Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on May 11, 2013, 02:00:57 pm

Title: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 11, 2013, 02:00:57 pm
.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: William Walker on May 11, 2013, 02:23:33 pm
Hi Russ

This is the kind of landscape I appreciate, so, naturally, I like it.

I like the composition with the house and the line of trees, I like the tones.

The foreground seems to me to be over-sharpened, it appears to be quite "crunchy" - or is it my monitor?

Was this taken on your way back to Colorado? Where in the USA is this?

Regards
William
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: amolitor on May 11, 2013, 03:39:16 pm
Spot on. This is excellent. Technically superb, and a very nice composition. While there are elements that I had to think about to be sure of, everything I see needs to be there (with the exception of the sensor dust spot in the sky on the right edge, about half way up!)

I did mentally subtract a little acutance, since as I recall you're always preparing output for print rather than the web, but that was pretty easy.

My only quibble is entirely personal, and it is that I find pure landscapes (even of this sort) to be not very interesting. I'd hang a copy of this without hesitation, though. I hang as much for decor as for introspection.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 11, 2013, 07:41:49 pm
How embarrassing. Thanks Andrew. The sensor dirt doesn't show up in the color version and I didn't check it carefully enough after I made the B&W conversion. Worse yet, I know better.

And William: Yes. I shot it yesterday -- about ten minutes west of Limon on US 24 in Colorado. I have another shot of that place from last year -- in color, with cows lounging around in the yard. Don't have time at the moment to dig it out and post it.

The jpeg looks crunchy and it's probably over-sharpened for posting. I made an 11 x 14 print before I reduced the shot for posting. Neither the PSD version nor the print appear over-sharpened, but jpeg conversion always brings out the worst.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on May 12, 2013, 03:21:47 am
It's a fine shot, Russ, conveying abandonment and desolation. I'd like it more without the fragment of road in the bottom left corner.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Rob C on May 12, 2013, 04:42:04 am
I liked the double row of fencing: just like another form of war zone; I wonder if they had it mined?

Those old buildings redolent of lost lives and livings (I think the structure is abandoned) always carry a message, even if the surrounding farmland is currently being cultivated. There is still a presence of death in the air.

To ease a writer's pain at the trace of road: the only way to avoid that, were there free space on the right of the image, would be to place the building further to the left. My favourite second-guess of the day - hope I make no more!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 12, 2013, 09:42:49 am
It's a fine shot, Russ, conveying abandonment and desolation. I'd like it more without the fragment of road in the bottom left corner.

Jeremy
I agree, but the bit of road doesn't bother me as much as it does Jeremy. I suspect that if you had moved closer to the fence to omit the road, the lines of the fence and trees would not divide the space nearly as nicely.

Eric
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 12, 2013, 11:50:46 am
Thanks Eric. I've been conflicted about the road ever since I stepped out of the car to make the picture. In the end, I agree with you. In fact, I even think that chunk of road needs to be there. But even if I'd been concerned about having the road in the picture there wasn't any way to exclude it without chopping the trees on camera left. Those stark trees that provide a leading line pointing downward toward the abandoned rancher's house were the main reason I stopped to make the shot. As it was, being conflicted about the road, I cut off part of the limb on the leftmost tree. Probably shouldn't have done that.

And Rob, if you lived on the Colorado plains during the winter you'd know why that second fence is there. It's a snow fence, and it helps keep the highway clear of drifts. Emphasis is on the word "helps."

Here's the same place last year -- about 4 days earlier in May. The drought wasn't quite as bad then. The trees look "crunchy" to me, but they weren't crunchy before I converted to jpeg.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: amolitor on May 12, 2013, 12:43:13 pm
I think the road is mandatory. It's a different picture without it, and a much lesser one. Not a BAD one at all, but it's tending far more toward very ordinary.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Riaan van Wyk on May 12, 2013, 12:47:05 pm
I think the road is mandatory.

