Old 03-28-2014, 11:02 PM   #1
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb RP Induced Limits on the Art of RR Photography

Evidence that RP continues to be rooted in a "cookie cutter" approach to RR photography - the wholesale ban on "darkside" images.

Too bad too, since it just keeps the railfaning world shooting sunny side wedgies.

Reason(s) for Rejection:
- Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough light on the nose or visible sides of the subject.


Last edited by Holloran Grade; 03-28-2014 at 11:24 PM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 12:36 AM   #2
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Old issue, nothing new to be said here.

Nasty oversharpening!
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 01:03 AM   #3
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Well, without regard to the image you presented, that's a true statement. I don't think it's intentional...but it's a real issue, and a problem, I think.

In particular, we have a lot of young photographers who place a ridiculous priority on having an image accepted to RP.net---to the point they only mimic what they see as "acceptable."

There are few boundaries in creative photography, be it trains or anything else. Of course there are technical issues, but that's to be understood. One of the very best railroad photographers in this country--Blair Kooistra--made this point in the latest issue of Railroad Heritage, the magazine of the Center for Railroad Photography and Art at Lake Forest, IL:

...Kooistra is also amused by what he considers another fuss, this one over "noise" in digital photography. Again thinking back, 'It being Seattle with a lot of overcast, I'd shoot a lot of Tri-X 400 (film). And then I would push it to 1600. It amuses me now that everyone is all upset about seeing grain in photographs, and noise. But to me, coming from that era, grain means honesty and reality. You were in that low light. You were dealing with it. This is what happened."

Of course I strongly agree, particularly since I shot Tri-X in the '60s and early '70s. The heavy grain of those films is an integral part of the artistic statement, and yet if I try to upload a grainy--but otherwise quite interesting shot from the late '60s, more often than not, it will be rejected because of "noise." (I was gigged the other day for "bad cropping" on a '60s-era shot, and I'll admit I threw a damn hissy fit---screaming like a girl! We had a nice discussion, and it was eventually accepted, and all parties shook hands and moved on. I don't usually behave in that manner, but it really irked me at that moment. I know others have felt the same way at times--because none of us like to have our creative efforts questioned. Of course it's "their" site----I do know and understand that.)

This is perplexing to many of the most accomplished railroad photographers from the last 50 years. It's an example of not seeing the forest, but only the trees.

I know a heavy percentage of folks who post to and/or follow RP.net couldn't give a flying "f" about "art"---they're only interested in nice looking choo-choo images. And while there are quite a few very creative images on this site, most of them are fairly pedestrian (and many of those are my shots!!).

But---I've spoken to this before, and I feel I'm only standing in an open field at night and speaking to the darkness...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 01:06 AM   #4
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 638
Default

Am I the only one who can't see the OP's original image?

EDIT: Never mind, now I can!
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 01:14 AM   #5
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

I can see it. The dark side has been lightened excessively (probably in an effort to appease the screeners)---and it ruins an otherwise good shot.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 02:18 AM   #6
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,718
Default

As long as you allow someone else to judge your work, and you take issue with their judgement, your creativity will be somewhat stifled by the desire to not have it happen again.

I submit what I submit once. If it's not a glaring technical screwup that I missed, I will not resubmit it. My creativity is intact, along with my sanity.

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 02:51 AM   #7
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Okay. But there's nothing even remotely creative about that image.....

So, a sunny side wedgie would look a lot better than this.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 03:57 AM   #8
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSX1702 View Post
Okay. But there's nothing even remotely creative about that image.....

So, a sunny side wedgie would look a lot better than this.
Oh...I'm not nuts about the image itself. I was just discussing the creativity issue.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 03:59 AM   #9
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
As long as you allow someone else to judge your work, and you take issue with their judgement, your creativity will be somewhat stifled by the desire to not have it happen again.

I submit what I submit once. If it's not a glaring technical screwup that I missed, I will not resubmit it. My creativity is intact, along with my sanity.

Loyd L.
Very wise words, Loyd. And, if you can't stand rejection, it might be better to not submit anything to RP.net. However, I will always think they should lighten up on some of the more conventional aspects of their standards.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 05:34 AM   #10
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
Oh...I'm not nuts about the image itself. I was just discussing the creativity issue.
Gotcha. Lol. I was just wondering why HG was implying he thought this was a good shot.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 05:53 AM   #11
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
In particular, we have a lot of young photographers who place a ridiculous priority on having an image accepted to RP.net---to the point they only mimic what they see as "acceptable."

