Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cloning Reflections: Allowed Or Not?  
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 42
Posted (8 years 19 hours ago) and read 4332 times:

Question for screeners: Is it allowed to clone out reflections such as:

a) Flash reflections in cockpit screens?
b) Reflections that appear when taking night shots of planes with lights on facing you?

I was under the impression that this was ok, same as cloning dust spots; from reading another (locked) thread I am not so sure anymore.

j


"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (8 years 18 hours ago) and read 4320 times:

Not permitted. Flash reflections in cockpit screens can be avoided by using bounce flash.

In the night shots, what you are referring to is lens flare. Not permitted to clone that out.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineEWS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 18 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Javier,

Im not too sure on this but i did post some time ago about the following photo, and it was accepted into the database, it's a reflection of somekind, but i edited it out and was accepted without warning, and i did state to the screeners in the "personal message" of the editing that had taken place.




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TFSPhoto



Cheers,

Lew


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (8 years 18 hours ago) and read 4305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Cloning reflections on cockpit screens is not allowed.

Not sure about our exact policy on flare/sensor reflections, we would have to discuss.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 16 hours ago) and read 4257 times:

Quoting Javibi (Thread starter):
Flash reflections in cockpit screens?

Just read the locked thread in this forum. You will get your answer.


User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1293 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (8 years 14 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 3):
Not sure about our exact policy on flare/sensor reflections, we would have to discuss.

I had a rejection recently for lens flare (after a rejection for info, which was a stupid mistake by myself, I admit!), and at first I was disappointed because I had checked all relevant tick-boxes very carefully now!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...060630_CRW_5146_RT8_WVB_1200px.jpg

When I read the rejection e-mail, it became clear: The screener had indicated that there was a slight lens flare visible (I really had not noticed it before, nor had the first screener, but it was CORRECT) and the statement that it could easily be corrected; so I assumed it was allowed (as for dust spots).

If it is really not allowed, I would like to know ASAP, because this shot is now again in the queue and has already cost me a bit of my acceptance rate...

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...RW_5146_RT8_WVB_1200px_re-edit.jpg


Thanks for a quick reply from the screening team, so that I can decide to leave it or to pull it!

Many greetings,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineWhyWhyZed From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (8 years 14 hours ago) and read 4203 times:

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 5):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...RW_5146_RT8_WVB_1200px_re-edit.jpg


Thanks for a quick reply from the screening team, so that I can decide to leave it or to pull it!

I'm not screening crew, but It'll probably get the quality rejection this time around.

- Jason DePodesta


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (8 years 14 hours ago) and read 4196 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WhyWhyZed (Reply 6):
I'm not screening crew, but It'll probably get the quality rejection this time around.

I agree, it looks heavily cropped.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (8 years 13 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

Quoting EWS (Reply 2):
Javier,

Im not too sure on this but i did post some time ago about the following photo, and it was accepted into the database, it's a reflection of somekind, but i edited it out and was accepted without warning, and i did state to the screeners in the "personal message" of the editing that had taken place.



Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 5):
When I read the rejection e-mail, it became clear: The screener had indicated that there was a slight lens flare visible (I really had not noticed it before, nor had the first screener, but it was CORRECT) and the statement that it could easily be corrected; so I assumed it was allowed (as for dust spots).

This whole issue of "cloning" and just exactly what is allowed to be cloned is IMHO, complete Bullshit!!!

Cloning IS ALLOWED because that by definition is how we remove dust spots. Why do we remove the dust spots? Well obviously because that is a CAMERA INDUCED imperfection in the original scene. So the question also becomes...... Is a lens flare or other introduced optical or camera effect an imperfection that warrants cloning? With even the best of today's digital cameras, many exhibit the occasional "dead pixel" in the sensor. If you clone that out are you now a "cheater"?

My camera, a Canon Digital Elph is presently in for repair because it was introducing an imperfection down in the lower corner of the frame. Similar to a dust spot, but not exactly a dust spot because it's a non-interchangeable lens camera. Perhaps something is in there from manufacture, but that's for the repair people to determine.