Same here Russ. Always saddens me to see house like these, left to themselves.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 12, 2013, 02:28:48 pm
Looks like a great subject to stop by next time and explore from various angles.

Here is my take, if you do not mind:
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: nemo295 on May 12, 2013, 03:05:12 pm
I hate to say it, Russ, but I think Slobodan's edit is pretty darn good. It pares down the composition to its essential elements and the result is a more powerful image. The darker tonalities, vignetting and coarse grain also add nicely to the overall effect.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on May 12, 2013, 03:08:58 pm
Here is my take, if you do not mind:

That is a truly astonishing edit, Slobodan - congratulations! I think you might have been just a touch heavy-handed with the grain, though.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 12, 2013, 03:13:37 pm
...  think you might have been just a touch heavy-handed with the grain, though...

Quite possible. Grain is like spices... season to taste.

However, there was one overriding reason I used it so much: I moved the sliders till the initial crunchiness in Russ' jpeg conversion disappeared (i.e., the grain filled-in those white halos) ;)
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: amolitor on May 12, 2013, 03:33:22 pm
Slobodan's picture is nice, but it's a completely different picture. It feels slightly eldrith,  little spooky. It's all about the building, and the rest is just context. It could be a horror movie still.

Russ's photograph is about sweep of lines, about desolation and abandonment. The building is just an element that fits with several other elements to create a mood and an idea. The road it vital, for me, because it provides an edge to the composition which is threatening to sweep off to the upper left forever, AND because it provides a hint of the larger world, of that which has abandoned, which has departed.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Peter McLennan on May 12, 2013, 04:01:34 pm
WAY better, Slobodan. 

'Cept the structure is pretty well centered.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Rob C on May 12, 2013, 04:35:05 pm
Interesting; even current owners of  Hasselblad 6x6 are now reverting to a little Hasselfake on the side.

Rob C
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 12, 2013, 06:30:49 pm
Interesting; even current owners of  Hasselblad 6x6 are now reverting to a little Hasselfake on the side.

Rob C

Yeah, Rob... all habits die hard :)
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 12, 2013, 07:52:18 pm
... it's a completely different picture...

True.

The point of posting such a radically different picture is not to prove Russ wrong, but to indicate the range of possible interpretations of the same scene.

There is much to like about Russ' version. The high-key tonality ("the unbearable lightness of being" comes to mind for some reason), the road, abandonment, departure, fences... And some elements that bother me: main subject placed too central in a rectangular format; the degree of road visibility (I kinda want to see either less or more of it); foreground (too much or too little of it?). In other words, plenty of good elements, but somehow competing with each other, i.e., not completely sure they fall into place in the most optimal way.

I was just two days ago visiting the latest Michael Kenna exhibition in the Edelman Gallery in Chicago. One of the things that caught my eye is how often he resorts to placing the center of interest... centrally. What does not seem to work in a rectangular format, seems to work splendidly in a square (I can see Rob nodding in agreement).

So I took one good element (of many) in Russ' image and tried to make the most of it by placing it into its natural format: square. The rest of it, tonality, etc. is just my personal idea of abandonment, the very concept of which has a deep psychological impact on me (childhood traumas, I guess).
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 12, 2013, 07:54:07 pm
Looks like a great subject to stop by next time and explore from various angles.

Here is my take, if you do not mind:

By now you ought to know that I never mind, Slobodan, and I always like to see what you're suggesting instead of being told about it. The ability to do that is one of the things that makes LuLa such a great site.

I like your crop, but as Andrew pointed out it's a completely different picture. I had a 24-120 on the D800 when I made the shot, but there was a 70-200 in the car that I could have swapped for and made the kind of picture you're suggesting: one that focusses on the house rather than the house in the context of the trees. One thing I wanted to emphasize when I made the shot was the delicate limbs of the barely starting to leaf out, trees. That gets lost in your version. The family that occupied that house is gone, but the trees are about to spring into life and produce the kind of resurrection that's there in last-year's picture.

