cap of kodak v fuji is,but fuji do a better job with customers.
so the position is we are all nutters that just want to cause trouble.and pick on kodak.
kodak make some great products nobody wants them to go bankrupt.
but how about listening for a change.
if kodak do not engage with the few remaining customers.i would advise, they hive off the film division and do a deal with another company.this would make sense as they now like to call themselves a digital company.
the question is why not the anger against fuji or ilford.
i called ilford 4 times last week and wow they even called me.
perfect friendly pro customer care.i called not for a chit chat but for business.
fuji is the same..some people will say ilford can afford to talk cos they are small and have nothing better to do.
i do not know what market cap of kodak v fuji is,but fuji do a better job with customers.
so the position is we are all nutters that just want to cause trouble.and pick on kodak.
kodak make some great products nobody wants them to go bankrupt.
but how about listening for a change.
if kodak do not engage with the few remaining customers.i would advise, they hive off the film division and do a deal with another company.this would make sense as they now like to call themselves a digital company.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,816
- Format
- 35mm
Looking at the three best known names, my own impression is:-
Ilford -nailed their colors to the mast as specialist B&W suppliers. A small privately-owned and responsive company, with a fine reputation and loyal customers, who don't compete and dabble in anything that they're not good st.
Kodak - great company with great products, but run by business graduates rather than the people who know the products. This has resulted in their dabbling in too many competitive fields, and they are suffering along with many other big unresponsive corporations.
Fuji - totally reliable, but rather remote. But well positioned somewhere between film and digital, and successful in both fields (OK, I know their results are down at the moment, but name me a company that isn't!). The sort of "default" option that will always be around.
Just my impressions as an ordinary customer, no criticisms intended.
Ilford -nailed their colors to the mast as specialist B&W suppliers. A small privately-owned and responsive company, with a fine reputation and loyal customers, who don't compete and dabble in anything that they're not good st.
Kodak - great company with great products, but run by business graduates rather than the people who know the products. This has resulted in their dabbling in too many competitive fields, and they are suffering along with many other big unresponsive corporations.
Fuji - totally reliable, but rather remote. But well positioned somewhere between film and digital, and successful in both fields (OK, I know their results are down at the moment, but name me a company that isn't!). The sort of "default" option that will always be around.
Just my impressions as an ordinary customer, no criticisms intended.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,816
- Format
- 35mm
It's the same for any business:-
A satisfied customer rarely tells anyone...he's only got the goods or service he expected.
A dissatisfied customer will go to the competition, and tell the world.
It's the 10-to-1 rule:
10 people end up hearing via word of mouth one person's own bad experience.
10 people must have a good experience before the company ever hears about it.
10 people end up hearing via word of mouth one person's own bad experience.
10 people must have a good experience before the company ever hears about it.
This is what baffles me and sends me running from this place, the outright bitterness and nastiness.
I know for a fact that Kodak is not only reading this forum, but this very thread, I could name names and titles if I were an idiot. But there is no way I would send some poor soul on here to put up with some of the old school curmudgeonry that goes on here.
It's just not what I knew as photography or photographers as I grew up.
For a group of people who love film photography, quite a few seem to hate whatever they can get their opinions lumped on to...
Word.
Kodak has toll free numbers in virtually every major country and the service is, for the most part, excellent. I have heard of cases where Kodak has even called back.
As for keeping your head on straight at Kodak, well losing about 50% of the employees at the company has meant that a lot of experience and connected lines of business have been upset. Remember when Ilford became Harman, then there we some changes and disrupted communications. Simon helped out here and straightened things out.
Kodak has not. As noted above, EK people do visit and read APUG. I know that for a fact. I also know that they are not happy with all of the Kodak bashing. They are working hard to improve products and therefore you see the new B&W films with no UV, and the new Ektar 100. They are listening and they do know the market. Oh, you have the special order ULF material as well.
They have also done a lot behind the scenes that I am not at liberty to discuss but which have been of benefit to all of us.
PE
As for keeping your head on straight at Kodak, well losing about 50% of the employees at the company has meant that a lot of experience and connected lines of business have been upset. Remember when Ilford became Harman, then there we some changes and disrupted communications. Simon helped out here and straightened things out.
Kodak has not. As noted above, EK people do visit and read APUG. I know that for a fact. I also know that they are not happy with all of the Kodak bashing. They are working hard to improve products and therefore you see the new B&W films with no UV, and the new Ektar 100. They are listening and they do know the market. Oh, you have the special order ULF material as well.
They have also done a lot behind the scenes that I am not at liberty to discuss but which have been of benefit to all of us.
PE
This the age of the online world. Kodak has a web presence, and it can be using this communication mode to connect with consumers in the way it might hope with its toll free numbers . . . that is, the way it would in the 1980s.