We had a nice discussion, and it was eventually accepted, and all parties shook hands and moved on. I don't usually behave in that manner, but it really irked me at that moment. I know others have felt the same way at times--because none of us like to have our creative efforts questioned. Of course it's "their" site----I do know and understand that.

But---I've spoken to this before, and I feel I'm only standing in an open field at night and speaking to the darkness...
I see you Ron!

Reading through your thoughts, I have a few of my own:

In regards to the ever so tiresome "It's their site...." line;

I have the perfect fix. Instead of Railpicture.net "The BEST railroad photos on the net", they could change it to "Railpictures.net "Some of our FAVORITE railroad photos on the net". If it were that, then it would all make sense. Not only that, but NO ONE could argue about a rejected photo. I mean, after all - it's more then obvious that it's their site for their favorite pics. Who's gonna argue that they should have to like your image? The issue is that it is advertised as "the BEST railroad photos on the net" and I think that's why many take issue. This is exacerbated when we see on routine, some really poor images accepted or worse, rejected images that seem identical to previously and soon to be again accepted images.

You are correct in your observation that some folks place ridiculous priorities on getting an image onto RP and will even change their style to get accepted but perhaps you overlook one of RP's greatest failings - those who must stunt their growth after finally getting established on RP. Is it like an internship here? Once you get past the basics, you are asked to move on? After 50, 100 or perhaps 200 or so photos, most photographers have developed a style and having admin try to censor it leaves many with little option but to leave. It's their site but at some point, it happens to become their site sharing OUR vision of OUR photography.

I'll add my own personal observation that RP has grown into a public treasure of sorts - past a "fun" on line photo club. It's potential as a database has become invaluable to railfans, photographers and preservationist. It's hard to watch that asset falter. The potential is immeasurable.

I think your "working" relationship with admin has made it easier to keep calm as most of us would rarely get a "handshake" let alone a returned correspondence - something that long ago it would seem many, myself included, once enjoyed, if not just by a presence within the forums.

/Mitch

PS - I could not agree with you more regarding your suggestion to admin to loosen the reigns a bit - a suggestion that long ago and more then once made it onto my "admin suggestions list".
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 08:48 AM   #12
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Default My Dissertation on the Future of RR Photography

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
In particular, we have a lot of young photographers who place a ridiculous priority on having an image accepted to RP.net---to the point they only mimic what they see as "acceptable."
I agree and it is very unfortunate because the end result will be most of the photos from here on out will look the same - sunny 3/4 wedgies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
...Kooistra is also amused by what he considers another fuss, this one over "noise" in digital photography. Again thinking back, 'It being Seattle with a lot of overcast, I'd shoot a lot of Tri-X 400 (film). And then I would push it to 1600. It amuses me now that everyone is all upset about seeing grain in photographs, and noise. But to me, coming from that era, grain means honesty and reality. You were in that low light. You were dealing with it. This is what happened."

Of course I strongly agree, particularly since I shot Tri-X in the '60s and early '70s. The heavy grain of those films is an integral part of the artistic statement, and yet if I try to upload a grainy--but otherwise quite interesting shot from the late '60s, more often than not, it will be rejected because of "noise."
Yet another fault in addition to the apparent hard rule of no dark side images.

Does it not occur to anyone that there is a reason that most photo editing programs including those as basic as are found on phones, would have a sub program that will introduce "grain" into a digital image?

Why is grain such a no no at RP?

Sure there are instances where the "grain" (really noise) is in an image unintentionally, and the image as a whole is of low quality, but if the person taking the photo wanted to enhance that effect, why is that a bar to it's inclusion into the DB?

People always talk about O Winston Link and Richard Steinheimer and how their work is roughly the standard of this genera of photography, but the reality is that, had they submitted photos to this Site, their work would not be seen for the most part unless their name was also attached to each submission.

And there can be no question that certain sources of contributions to the DB have a veritable free pass with what they submit, one needs to look no further than some of the images proffered by a certain corporation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
(I was gigged the other day for "bad cropping" on a '60s-era shot, and I'll admit I threw a damn hissy fit---screaming like a girl!
Yes, I find this, and the "bad composition/balance" rejections to be the most annoying.

Sure, when I first started submitting photos to this Site my photos were not cropped and balanced correctly (in the RP sense anyway) but after hundreds of submissions (based on the fact that I have a high rejection rate and 380 successful submissions) I think I have a pretty good handle by now, on what it takes to get an image accepted.

An example of the bad composition/balance rejection and it's this arbitrary application is this shot.



Like Ron, I was annoyed at the rejection, because the image is as it is, because that is what "I" wanted to show ya'all.