Again, your crop is good, but it's a completely different picture about a completely different subject.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 12, 2013, 07:56:58 pm
Funny Russ, we posted our comments only two minutes apart, and I guess you did not have the chance to read mine (which basically agrees with yours and Andrew's point).
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: wolfnowl on May 12, 2013, 08:33:51 pm
Great image, Russ.  I like Slobodan's image as well, but as mentioned, they're completely different images.  Your image does look a little oversharpened in the foreground - jpg compression for sure - but at the same time it almost adds to the 'dustbowl' effect - the plants dried to a crisp.

Mike.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 12, 2013, 09:22:20 pm
Funny Russ, we posted our comments only two minutes apart, and I guess you did not have the chance to read mine (which basically agrees with yours and Andrew's point).

Right, Slobodan. I was in a rush and I didn't see your comment before I posted. But yes, they're different images and I'll say again that I like your crop. It's a different subject but it's a very good picture.

If I didn't have commitments this coming week I'd drive back out there and do some more shooting. That little house is one of the few like it remaining in eastern Colorado. It's about a 160 mile round trip though, and I'm afraid that by the time I'd get back out there the trees would be leafed out, which isn't what I want.

Thanks, Mike. Yes, it looks a bit crunchy to me too, but the PSD and the print don't show the crunchiness. I needed to do a reasonable amount of sharpening because the delicacy of those branches is important to what I was after.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 12, 2013, 09:36:13 pm
These are two very fine takes on the scene. Now I'd like to see something like Slobodan's treatment but keeping Russ's original cropping. It should be easy to make the road that bothers some viewers practically disappear.

Eric
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 12, 2013, 10:01:40 pm
... I'd like to see something like Slobodan's treatment but keeping Russ's original cropping. It should be easy to make the road that bothers some viewers practically disappear...

Not a bad idea (I also reduced the grain effect a bit):
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Rob C on May 13, 2013, 04:02:08 am
Not a bad idea (I also reduced the grain effect a bit):


Slobodan, you're so effing European!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: amolitor on May 13, 2013, 08:11:08 am
I like this forum so much, because we can agree and still find things to talk about. You know, like normal people having a normal conversation! It's wonderful.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 13, 2013, 10:03:18 am
Not a bad idea (I also reduced the grain effect a bit):
That's it!

I was actually thinking of requesting a bit of reduction of the grain, but I didn't want to seem greedy.

Now, how do I order a print from Russ/Slobodan Enterprises?   ;)

I love it!

Eric M.

Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 13, 2013, 10:45:21 am

Slobodan, you're so effing European!

;-)

Rob C

What!? Que!? Wass!? Шта!?
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Rob C on May 13, 2013, 10:48:58 am
That's it!

I was actually thinking of requesting a bit of reduction of the grain, but I didn't want to seem greedy.

Now, how do I order a print from Russ/Slobodan Enterprises?   ;)

I love it!

Eric M.




Easier than going the PayBuddy route: you send the order to Russ, who sends it to Slobodan (like any reasonable wholesale operation) and then you send the cheque to me, because I can clear it more easily because I live on a semi-European island... You see? Not a problem at all. Don't hesitate, not even for a moment.

Rob C


Title: Re: Gone
Post by: amolitor on May 13, 2013, 11:08:49 am
Ok, I'll send you a cashier's check, Rob. It's just about $US5000 too high, so you can just wire the change back to me!
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 13, 2013, 11:24:07 am
Yes. Another good picture. That's three from a single exposure and the third was done without cropping! I like the vignetting even more than the square format crop, Slobodan. But again, the change emphasizes the house and subdues the trees. It's good but a different subject. I was really lucky with the clouds. Colorado's been bone-dry for months, but we drove back in through rainstorms.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Rob C on May 13, 2013, 01:52:05 pm
Ok, I'll send you a cashier's check, Rob. It's just about $US5000 too high, so you can just wire the change back to me!