So on my one ACCEPTED image into the database from this camera, I naturally remover this "dust/hair/flaw/imperfection" from the image without any more thought than you would a typical dust spot. The image passed through screening and was accepted into the database.

MONTHS LATER, one screener decides that he thinks he can see something and the image is removed from the database. WITHOUT any communication with me. WITHOUT any email or such asking for clarification. WITHOUT any courtesy being shown at all. And all by a single screener months later because the image was posted in a forum discussion thread on an entirely different subject than cloning. Trial, judge and execution all by a single individual without EVER even a question as to whether there was a clone or not. GUILTY just by suspicion without so much as a by-your-leave. And the only way I know about this is that the photo has disappeared from the db and the image number now returns an error message saying it doesn't even exist any more.

I've written to Johan about this issue, and again NO RESPONSE has even been offered to my complaint.

Some screeners now think themselves as "GODS" of what they want. Common sense has gone right out the window. There is a great deal of INCONSISTENCY in how the rules are interpreted by each screener. All I can say is take your shots, upload them and cross your fingers. The rest is pure luck.

An no disrespect to Javier who posted above, but that image MUST be removed from the database. To allow it to stay simply and absolutely confirms that CLONING is ALLOWED and that the screeners and the screening policy of A.net is subject to INTERPRETATION and is blatently unfair, arbitrary, capricious and without merit.

IMHO.

Steve


User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 hours ago) and read 4117 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 8):
This whole issue of "cloning" and just exactly what is allowed to be cloned is IMHO, complete Bullshit!!!

Oh, start a posting with profanity. Good plan...

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 8):
Some screeners now think themselves as "GODS" of what they want. Common sense has gone right out the window. There is a great deal of INCONSISTENCY in how the rules are interpreted by each screener. All I can say is take your shots, upload them and cross your fingers. The rest is pure luck.

Nothing like an unprovoked personal attack on the volunteers of the site to keep the debate rational.

Hmmm....

TZ



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1664 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 hours ago) and read 4089 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 8):
Cloning IS ALLOWED because that by definition is how we remove dust spots. Why do we remove the dust spots? Well obviously because that is a CAMERA INDUCED imperfection in the original scene. So the question also becomes...... Is a lens flare or other introduced optical or camera effect an imperfection that warrants cloning? With even the best of today's digital cameras, many exhibit the occasional "dead pixel" in the sensor. If you clone that out are you now a "cheater"?

You ignore the fact that there is acceptable cloning and that that is not acceptable, within the rules, not my rules (as a screener), your rules(as a contributor) or anyone else's rules except for the one who matters here, the owner of the site Johan.

From the uploading guidance given I quote the following :-

Editing of images should be limited to rotating to correct horizontals and verticals, cropping, colour and level corrections, and some careful sharpening. Cloning should only be used to remove minor imperfections such as dust marks and scratches.

The word minor is of course open to interpretation. I saw (for it was me) the lens flare on Walter's image as a minor imperfection, I still do, and I advised him accordingly. Lew's photo above is another example where a minor imperfection was removed and he did the correct thing by telling the screener. That is what I would describe as honesty, the opposite of cheating. If it had been detectable then I am sure it would have been rejected but by being straighforward, honest, then a ban would have been inappropriate.
Reflections from instrument panels are a different matter, they are avoidable and hardly minor.
I have had to clone, and clone heavily with some of my severely degraded negatives and slides but have ALWAYS told the screeners if I have had to do so and have had some rejections for it too.

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 8):
Some screeners now think themselves as "GODS" of what they want. Common sense has gone right out the window. There is a great deal of INCONSISTENCY in how the rules are interpreted by each screener. All I can say is take your shots, upload them and cross your fingers. The rest is pure luck.

Gods we are not, but we are a number of individuals making subjective decisions. In my life I have yet to meet anyone with whom I agree totally on everything. Why should we as screeners be any different ?