Now with a roster shot, or a wedgie, sure, there is a specific method more or less to present that type of subject, but this is a dark hole in the side of a hill, with some RR tracks and an old signal that I wanted to silhouette against the blue sky for crying out loud.

In this instance there is no right, or wrong way to present these subjects.

Sure, some compositions look better than others, but by the comments and view numbers on this image, I was at least successful in getting people to at least look at the picture - which at this point is the only reason I continue to play this silly game.

Admittedly, I am a view whore and I enjoy producing images that cause people to look and perhaps think about what they are looking at, whether they be good thoughts, or bad.

If one of my images makes the viewer think, then I believe am successful as an artist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
We had a nice discussion,
I really don't see that ever happening with me.

I live far away from Mt. Olympus and the Gods don't favor us desert rats.

If they won't talk to Mitch, geeze.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
This is perplexing to many of the most accomplished railroad photographers from the last 50 years. It's an example of not seeing the forest, but only the trees.
I think Mitch has seized upon the holy grail of this on-going and circuitous discussion:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
....... Instead of Railpicture.net "The BEST railroad photos on the net", they could change it to "Railpictures.net "Some of our FAVORITE railroad photos on the net"........
Talk about "having a moment of clarity," the guy is a genius.

I don't know why I didn't see this before (really I did, but I thought I was just being sour grapes by alleging such a premise) but it sure makes everything make a lot more sense as far as the seemingly inconsistent screening process and the appearance of favoritism bestowed on certain contributors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
I know a heavy percentage of folks who post to and/or follow RP.net couldn't give a flying "f" about "art"---they're only interested in nice looking choo-choo images. .
Yes, and through my Carrizo Gorge series I have come to realize how just many of the people that view the photos on a daily basis, don't actually post any photos of their own, and consequently have no idea how much grief we go through just to get a few choo choo photos in the DB.

I just love how the comments, or the private e-mails that say "love the images, keep them coming" and yet, they have no idea that a lot of these images were added ad hoc, or by playing screener roulette.

People think this is like Rail Road Pictures Archives where I can post as much as I have on a certain subject.

What it comes down to, is I will post as many pictures as they will let me - and people have no clue that is what is going on.


An example of this process is evidenced by this photo.




This was rejected in two different compositions for PEQ, as was a few of the other Carrizo images.

And yet, if it ever gets accepted, I would bet it will be a top 4 of 24 like all the other abandon RR shots that apparently RP does not want to publish.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
And while there are quite a few very creative images on this site, most of them are fairly pedestrian (and many of those are my shots!!).
I am fascinated by the people who take hundreds of photos and upload them to the DB, and yet they all look mostly the same.

They have no night shots, no people shots, no images that tell a story, no historical, or vacation shots, rather they are happy to just stand along the tracks and wait for the train to come by time, after time, after time.

To each his own, but I really wonder why I am doing this since it is so much easier to just shoot hundreds of shots that look like this and call it a portfolio.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
But---I've spoken to this before, and I feel I'm only standing in an open field at night and speaking to the darkness...
Well in conclusion Ron, next time you're out in that field in the dark, take solace in knowing that there is at least one other idiot also speaking into the darkness with you, only he's just in another field.

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 03-29-2014 at 09:10 AM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 09:19 AM   #13
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb What the Hell is a "Personal Collection?"

Oh, and this is what the original image looks like in my personal collection - whatever that is.

Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 01:21 PM   #14
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSX1702 View Post
Gotcha. Lol. I was just wondering why HG was implying he thought this was a good shot.
ha ha ha
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 01:30 PM   #15
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
I can see it. The dark side has been lightened excessively (probably in an effort to appease the screeners)---and it ruins an otherwise good shot.
I wasnt going to comment because he was trying to make a point, but damn, you went so crazy with the shadow and highlights tool that it was glowing so much it looked like the right side of the lead unit was chrome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSX1702 View Post
Okay. But there's nothing even remotely creative about that image.....So, a sunny side wedgie would look a lot better than this.
And since I took the effort to post, I might as well do it right. ^ correct

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
I agree and it is very unfortunate because the end result will be most of the photos from here on out will look the same - sunny 3/4 wedgies. Yet another fault in addition to the apparent hard rule of no dark side images.
Actually while there is a rule against dark side images. the screeners are blatantly inconsistent with their application of this rule. Most of the time, they let their buddies, or well known photographers have Carte Blanche when it comes to breaking the rules. Sometimes it is an exceptional picture, sometimes not. Screener insonsistency again... I can give you example after example. But you already know this.