Great! Just as soon as it arrives I'd do my part over here!

I have an alternative scheme where you can send funds upfront before you actually buy any images: the funds sit here in a special account and make interest for you, so that when you do purchase, you often don't even have to send more money! Isn't that nice?

I have friends in Nigeria who are able to invest those monies when they go over the million bucks; much safer there, and carry with them the opportunity of further diversification into the oil business. We understand that some oil tycoons are especially fond of the image business and might consider running a collective of sorts, where photographers can send their pictures with a guarantee of not getting an insulting 50% return anymore.

Exciting times in which we live!

Rob C
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Heinz on May 14, 2013, 08:23:56 am
Luv the image Russ, well spotted.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 14, 2013, 10:50:20 am
Slobodan, I have to tell you: I finally tried a slightly less dramatic vignetting without the added grain, and I'm going to print and hang the result. It's a different picture, but I like it very much. I usually hate to hang prints that show post-processing, but this is an exception. Thanks. Good thinking.

I think the result shows how stupid it is for any critique forum not to permit demonstrations of suggested changes without explicit permission from the OP. There's really no way Slobodan could have described in words what he was thinking as completely and convincingly as he could with a simple visual demonstration.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: amolitor on May 14, 2013, 10:57:50 am
How interesting!

How do you plan to hang the two versions, Russ? Will they be visible simultaneously? Opposite one another? Or quite separated.

How things are hung is something of an interest of mine. If they were opposite, you'd be able to see one reflected in the other at some times of the day, which can be a tremendously powerful effect for the astute observer.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: langier on May 14, 2013, 11:03:37 am
I like Slobodan's version. The original is nice, but it's almost a "tweener", it needs either more road or no road, IMO.

I've traveled in the same area on a similar day and there's a lot of desolate, abandoned beauty all around.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: nemo295 on May 14, 2013, 11:20:19 am
Slobodan, I have to tell you: I finally tried a slightly less dramatic vignetting without the added grain, and I'm going to print and hang the result. It's a different picture, but I like it very much. I usually hate to hang prints that show post-processing, but this is an exception. Thanks. Good thinking.

I think the result shows how stupid it is for any critique forum not to permit demonstrations of suggested changes without explicit permission from the OP. There's really no way Slobodan could have described in words what he was thinking as completely and convincingly as he could with a simple visual demonstration.

Hear hear!

I think your re-imagining works very well, Russ.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 14, 2013, 11:42:41 am
Haven't decided yet, Andrew. I need to lay out both, side-by-side, in my studio and glance at them as I walk by for a few days. Then I'll decide. I have a lot of wall space in corridors in the lower part of our hillside house where we converted the original integral garage into workrooms and storage spaces. I already have several pairs of related pictures hung one above the other along the halls. I'll probably do something similar with these. I may even decide in the end that I like Slobodan's version better and hang it by itself. Time will tell.

Sorry Larry, I don't agree. As I said, I was conflicted about the road when I got out of the car, but I couldn't keep the whole row of trees to camera left without including at least some of the road, so that removed all doubt. I've since come to the view that the road is an essential part of the picture.

There's still some wabi sabi out there on the prairies, but not nearly as much as there used to be when I started photographing this part of the country back in the sixties. Check http://www.russ-lewis.com/photo_gallery/Ruins/index.html. Or, for comments on the subject along with pictures: http://www.russ-lewis.com/Voices/intro.html.

And Doug, it was Slobodan's re-imagining. I just used part of his idea.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 14, 2013, 12:32:56 pm
I like your last version, Russ.

I think that my version, darker and grainy, would look rather well on a heavy, textured, watercolor paper, or even canvas. It seems to me that yours would print rather nicely on a metallic paper.

