Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Post Screening - Soft  
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 469 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1122 times:

The first attempt of this photo was rejected for:
Reject reason: Grainy | Soft
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1349617167.8481img_6373_edit-3.jpg
SC Comments: Needs more sharpening, especially on the wings/nose.


Second Attempt: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1350808828.6343img_6373_edit-4.jpg
Reject reason: Quality | Grainy | Soft
  

I selectively sharpened the Wings & Nose more + added selective Noise Reduction as well, still.........?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 469 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1118 times:

This is my Favorite photo from this Rare, One-Time-Only ramp visit got on account of the 787s delivery flight

The photo shows the subject of everyone's adoration in company of its other AI Boeing Cousins (perhaps for the last time)

Attempt 1: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...349853073.0526400d_-154_edit-3.jpg

Reject reason: Oversharpened | Colour
SC Comments: yellow cast



Attempt 2: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...350769990.2266400d_-154_edit-4.jpg
Reject reason: Quality | Motiv | Soft

Where is it Soft ?


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1120 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 1):
Attempt 2

Actually, isn't that your third or fourth attempt, and didn't I already give you an opinion on that one? I told you it would be rejected for motive and you still uploaded it? What is the point of seeking advice if you're not going to listen to any that is given?


User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 469 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1108 times:

Dana, the '1st' attempt was the one with Purple Fringing which i completely agree with so, after that this was my 1st proper attempt (with what i saw/see as a near perfect image)

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 2):
What is the point of seeking advice if you're not going to listen to any that is given?

Mate i respect your advice & i have learnt from it.

Roger had quoted photos with far more obstructions than mine being accepted in the previous thread but no one answered Pre-Screening - Vishal Jolapara (by vishaljo Sep 14 2012 in Photography Feedback)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © KSK
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © KSK


there are more recently accepted photos with more than just a ladder obstructing the nose yet nothing 'special' about them.

Dana, the main reason i want the photo in the db (besides it being my fav shot from that day) is for the very fact of the Motive being portrayed:
A Special Occasion,
Overview of an adoring public + its other fellow Air India Boeing Fleet Members,
photo shows the Old & the New (under-const) ATC towers,
and AI's Iconic Main hanger - which was made by the airline's founder

There is no such photo out there & in all probability there wont be another one like it.


User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9781 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1054 times:

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 3):
there are more recently accepted photos with more than just a ladder obstructing the nose yet nothing 'special' about them.

Yes, I completely agree with this as well. Those BFI photos are nice but there is nothing special about them. They should have been rejected for motive as well. I just got another photo rejected for "motive":


http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...004683.7116usafe3brccur221012a.jpg


The sign that obstructs the aircraft is very minimal and besides this because of the movement it is fairly transparent too. Now my photo got rejected for that small object and at the same time there are many BFI photos with equipment surrounding the aircraft and blocking much bigger sections of the aircraft. Obstructions in my view should be acceptable to a certain degree. This is where I find airliners.net screening to be (very) inconsistent.

A388


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1040 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A388 (Reply 4):
This is where I find airliners.net screening to be (very) inconsistent.

Actually, that was a very consistent application of the rule. If you are unfamiliar with the application of the motive rule in regards to blockage, a good place to start would be the Rejection Guide - Motive where you will find a wealth of information and examples, several of which specifically state why your image was correctly rejected.


User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9781 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1031 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 5):
Actually, that was a very consistent application of the rule. If you are unfamiliar with the application of the motive rule in regards to blockage, a good place to start would be the Rejection Guide - Motive where you will find a wealth of information and examples, several of which specifically state why your image was correctly rejected.

And the equipment on the 787 photos is no obstruction, even though the cockpit areas and larger parts of the fuselage are blocked? A small object in front of a main gear tyre is worst? Please tell me where the logic is behind this? Please tell me where the consistency is here?

A388

[Edited 2012-11-01 09:21:46]

User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A388 (Reply 6):
And the equipment on the 787 photos is no obstruction, even though the cockpit areas and larger parts of the fuselage are blocked? A small object in front of a main gear tyre is worst? Please tell me where the logic is behind this? Please tell me where the consistency is here?

Have you read through the rejection guide yet?