By merely having a web site, this is not sufficient. Information architecture is pivotal here in order to make it possible for it to be a useful tool for both company and consumer. "Hunting" for a resource (like an email address, a department, a product line) should be immediate, unambiguous to locate, and in no way seemingly hidden from reach without being trained for library information science acrobatics (I happen to love librarians, but even they would say much the same thing here).
As it is, Kodak lacks even this, much less a direct consumer liaison known by name. This is basically a senseless falling upon one's own sword. And what's sad about it is it's not terribly honourable, either. From the persistently repeated sounds of it, the lack of a fertile, inventive mind at the executive level seems to be a big albatross in Rochester. Operating as if brand equity alone will carry the company through the tough times is not only reckless to organization and shareholders, but also needlessly arrogant. And that does trickle down to personnel who either get stuck in frustration of disempowerment from above and restive consumers outside, or they adopt the executive tone and operate aloof and dismissive themselves. Either way, the social chemistry of the enterprise fails to benefit.
And as you indicate, PE, I am aware at least with one personal anecdote of an old friend I used to know in Rochester (when I once actually lived there, Culver/Harvard reprayzint!) who went to Eastman Kodak to work with a digital optics group. He, a Ph.D. in optics, along with his 12 or so colleagues, worked under a senior optics expert who had been with the company much longer. Then his supervisor was wooed to competitor Seagate. Within months of that departure, at least seven from that group of 12 migrated to the Midwestern U.S. to work under that supervisor at Seagate, leaving Kodak's research division in that area a functional vacuum. So I raise this because I'm familiarized with the brain drain at Kodak. Nevertheless, from an operational and executive position, these kinds of out-migrations should be clarion calls, not a murmur of bad news. This particular story, incidentally, didn't recently happen, either, but rather in 1996-97. The brain drain is nothing new.
This tack is a matter of EK structural assessment. It is hardly a "bashing". And believe me, I know "bashing" when I see it. It's pretty bloody and violent, and none of you would want to be there to watch it happen.
By merely having a web site, this is not sufficient. Information architecture is pivotal here in order to make it possible for it to be a useful tool for both company and consumer. "Hunting" for a resource (like an email address, a department, a product line) should be immediate, unambiguous to locate, and in no way seemingly hidden from reach without being trained for library information science acrobatics (I happen to love librarians, but even they would say much the same thing here).
As it is, Kodak lacks even this, much less a direct consumer liaison known by name. This is basically a senseless falling upon one's own sword. And what's sad about it is it's not terribly honourable, either. From the persistently repeated sounds of it, the lack of a fertile, inventive mind at the executive level seems to be a big albatross in Rochester. Operating as if brand equity alone will carry the company through the tough times is not only reckless to organization and shareholders, but also needlessly arrogant. And that does trickle down to personnel who either get stuck in frustration of disempowerment from above and restive consumers outside, or they adopt the executive tone and operate aloof and dismissive themselves. Either way, the social chemistry of the enterprise fails to benefit.
And as you indicate, PE, I am aware at least with one personal anecdote of an old friend I used to know in Rochester (when I once actually lived there, Culver/Harvard reprayzint!) who went to Eastman Kodak to work with a digital optics group. He, a Ph.D. in optics, along with his 12 or so colleagues, worked under a senior optics expert who had been with the company much longer. Then his supervisor was wooed to competitor Seagate. Within months of that departure, at least seven from that group of 12 migrated to the Midwestern U.S. to work under that supervisor at Seagate, leaving Kodak's research division in that area a functional vacuum. So I raise this because I'm familiarized with the brain drain at Kodak. Nevertheless, from an operational and executive position, these kinds of out-migrations should be clarion calls, not a murmur of bad news. This particular story, incidentally, didn't recently happen, either, but rather in 1996-97. The brain drain is nothing new.
This tack is a matter of EK structural assessment. It is hardly a "bashing". And believe me, I know "bashing" when I see it. It's pretty bloody and violent, and none of you would want to be there to watch it happen.
Ron, are you referring here to the two-equivalent Dye Couplers -- which would mean that the Kodachrome Dyes are four-equivalent? I had thought that the two-equivalent Dyes were developed in the 1970s.
Regarding K25 problems, did these relate to non-uniform formation of Emulsion Layers (i.e. empty spots)? Wouldn't a thicker Emulsion Layer solve this problem?
I just love the arrogance that lies beneath some of these, and similar, tiresome thread "contributions" bashing Kodak or telling Kodak what it "should" do. That an international, multibillion-dollar enterprise needs advice from some of the "experts" here on how to run its business is beyond absurd. As if Kodak has decided to discontinue out of pure spite the very product you can't get by without, because it's a dumb, evil, BIG corporation. What it IS, is a colossal global enterprise trying to navigate its way through years of wrenching change in the marketplace it has always served, and served well.