Last edited by troy12n; 03-29-2014 at 01:34 PM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 03:01 PM   #16
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Wow....so many deep and wonderful thoughts, fellows...I don't really know how to respond, except to say, well done! Variously, Mitch's suggestion about changing the slogan of the site is brilliant. And....El Roco's original dark side shot (without alteration) is quite good. I would have accepted that, hands down.

And...I thought El Roco's Carrizo Gorge series was some of the best work he's done. Now, I feel cheated because I didn't get to see that tunnel shot (until now)---or the wye at Ferrum. Those are all outstanding shots, and they should have been accepted.

I might have a good relationship with some of the guys at RP.net, but I get gigged too. Admittedly, I've improved my scanning (for old slides) and Photoshop skills, so it's a bit of a learning process. However, I have NOT (and will not) change my shooting style to appease anyone. At my age (66), it's unlikely I'll change anything---except my underwear, which I have to change more frequently than when I was a young guy.

I just finished scanning some slides from a big Loggan box from 1994 (mostly NS stuff). I may upload them later today. I notice there are a few dark side images in the group----GASP!!!

You guys get a A plus in the wisdom class from me...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 03:56 PM   #17
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
I see you Ron!


...I'll add my own personal observation that RP has grown into a public treasure of sorts - past a "fun" on line photo club. It's potential as a database has become invaluable to railfans, photographers and preservationist. It's hard to watch that asset falter. The potential is immeasurable...
You are particularly correct here, Mitch. I use it all the time to find things. Also--the point someone made (can't recall) about all the folks who never post, don't care about all the snot slinging madness, etc.--but just visit the site to look at the images is right on target. I hear from them all the time. Most of the gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and pulling of hair we discuss is invisible to them---and they probably wouldn't have any interest in these debates at all.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2014, 04:21 AM   #18
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Dark side shot someone got on

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/475580
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2014, 06:15 AM   #19
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Oh, and this is what the original image looks like in my personal collection - whatever that is.

Looks pretty close in your personal RP collection too!
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/475755

Glad to see somebody saw the light in the dark side.
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2014, 04:29 PM   #20
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Dark side shot someone got on

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/475580
That's a 1982 shot. The screeners are far more forgiving for old (and neat) content such as this. You can't shoot it today...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2014, 07:33 PM   #21
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
That's a 1982 shot. The screeners are far more forgiving for old (and neat) content such as this. You can't shoot it today...
That argument is not valid - I have a shot (maybe more) that could not get in on appeal previously yet slid right into the database months, if not years later, no questions asked.

It's great that admin loosens up the reigns (cloudy days shots, back lit, side lit, abstract, cropping and such) but it sure creates a lot of animosity when they hit the reset button.

/Mitch

EDIT - Read you wrong, Ron. You meant the admin is more forgiving in it's adherence to it's guidelines if the subject is no longer there to be captured yet I submitted photos from EBT both before and then a couple of months after the sudden and unexpected scrapping of abandoned US Army box cars and saw zero tolerance despite past appeal in the series prior.

Last edited by Mgoldman; 03-30-2014 at 09:43 PM.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 03:00 PM   #22
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Talking

I am fascinated that they took this one - there may be hope yet.

Nice to get the "Flanery" stamp of approval - thanks Ron.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2014, 01:10 AM   #23
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
I am fascinated that they took this one -
I am too. If I were a screener, I would have rejected it for, "Not trying hard enough: Come on, you're in the desert, surely you can come up with a much better scene than a boring wedgie."

JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2014, 01:43 AM   #24
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I am too. If I were a screener, I would have rejected it for, "Not trying hard enough: Come on, you're in the desert, surely you can come up with a much better scene than a boring wedgie."

Actually, no I couldn't.

That desert is really flat and there is nothing out there for miles.

I am contemplating going back out there on the solstice to see if we can get a train and the dunes, but that is going to be a long shot, and a potentially dangerous undertaking since that spot is twenty miles off the pavement at a place that is already another thirty miles out of Yuma or El Centro and day time temperatures are 115-120 degrees.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2014, 01:54 AM   #25
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Actually, no I couldn't.

That desert is really flat and there is nothing out there for miles.
http://www.atoolshed.com/equipment.a...ry=57&key=5771


Quote:
I am contemplating going back out there on the solstice to see if we can get a train and the dunes, but that is going to be a long shot, and a potentially dangerous undertaking since that spot is twenty miles off the pavement at a place that is already another thirty miles out of Yuma or El Centro and day time temperatures are 115-120 degrees.
That sounds like a challenge. I am sure you are up for it. Go big or go home!
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.