Read the guidance above. It is very straightforward with only one word being subjective...the word minor. To me Javier's is minor as is Walter's, my interpretation, my opinion. We are a team of screeners not robots !

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 8):
the screening policy of A.net is subject to INTERPRETATION and is blatently unfair, arbitrary, capricious and without merit.

You have some wonderful images on the database that are on here because of that blatantly unfair policy that have been subject to that same screening process so they should be perfect. Have you ever complained about the one that was accepted with a border ??????
We are not robots !
Touche !

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen Liard


Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1293 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 hours ago) and read 4039 times:

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 10):
I saw (for it was me) the lens flare on Walter's image as a minor imperfection, I still do, and I advised him accordingly.

Thanks for that, Mick! I cannot tell you why, but I had already a feeling this was you! I never feel happy about a rejection, but I am a believer than one can learn more from one rejection than from ten acceptances!  Smile It was the first time I encountered lens flare, but I am sure, now I will never forget to check for that!

Quoting WhyWhyZed (Reply 6):
I'm not screening crew, but It'll probably get the quality rejection this time around.



Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 7):
I agree, it looks heavily cropped.

No, it was not heavily cropped, but I admit I made the "beginner's mistake" to re-edit the previous JPEG instead of starting from scratch again  Sad

I have pulled it from the queue, and will start from scratch again (because I believe this shot - with good processing - is good)!

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

Quoting TZ (Reply 9):
Oh, start a posting with profanity. Good plan...

Why not? There is no respect being shown towards me the photographer and contributor. When contributors feel that they are being IGNORED and treated like shit well of courst they come to the conclusion that the policy is Bullshit!!!

But of course you missed the whole point of my post and I wonder why that doesn't surprise me?

Quoting TZ (Reply 9):
Nothing like an unprovoked personal attack on the volunteers of the site to keep the debate rational.

Unprovoked? Hardly. I tried the correct, decent way of writing to Johan, and that was totally IGNORED. So what's left? When one screener acts in a manner that allows no formal appeal to Johan, no politeness or respect shown to the photographer, does THAT screener deserve any respect in return?

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 10):
Cloning should only be used to remove minor imperfections such as dust marks and scratches.

The word minor is of course open to interpretation.

Interpretation by whom? And if the screener makes that determination, should not that interpretation be subject to appeal to Johan? Don't photographers have the right to appeal a screeners decision? So what is a photographer to think when that right to appeal is denied them?

I ask you rhetorically. Does a screener have the right to RETROACTIVELY delete an image that has been in the database for MONTHS? Is there not a matter of showing the photographer some RESPECT by at least sending an email to inform the photographer what is happening, and why? Should the photographer at least have the RESPECT and RIGHT to appeal that decision to Johan. Of a policy that as stated above is open to INTERPRETATION? Or is the correct way for A.net to act be simply to say nothing, and let the contributor find out some day while he's on the website. How many of you photographers reading this would like to wake up some morning, check out A.net and find your images missing without explanation?

This issue isn't simply about whether a cloning is deemed major or minor or what that interpretation really means. It's about the unilateral actions of a single screener, in a retroactive manner, without contacting the photographer, and the surprise of surfing the database and finding out your photo is GONE. It's about the retroactive nature of the action. It's about having no right to appeal. It's about being ignored when you try to contact Johan and get no response.

It's about a single screener acting like god. And you wonder why I'm angry and call the policy and that screeners actions BS?


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 hours ago) and read 3953 times:

Why bring this up? Now people are complaining when shots are accepted?? What's next? I don't see what value this topic is bringing to the site.

Personally I don't see an issue, and it would have been less of an issue if it were not bought up.


User currently offlinePauara From Bahamas, joined Aug 2005, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

Photopilot,
Why dont you just take it easy. The screeners work at hard at there job, yes there are times when they agrovate you. Just let it go. Is one photo the end of the world. Its blatent that you dont upload often to airliners. Last upload was added September 6th, 2004. Just relax. I would also like to point out that you didnt comment on the photo where you got away with the borders. If i were you i would consider myself lucky and leave it.


User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

Quoting Pauara (Reply 14):
Why dont you just take it easy........
.........If i were you i would consider myself lucky and leave it.

I am taking it easy Paul, you're missing the point. So here's a concrete example.

This is YOUR photo.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Aranha



So you wake up one morning and while checking your stats find out that even though this image WAS in the Db, you find that a screener has removed this image from A.net because he/she believes that there is something wrong with it.

You are NOT notified.
You have NO RIGHT of Appeal.
You write to Johan and are ignored.

So rather than address the problem or the actual issue, the other screeners examine every one of your photos till they find one that has an error in it. That was uploaded years ago. And I'm told to consider myself lucky.

And you tell me to just ignore it.

Ya, right.... whatever!


User currently offlinePauara From Bahamas, joined Aug 2005, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 hours ago) and read 3913 times:

Aviation Photography is my hobbie. Im not going to let people who i dont even know upset me. They can take that photo off. I know its a good photo and I know that they wont. If there is some error in it and they feel the need to take it off. Go right ahead and take it off.

User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 hours ago) and read 3910 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think Steve is making some points that are being avoided, always are really, and that is the way folk are treated sometimes.

If his photo had visible defects, then perhaps it should have been removed. I don't think that is what Steve is complaining about really. (Badly cloned dust spots will earn a rejection or deletion as well)
I would expect a courtesy email if my photos were for some reason deleted from the db, I also fully understand that will likely not happen.
He also states that he has written to Johan and been ignored, that appears to happen a lot as well, it certainly has to me.

In another thread, another member highlighted an issue with a photograph and was criticized for doing so along with being told he should have written to the screeners... well often that does not work. I once tried that, totally ignored, so I raised the issue in the forum. Result... I was pilloried for it.
If the preferred method of getting things done is to write privately to the "crew" (what ever part of the crew is appropriate) then the obligation is on them to be responsive.

Paul I have found major fault in your photo of Cedar Key.... I don't live there!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (8 years ago) and read 3885 times:

Thank you StealthZ, it's refreshing to see that finally someone is starting to understand what the issue is about.

User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3872 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 17):
If the preferred method of getting things done is to write privately to the "crew" (what ever part of the crew is appropriate) then the obligation is on them to be responsive.

I don't want to stir what is a difficult discussion, but I fully agree; I remember being told in the past (on a different, but related matter) that "if you don't get a reply, that means your message has been deemed irrelevant". I do understand that sometimes, that may be justified, but in many circumstances it is just not acceptable for a site like this: with so many contributors (among crew, forum members, photographers) interacting and spending personal time to contribute to this site, a few direct personal private emails would do no harm and would resolve some of the bitter conflicts that often arise. The fact that such conflicts do arise, shows that to many people, airliners.net is quite important (it is, to me, too). So hopefully I don't get shot down now by someone saying "what are you complaining about, it's all just a hobby".

Photopilot I think I remember reading that post you refer to. Unless I am mixing up with something completely different, a screener was asking you in that thread a few times for feedback on the "accusations" you mentioned (for the life of me, I couldn't remember more than that though). IF that was really your only "warning" to have your contentious pic removed (and only then), that's unacceptable to me. Such things are not to be dealt with in public, I always keep reading.

So summarising, I'd love to read, later on in this thread, a message from any one directly involved in this, to let us forum readers know that this matter has been discussed privately (at least!). And I hope this thread doesn't deteriorate into further personal attacks.


User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3832 times:

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 10):
We are not robots !

That's a fair comment actually, even if we as photogs don't always agree on their methods.  eyebrow 
I suppose, if cloning is done well enough so as to be not noticeable, then keep doing it and keep quiet about it...? If you get pulled up on it either try harder next time or accept the reject?
My 2 Swedish Kronks worth, just!
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3824 times:

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 12):
There is no respect being shown towards me the photographer and contributor

You need to get a sense of perspective.

And calm down.

And be consistent - you did not protest when your shot with a border was accepted.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineTRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 21):
And be consistent - you did not protest when your shot with a border was accepted.

That was an excellent shot. I couldn't care less about the border. Also it was a shot taken in 1998 and you could see many imperfections with old pics on Anet db.

[Edited 2006-07-31 14:00:47]

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 23, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I have never heard about an older photo being deleted without an effort being made to contact the customer first. Even in cases where there is an exact double we contact the customer before deleting a photo, and we always keep the shot with more hits, even if it isn't the older one, just to cut the photog a break.

Steve, perhaps you missed an email and we deleted it because we did not hear from you. I sure don't remember ever seeing an email from you on the subject. It is also in poor taste, and a view into your personality, that you would hijack someone else's thread simply so you could, once again, complain about the screening team AND the policies of this website.


User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 23):
Steve, perhaps you missed an email and we deleted it because we did not hear from you. I sure don't remember ever seeing an email from you on the subject. It is also in poor taste, and a view into your personality, that you would hijack someone else's thread simply so you could, once again, complain about the screening team AND the policies of this website.

Yup, another reasoned response that puts the blame onto the contributor rather than A.net actually looking at itself and addressing the root-cause issue. And you wonder why many are frustrated and fed-up with A.net.


25 Futterman : No, we just wonder why you're frustrated and fed-up with A.net...
26 TimdeGroot : Steve, I recall Gary asked you if you wanted to reupload the image or have it taken down. If you didn't respond Gary was right in deleting it. Johan h
27 Post contains images Mikephotos : Same here, I recall that as well. Plus, it was only a boring side-on shot so why bother with all the complaints. One of my photos was questioned a wh
28 Photopilot : Oh I see now. When a screener post this (see below) it is to be considered official communication from a screener even though the post was addressed
29 Post contains images Mikephotos : You missed the other post that asked if you wanted to upload a new image or have it removed. But you were too busy downgrading photographers who uploa
30 Post contains links and images TransIsland : I'll remind you of that one next time you call me in panic because one of your pics got rejected for a reason you disagree with View Large View Mediu
31 Granite : Hi all Yes, a mail was sent to Photopilot after the moderating team deleted one of my posts. They said it was best to contact the photographer by e-ma
32 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : Almost always
33 Photopilot : This is a lie. NO EMAIL WAS RECEIVED. How do you respond to something you NEVER RECEIVED ! ! ! What are you supposed to clone out dust/camera marks w
34 Mikephotos : That's a pretty stupid bet, why wouldn't an image from a point-n-shoot (of decent quality) make it? Mike
35 PUnmuth@VIE : Not neccesarily a lie. E-mails can get lost also.
36 Granite : Photopilot Calm down a little before your heart explodes. OK, mails can get lost but the mail WAS sent. There was already two questions directed to yo
37 Lumix : .....and I doubt you will be missed!
38 Post contains images Javibi : Any news? j
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Off-center, Allowed Or Not? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 13:07:31 by Walter2222
So Are Simulators Not Allowed Or What? posted Sun Jun 26 2005 18:23:19 by Newark777
Can This One Be Saved Or Not? posted Tue Oct 31 2006 21:17:56 by Walter2222
Should I Upload This, Or Not? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 15:29:02 by Raptors
Use Of Autofill When Uploading Compulsory Or Not? posted Mon Sep 4 2006 00:35:48 by Irish251
Motiv Ok Or Not? ... Advice Needed! posted Tue Aug 29 2006 14:19:49 by Avro85
Bad Quality Or Not .......? posted Thu Aug 17 2006 18:41:06 by Avro85
For The Personal Collection Or Not ....? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 23:28:13 by Avro85
Pre-Screening Advice - Salvagable Or Not? posted Wed Jul 26 2006 14:28:00 by Holl3411
The Joys, Or Not, Of Uploading To A.net posted Mon Jul 24 2006 18:17:48 by Scbriml