What really seems to underlie the bitching and bashing are several themes:
a spoiled sense of entitlement, manifest as disbelief that Kodak would dare discontinue someone's beloved pet product, and as the notion that one should simply be able to ring up Mr. Perez with a few management pointers, as if you could possibly know something about Kodak that has so far eluded him;
a complete lack of any idea how hard it is to run a very large business;
a general anti-business bias, which holds that the Large Corporation is an inherently evil, environment-destroying, customer-alienating, shareholder-cheating, employee-screwing cabal, rather than what it actually is: a collective enterprise devoted to increasing its shareholders' wealth by serving, as best as it can, its customers' needs.
If I were a person in the know at Kodak I'm not sure whether I'd be more amused or dismayed at reading this sort of crap here; I'd sure as hell not put myself out very far trying to be helpful in this environment.
It's really quite simple, as Ron and a few others here whose heads are not lodged up their a--es have with great patience tried to explain:
fewer people are buying film;
Kodak therefore sells less film than in the past, and has to alter its structure and behavior to reflect a shrunken market;
investment capital naturally flows to its most profitable use (which some of the whiners here REALLY hate);
Kodak has to make products they can sell at a sufficient profit to maximize shareholders' ROI, in order to continue to attract capital;
Kodak's management is better positioned than the pontificators here to know what those products are;
Doing all of these things well is VERY HARD, with incomplete information and no firm historical precedent to draw upon, and the failure to do them well as often reflects human limitations as it does malice or incompetence.
We customers really have it easy; all we have to do is BUY the stuff we want from Kodak, and if enough people do the same, then they'll keep making it. If and when they stop making it, we find a substitute and go on with our lives.
We can leave running Kodak to Kodak's executives, until Kodak's shareholders---through its board of directors---sees fit to replace them with new management.
What really seems to underlie the bitching and bashing are several themes:
a spoiled sense of entitlement, manifest as disbelief that Kodak would dare discontinue someone's beloved pet product, and as the notion that one should simply be able to ring up Mr. Perez with a few management pointers, as if you could possibly know something about Kodak that has so far eluded him;
a complete lack of any idea how hard it is to run a very large business;
a general anti-business bias, which holds that the Large Corporation is an inherently evil, environment-destroying, customer-alienating, shareholder-cheating, employee-screwing cabal, rather than what it actually is: a collective enterprise devoted to increasing its shareholders' wealth by serving, as best as it can, its customers' needs.
If I were a person in the know at Kodak I'm not sure whether I'd be more amused or dismayed at reading this sort of crap here; I'd sure as hell not put myself out very far trying to be helpful in this environment.
It's really quite simple, as Ron and a few others here whose heads are not lodged up their a--es have with great patience tried to explain:
fewer people are buying film;
Kodak therefore sells less film than in the past, and has to alter its structure and behavior to reflect a shrunken market;
investment capital naturally flows to its most profitable use (which some of the whiners here REALLY hate);
Kodak has to make products they can sell at a sufficient profit to maximize shareholders' ROI, in order to continue to attract capital;
Kodak's management is better positioned than the pontificators here to know what those products are;
Doing all of these things well is VERY HARD, with incomplete information and no firm historical precedent to draw upon, and the failure to do them well as often reflects human limitations as it does malice or incompetence.
We customers really have it easy; all we have to do is BUY the stuff we want from Kodak, and if enough people do the same, then they'll keep making it. If and when they stop making it, we find a substitute and go on with our lives.
We can leave running Kodak to Kodak's executives, until Kodak's shareholders---through its board of directors---sees fit to replace them with new management.
Terry;
Two electron sensitization and two equivalent couplers are totally different areas. One involves physical chemistry and the other invovles organic chemistry. AAMOF, at the present time, the Kodachrome couplers are 2 equivalent, but that is beside the point. They went that way in order to eliminate the Ferricyanide bleach.
As for thickening layers, that decreases sharpness. It would no longer be K25 then, would it?
PE
Mike;
You present a well reasoned argument that I agree totally with. I might add that I don't agree with a lot of the things that Kodak does myself, and actually I would try to get a person on-line to handle things in a manner similar to Simon Galley! But, as you say, the people at Kodak are sometimes amused, sometimes mystified, and sometimes horrified by what goes on here on APUG and elsewhere.
To put a person on-line like Simon, it takes 2x the average person's salary to suppor them. So, if a person were to make $40,000 / year, the cost to Kodak for office, benefits, computer, lights and etc, prorated bring this to $80,000. Now, that person must know a lot about all products to do this type of job, so he/she needs up front training. That is another expense that can cost up to $100,000 before the person goes on-line on the job.