As to darker vs. lighter versions, this reminds me how Ansel Adams printed some of his most famous photographs progressively darker and darker as the years went by. What it tells me is that I am getting older. It also tells me that you must be younger than me (in spirit) than your age would suggest :)
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Bruce Cox on May 14, 2013, 01:00:56 pm
I like the whole scene and suggest vignetting all over as more representative.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 14, 2013, 02:23:17 pm
Wow!
What a fascinating thread this has turned out to be. My thanks to Russ and Slobodan for showing how valuable civilized discourse can be.
My current favorite is now Russ's later version, inspired by Slobodan's (Sorry, Bruce --- nice try!)

Eric M.

Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Riccardo on May 15, 2013, 09:15:39 am
I think that the original version of Russ is the right version.
Russ is not a beginner who posted a picture saying "It was a dark and stormy evening and I was struck by an abandoned house that reminded me of the fairy tale of Hansel and Gretel." In this case, the first version of Slobodan would be the right one, because the version of Russ does not transmit any of this.
But, as everyone knows, Russ is not a rookie and in comment #19 he explained what he wanted to convey, and we find this in his first version.
The version of Slobodan may be more spectacular, but it lacks in truth and could not be otherwise, because Slobodan was not there.
The question is not about "which is the most beatiful?", but "which is the truest?", that is "which of the two reflects the vision of Russ?".
In my opinion, the lesser spectacularity of the first version is part of its strength.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 15, 2013, 10:07:53 am
I agree that Russ's original is truer to the way the scene looked, and I suspect that is the way I would have photographed it if I had been there. But Slobodan's variant is a much more expressive image, emphasizing the abandonment and sense of desolation of the house. That fact is certainly an important part of the truth, and artistic license certainly permits the artist to emphasize important aspects more than others.

So if you want an "accurate," reportorial portrayal of the scene, Russ's original is the one that works for you. Russ himself is man enough to appreciate that multiple possibilities can come from the same "negative."

Eric M.

Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 15, 2013, 11:46:31 am
Arrggghh. I've walked by the two versions a couple dozen times since yesterday and in the vignetted version I miss the leading line made by the camera-left trees. So here's a third version. I've vignetted a bit, but not as much as in Slobodan's version. I've also added a sky gradient with a "multiply" blending mode to emphasize the clouds I was lucky enough to have that early afternoon. (By the time we got home and started unloading all the stuff we'd hauled up from Florida it was raining.)

Incidentally, I've finally realized why I think the bit of highway in the picture is necessary. Without it there's no way to explain those two fencelines.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 15, 2013, 01:22:13 pm
I agree about the road. And I think this is the best version yet. It looks plausible (--- less vignetting ---), yet it has good drama in the clouds, which still seems to make a statement about the empty house, rather than taking attention away from it.

Eric M.


Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Riccardo on May 15, 2013, 01:51:07 pm
I agree that Russ's original is truer to the way the scene looked, and I suspect that is the way I would have photographed it if I had been there. But Slobodan's variant is a much more expressive image, emphasizing the abandonment and sense of desolation of the house. That fact is certainly an important part of the truth, and artistic license certainly permits the artist to emphasize important aspects more than others.

So if you want an "accurate," reportorial portrayal of the scene, Russ's original is the one that works for you. Russ himself is man enough to appreciate that multiple possibilities can come from the same "negative."

Eric M.




I do not agree.
I don't consider the first version of Russ truer because more objective. I considered it more true because I assumed that would reflect Russ's vision (although after his "arrgggh!" I have some doubts  ;)).
The image of Slobodan is more spectacular and dramatic, but not more expressive and in fact Russ said that "it's a completely different picture about a completely different subject." So it is not more expressive in what was the vision of Russ and cannot be expressive according to the vision of Slobodan because Slobodan wasn't there.
Of course we can consider the file or the negative only raw material on which practising our creative talent, according with the Alain Briot's approach, but then why do not emphasize the abandonment and sense of desolation of the house with another touch of "artistic license"?
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 15, 2013, 09:15:34 pm
I've always dismissed Ansel's dictum when it comes to street photography, but in landscape I have to accept it: "The negative is the score. The print is the performance." Nowadays we can substitute the word "file" for "negative."
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 16, 2013, 12:18:49 am
You've now got at least two excellent performances out of this score, but I wouldn't display them together.

Eric M


Title: Re: Gone
Post by: amolitor on May 16, 2013, 06:25:54 am
Glenn Gould thought (incorrectly, alas) that modern recording and playback technology would allow the listener to create customized performances of music, pulling one movement from one recording and another from another and so on.

This might fly in the face of.. everything .. but it occurs to me that taking the two prints, physically slicing them up, and collaging them back together might make an interesting piece, to make up the original scene again but with different slices from different interpretations. Not a photograph, necessarily, but something interesting.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 16, 2013, 08:00:09 am
Right, Eric. The most recent performance is the one that's going on the wall. The other two get stored in a flat file -- at least for now.

It's an interesting thought, Andrew, but not the kind of thing I do. I'm a "straight" photographer. Even when I do HDR I try to produce something that looks like a photograph instead of like an acid vision.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Riccardo on May 16, 2013, 11:04:23 am
Right, Eric. The most recent performance is the one that's going on the wall. The other two get stored in a flat file -- at least for now.


As often happens, cheaters win.  ;D
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: RSL on May 16, 2013, 06:30:07 pm
In the end, both recent copies are going up, but not in the same place. My wife locked on to the heavily vignetted version. She gets that one in her office to go with last year's color version with the cows. I get the other one on one of my downstairs walls.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Rob C on May 17, 2013, 04:59:41 am
In the end, both recent copies are going up, but not in the same place. My wife locked on to the heavily vignetted version. She gets that one in her office to go with last year's color version with the cows. I get the other one on one of my downstairs walls.


Sadly, I have some b/whites of my girls on the walls along with two landscapes Ann liked, a painting my mother bought when she lived in Italy so long, long ago, and another pretty cool work that her mother had from the even more distant past; the dining hall (literally, the hallway) lives with a lovely mage of a tree and gnarled roots painted by my second-cousin who's made a good life out of art.

Sad, because I always feel that photographs don't really belong in a home: better suited to offices and public spaces. I feel it's all about venue, and that the home isn't the right one. Photographs are just too coldly modern for anything other than a city loft or other yuppy showplace.

Rob C
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Riccardo on May 17, 2013, 08:28:51 am
I thought the same thing until ten years ago, then I realized that it's a matter of framing, not of venue. The photographs seem always coldly modern because they are always framed with cold frames.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Rob C on May 17, 2013, 08:56:12 am
Riccardo -

Whilst I agree with you insofar as frames being ultra-important, both to subject as well as location (where they hang), I can't really make the mental leap to accepting them as good home deco.

As I explained, it's a sort of block in my mind that confines them to a less personal location, such as an office corridor or actual executive suite of rooms, a place where the message of ownership might suggest an appreciation of modern art and design - hipness. In a home, I find them mildly embarrassing, almost as if the author is seeking praise from his guests. In my own case, I know that it makes visiting tradesmen stop and ask about them, and I trot out the usual story about them being how I earned my keep. However, I detect a sense of disappointment, almost as it those guys had hoped the models had been my lovers, which they certainly had not.

The best place I saw for photographs was in a London ad agency - can't remember which, it was before I went out on my own - and somebody had walled a Norman Parkinson print which I recognized; this was back in late '59. It felt absolutely the perfect location for such imagery, a sense of rightness which has not really left me.

Perhaps there's a deeper truth here: we should stop trying to sell to individuals, but take our print stuff out on the road to business, just as one used to sell the photographic service that fed us.

Why didn't I think of that years ago?

Rob C
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: amolitor on May 17, 2013, 10:28:37 am
I'm sorry to hear that the models were not your lovers.
Title: Re: Gone
Post by: Rob C on May 17, 2013, 12:04:54 pm
I'm sorry to hear that the models were not your lovers.



I like to imagine that so are they...

;-)

Rob C