User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9781 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1020 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 7):
Quoting A388 (Reply 6):
And the equipment on the 787 photos is no obstruction, even though the cockpit areas and larger parts of the fuselage are blocked? A small object in front of a main gear tyre is worst? Please tell me where the logic is behind this? Please tell me where the consistency is here?

Have you read through the rejection guide yet?

Yes, I have and it doesn't explain the reasoning for accepting those obstructed 787 photos. Let's take one example:

My below photo:


http://planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=1131717


Compare that photo to the LAN/United 787 photos and please read below rules for a "motive rejection":

"Temporary obstructions (such as people, cars, or other moveable objects) will lead to a rejection."

Let's see, all the equipment in those 787 photos are moveable and let me add, ALL of them are moveable. Looking at the LAN 787 photo there are two big stairs obstructing the main object, the 787.

Let's keep reading the "motive rejection" guide:

"Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered."

The stairs obstructing the cockpit is that significant that the cockpit can't even be seen. Please note that there were also already 4 photos of that aircraft in the database.

These are two accounts where this photo and any other similar photo should never have been accepted. Even so, the photo got accepted.

Now my photo only has one stair in front of the Air Force Two 757, it got rejected.


Now it's your turn to explain this.


A388

[Edited 2012-11-01 10:37:36]

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4783 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm going to guess this is the part Dana is talking about...

•Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered. This does not include engine/pitot covers.

Now, I can see parts of this applying as well.

•Photos with distracting or obstructing objects in the foreground (this is especially true for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common nature and the large amount of equipment which usually surrounds the aircraft). Ramp Vehicles (including tugs, loaders, baggage carts, etc...) are allowed to block part of the aircraft as long as they are: [1] not blocking engines or wheels (exception: tugs are allowed to block engines/wheels if towing aircraft, and ground crew are allowed to block any part if not too prominent, which is at our discretion) [2] below the window line [3] part of active operations (this amendment is meant to exclude any aircraft parked with equipment in front of it. 'Active operations' is meant to include those aircraft actively loading or unloading.).

In Vishal's shot, the stairs block the nose wheel. Here's where the confusion comes into play with the two accepted examples above. The equipment should be blocking the wheels, however due to the overhead angle, the wheels wouldn't be visible anyway. On the other hand, I think an argument can be made against those shots when referring to the last line about "active operations".

Either way, I the rules are confusing!



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4783 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A388 (Reply 8):
Let's see, all the equipment in those 787 photos are moveable and let me add, ALL of them are moveable. Looking at the LAN 787 photo there are two big stairs obstructing the main object, the 787.

Let's keep reading the "motive rejection" guide:

"Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered."

Please note that there were already 4 photos of that aircraft in the database.

Whoops, forget the first part of my above reply then.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9781 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 9):
I'm going to guess this is the part Dana is talking about...

•Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered. This does not include engine/pitot covers.

Now, I can see parts of this applying as well.

And this is why the LAN 787 photo and most of the similar photos shouldn't have been accepted but still similar photos are still being accepted as we speak. My photo mentioned in my post also got rejected to what is clearly very inconsistent screening. There is just no justification and no way to defend those accepted photos.


A388


User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2326 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 998 times:

Quoting A388 (Reply 8):
"Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered."

At the time of it's original upload to the queue, there were no images of VT-ANH in the database, covered or uncovered.

as seen here: Pre-Screening - Vishal Jolapara (by vishaljo Sep 14 2012 in Photography Feedback)
Pre-screened in this thread as a motive rejection on Sept. 15th by Dana (reply 15). 9 days before the first image of VT-ANH would be added.

As stated by the rejection guide:

Quoting Airliners.net Rejection Reasons:
Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already.

So, are photos of aircraft with significant cover ALLOWED and photos with minimal cover NOT ALLOWED if there are no photos of it in the database?

the first image of VT-ANH accepted into the database was on "Upload date: 2012-09-24 07:55:23"

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sanat Gaba



Also regarding this "cover" issue. As noted in both of Vishal's threads regarding this issue. The United 787 that was highlighted as having 2 blocking airstairs (covers) was not the first image of that aircraft in the databse, not the second or third. There were 7 images of that exact aircraft in the database before the highlighted image was accepted.

For the record, I like both images, the United 787 and the Air India 787. I just wish the rules were administered fairly.

[Edited 2012-11-01 12:08:45]


Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9781 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 988 times:

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 12):
For the record, I like both images, the United 787 and the Air India 787. I just wish the rules were administered fairly.

I agree with everything you say and just to be clear I also like those photos but as you said, the rules are very unfair and as soon as this is pointed out (and this time by using the airliners.net guide itself), you hear nothing anymore. That makes it even the more sad!!!

In the mean time we have rejected photos that were unfairly rejected which is clearly explained here now.

A388


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A388 (Reply 11):
My photo mentioned in my post also got rejected to what is clearly very inconsistent screening. There is just no justification and no way to defend those accepted photos.

So the answer is buried in there, but if you looked, you would find it. Air-to-ground images are exempt from obstruction rejections. There are many examples of this already on the database:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rainer Bexten
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Timo Breidenstein


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Timo Breidenstein

Quoting A388 (Reply 8):
Photos where the aircraft is covered.

A 'cover' refers to an actual cover over the aircraft, such as this

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Frische



Hopefully this will clear up any confusion.


User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9781 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 979 times:

Okay, thanks Dana.

A388


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4783 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 14):
So the answer is buried in there, but if you looked, you would find it. Air-to-ground images are exempt from obstruction rejections. There are many examples of this already on the database:

The key word must be "buried". I can't seem to find where it says that in the motive section of the rejection guide.

Dana, would it kill you to quote the rejection guide since you know where to look? I have read through it multiple times now and it only furthers my confusion on the issue. It doesn't look like I'm alone so maybe it should be more clear, or less buried.

I really have no opinion either way about the photos in question. I followed along out of curiosity but now I'm just confused so the answer isn't as obvious as you think it is. I just wish you guys didn't give us the runaround and were just straight with us with a concise answer. You pointed to a section in the rejection guide and the answer, even though I'm sure it's there somewhere, is obviously not obvious. Wouldn't life be a lot easier for all of us if you just quoted the source instead of making us go fishing?

EDIT

I think I found it! Is this it?

Jetways are allowed to obstruct aircraft if the image is an aerial view.

If it is, I suggest making it more obvious like including it in the bullet points at the beginning of the section and have it include different types of obstructions since this line speaks only of jetways.

Or even better, how about including examples of aerial views.

[Edited 2012-11-01 14:22:16]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 16):
I think I found it! Is this it?

Jetways are allowed to obstruct aircraft if the image is an aerial view.

Yes, that's it.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 16):
If it is, I suggest making it more obvious like including it in the bullet points at the beginning of the section and have it include different types of obstructions since this line speaks only of jetways.

Good idea, will do.


User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 469 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 954 times:

Again, Dana the main reason i want the photo in the db is for the very fact of the Motive being portrayed:

- A Special Occasion (Delivery Flight / India's First 787),
- Overview of an adoring public + its other fellow Air India Boeing Fleet Members,
- photo shows the Old & the New (under-const) ATC towers,
- and AI's Iconic Main hanger - which was made by the airline's founder


I'm taking a little heart from this very uplifting thread you just posted in the AV Photography Section

Quoting dlowwa (Thread starter):

Update To Double Rule (by dlowwa Oct 31 2012 in Aviation Photography)

The screening team has decided to implement a few revisions and clarifications to the double rule in order to be a little more inclusive of unique, rare, and difficult to obtain images.

The photo is Unique, Rare, VERY Difficult to obtain & will be impossible henceforth as this was the first time in the history of this airport that they let anyone with cameras near the airport, let alone inside - for the Delivery Ceremony.
+ The hangar is right beside an Indian Navy Hangar & i was asked to come down immediately from my perch after my photo, thank god they let me keep the photo (after pleading) as their equip wasn't showing in it.

I can upload as normal after the sharpening correction or Airport/Ramp Overview as one can also see the Entire Domestic Terminal in it.

All i'm asking for is leniency for what is a Historic Photo of sorts.

Cheers - Vishal

[Edited 2012-11-01 15:36:49]

User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9781 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 936 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 17):
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 16):
If it is, I suggest making it more obvious like including it in the bullet points at the beginning of the section and have it include different types of obstructions since this line speaks only of jetways.

Good idea, will do.

Yes, I also overlooked the air-to-ground rule as well. Giving it a better place so it stands out will avoid people overlooking it. Right now it is burried in the text as mentioned.

A388


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 888 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 5):
Actually, that was a very consistent application of the rule. If you are unfamiliar with the application of the motive rule in regards to blockage, a good place to start would be the Rejection Guide - Motive where you will find a wealth of information and examples, several of which specifically state why your image was correctly rejected.
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 7):
Have you read through the rejection guide yet?

I assume trees blocking parts of taxiing aircraft are fine though?

Karl


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 888 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 20):
I assume trees blocking parts of taxiing aircraft are fine though?

If you read through the guide, you will find a provision that deals with vegetation.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 888 times:

Okay, found it. Not overly clear but I have found an image I feel shouldn't be in the database, based on what I've just read. If a team member wants to see it, I'll forward a link off-forum.

Karl


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 888 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 22):
If a team member wants to see it, I'll forward a link off-forum.

Sure, you can forward it to me.


User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 469 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 888 times:

Dana

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 18):
Again, Dana the main reason i want the photo in the db is for the very fact of the Motive being portrayed:

- A Special Occasion (Delivery Flight / India's First 787),
- Overview of an adoring public + its other fellow Air India Boeing Fleet Members,
- photo shows the Old & the New (under-const) ATC towers,
- and AI's Iconic Main hanger - which was made by the airline's founder


I'm taking a little heart from this very uplifting thread you just posted in the AV Photography Section

Quoting dlowwa (Thread starter):

Update To Double Rule (by dlowwa Oct 31 2012 in Aviation Photography)

The screening team has decided to implement a few revisions and clarifications to the double rule in order to be a little more inclusive of unique, rare, and difficult to obtain images.

The photo is Unique, Rare, VERY Difficult to obtain & will be impossible henceforth as this was the first time in the history of this airport that they let anyone with cameras near the airport, let alone inside - for the Delivery Ceremony.
+ The hangar is right beside an Indian Navy Hangar & i was asked to come down immediately from my perch after my photo, thank god they let me keep the photo (after pleading) as their equip wasn't showing in it.

I can upload as normal after the sharpening correction or Airport/Ramp Overview as one can also see the Entire Domestic Terminal in it.

All i'm asking for is leniency for what is a Historic Photo of sorts.

Cheers - Vishal


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 890 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 24):

Yes, I saw it the first time, and I've already expressed my opinion about the image. In any case, as I mentioned above, I have seen multiple examples where you have not taken the advice offered so I have a hard time seeing why I should continue to give it.


User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 469 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 892 times:

Dana i read your replies, i only asked this question upon seeing your revision to the rules.

I saw the other day the a ToD of an IR 742F at THR with the NG blocked

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mohammad Razzazan - Iranian Spotters


Which is why i asked again if the photo would qualify under the new rules as spotting here is outright DANGEROUS & the photo-op of the ceremony was a Rare one-time-only .

Or if it i could upload it as a Ramp Overview?

Quoting dlowwa:

Update To Double Rule (by dlowwa Oct 31 2012 in Aviation Photography)

The screening team has decided to implement a few revisions and clarifications to the double rule in order to be a little more inclusive of unique, rare, and difficult to obtain images.


User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 469 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 891 times:

Asking again for ^ + this recent rejection: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1352832030.5825img_6373_edit-6.jpg

Rejected for: Soft & Oversharpened

If you can pls tell me what's Soft & what's Oversharpened pls   


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2604 posts, RR: 17
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 884 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the windows look oversharpened while the rest of the photo looks soft. To be honest, I think the whole photo looks overprocessed almost like an HDR.

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4783 posts, RR: 26
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 879 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 28):
sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2285 posts, RR: 16
Reply 28, posted Fri Nov 23 2012 11:26:09 your local time (1 hour 14 minutes 56 secs ago) and read 3 times:

I think the windows look oversharpened while the rest of the photo looks soft. To be honest, I think the whole photo looks overprocessed almost like an HDR.


I agree. The contrast is quite harsh, especially the darks. Looks very characteristic of a filter called Tonal Contrast in Nik Color Effex.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Post Screening - Soft
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format