So, the total ROI on your expert has to be a demonstrable $80,000 + prorated continuing education and perhaps an understudy or two to take care of vacations and etc. This is the type of uptic you must see in your corporate ledger book. Maybe the facts don't show that type of justification. IDK.
I'll just repeat, that if I were in authority there, a person would be assigned to APUG and Photo Net along with other SIGs on analog photography just to trouble shoot and listen to you guys. At least that would shut up a lot of b****ing and do a lot for customer relations!
PE
You present a well reasoned argument that I agree totally with. I might add that I don't agree with a lot of the things that Kodak does myself, and actually I would try to get a person on-line to handle things in a manner similar to Simon Galley! But, as you say, the people at Kodak are sometimes amused, sometimes mystified, and sometimes horrified by what goes on here on APUG and elsewhere.
To put a person on-line like Simon, it takes 2x the average person's salary to suppor them. So, if a person were to make $40,000 / year, the cost to Kodak for office, benefits, computer, lights and etc, prorated bring this to $80,000. Now, that person must know a lot about all products to do this type of job, so he/she needs up front training. That is another expense that can cost up to $100,000 before the person goes on-line on the job.
So, the total ROI on your expert has to be a demonstrable $80,000 + prorated continuing education and perhaps an understudy or two to take care of vacations and etc. This is the type of uptic you must see in your corporate ledger book. Maybe the facts don't show that type of justification. IDK.
I'll just repeat, that if I were in authority there, a person would be assigned to APUG and Photo Net along with other SIGs on analog photography just to trouble shoot and listen to you guys. At least that would shut up a lot of b****ing and do a lot for customer relations!
PE
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
- Messages
- 137
- Format
- Multi Format
i am not a business man i am a punter a customer.
or i was a customer,all i want is a basic customer service that is accurate.
if i have to speak to 14 different people and am bounced from ny to la i am going to get tired.
especially when i have asked for pro stills sales..when these people insist that kodachrome is not available any more,then you want to give up.
if you then have to send emails of web pages showing that k64 still exists and then you get an email like this.
Hi Alan,
I spoke the person who is familiar with still film and could best answer the question. They said there is no more Kodachrome at Kodak.
I am sorry that I have to give you a negative answer.
Best,
i called up the company not to rant but to ask them about a product which is on the updated website.
i wanted to buy a lot of product..and wanted to talk logistics.
various people in the uk and the states had my tel and email details and still know contact apart from the incorrect email above.
quote.
a spoiled sense of entitlement, manifest as disbelief that Kodak would dare discontinue someone's beloved pet product, and as the notion that one should simply be able to ring up Mr. Perez with a few management pointers.
i tried to contact the chief execs office to complain about bad customer service..as a men interested in sales i thought one of his people might like to know about problems customers were having.
kodachrome 64 is not a discotinued product,it is still being made that is the official position.
i live in london for a long time i had american friends moaning about terrible british customer service,because americans are world leaders in customer service.
those damn customers why don't they stop complaining and go away..some of us are going away.
i will not comment on my experience any more as it is boring and done,but i felt mike sebs comments directly related to myself.clearly passions run high here i do not want this company to end up as a re-badge company like polaroid.
or i was a customer,all i want is a basic customer service that is accurate.
if i have to speak to 14 different people and am bounced from ny to la i am going to get tired.
especially when i have asked for pro stills sales..when these people insist that kodachrome is not available any more,then you want to give up.
if you then have to send emails of web pages showing that k64 still exists and then you get an email like this.
Hi Alan,
I spoke the person who is familiar with still film and could best answer the question. They said there is no more Kodachrome at Kodak.
I am sorry that I have to give you a negative answer.
Best,
i called up the company not to rant but to ask them about a product which is on the updated website.
i wanted to buy a lot of product..and wanted to talk logistics.
various people in the uk and the states had my tel and email details and still know contact apart from the incorrect email above.
quote.
a spoiled sense of entitlement, manifest as disbelief that Kodak would dare discontinue someone's beloved pet product, and as the notion that one should simply be able to ring up Mr. Perez with a few management pointers.
i tried to contact the chief execs office to complain about bad customer service..as a men interested in sales i thought one of his people might like to know about problems customers were having.
kodachrome 64 is not a discotinued product,it is still being made that is the official position.
i live in london for a long time i had american friends moaning about terrible british customer service,because americans are world leaders in customer service.
those damn customers why don't they stop complaining and go away..some of us are going away.
i will not comment on my experience any more as it is boring and done,but i felt mike sebs comments directly related to myself.clearly passions run high here i do not want this company to end up as a re-badge company like polaroid.
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |