If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain in comparison to similar products on the marketplace. the pro stand is not overpriced. sony has a $900 stand for their reference monitor. How does that prove either is not over priced. And who labled it over priced, I haven't I've just said it;s a bit too expensive which is a little different. the price is comparable to existing products. apple's pro display, at $6k with the pro stand, is *much* less expensive versus to existing solutions ($20k-30k) *and* has better specs. and the next gen monitor will cost less that;s how technology works. It would be interesting to see if those that already own the existing solutions will go and buy this new apple solution to their workflow. they absolutely will, because it has better specs and costs less. After all, its not like people are going to buy the stand and not the monitor. false. True. Why would people buy the stand but NOT the monitor. one reason is because they want a second stand for a second location, so all they need to take is the display. many users will skip the pro stand and buy the vesa mount instead. and why would they do that ? because they don't need a stand when they have vesa. duh. that's why it's optional. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
In article , Incubus
wrote: Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain in comparison to similar products on the marketplace. the pro stand is not overpriced. sony has a $900 stand for their reference monitor. Do you know where the respective products are manufactured? Sony's high end stuff was still being made in Japan the last I knew of it, whereas I believe all of Apple's gear is assembled by ChiComs. irrelevant. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
In article , Incubus
wrote: Do you know where the respective products are manufactured? Sony's high end stuff was still being made in Japan the last I knew of it, whereas I believe all of Apple's gear is assembled by ChiComs. irrelevant. Not really. Some people are willing to pay more for products made in Japan. such people are ignorant. apple's gear is among the most reliable in the industry. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: apple's pro display, at $6k with the pro stand, is *much* less expensive versus to existing solutions ($20k-30k) *and* has better specs. and the next gen monitor will cost less that;s how technology works. It would be interesting to see if those that already own the existing solutions will go and buy this new apple solution to their workflow. they absolutely will, because it has better specs and costs less. If they do. Not every company can afford to throw away their old equipent when a newer one comes out and I'm still talking about just the monitor stand. If it true of the monitors too I'll expec tto see lots of actions or special deals on the companies old kit, I think it's unlikely they'll just throw the items away as worthless. nobody said anything about throwing old stuff away. however, if a new product performs better and/or can do things the old one cannot, then companies can't *not* afford to replace it. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 8:04:17 AM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote: Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain in comparison to similar products on the marketplace. the pro stand is not overpriced. sony has a $900 stand for their reference monitor. Since Sony's price is 10% less than Apple's, how does that prove your claim? prices are similar for competing products, and people buying reference monitors don't give a **** about $100 anyway. That doesn't actually answer the question of how that Sony price supports your claim. After all, Sony doesn't have a reputation for products of a particularly good value either. apple's pro display, at $6k with the pro stand, is *much* less expensive versus to existing solutions ($20k-30k) *and* has better specs. No need for you to repeat what I already said: "...even including the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain in comparison to similar products..." i added some numbers. the difference in price and performance for the xdr is *substantial*. Which doesn't change the fact that I'd already acknowledged Apple's XPS monitor as a bargain. Nor did you countermand the observation that Apple squandered the positive press & customer goodwill that they could have gleaned from that superior value product because the stand was associated with it, and the stand was negatively perceived because of its price point. Overall, Apple probably could have done themselves a favor by increasing the MSRP by $700 and sold the stand for $300. that would have been a very dumb idea. The Apple fan base opined otherwise. so what? the xdr is not intended for them so they're whining. Doesn't matter because they are Apple customers in other product lines, so everything Apple does - particularly screw-ups - will have an impact on their perception of the overall company and to their willingness to buy *any* Apple products. You're trying to ignore the effects of reputation and Brand loyalty. From a pedantic standpoint they aren't necessarily correct, from any standpoint. but it still generated negative press for Apple, which incurs a "worth". only from those who don't understand the target market and was expecting a consumer display. the xdr display is not a consumer device. it is intended for high end pros that need colour critical displays and/or high sustained brightness, who previously had to spend $20-30k for something that wasn't as good. anyone bitching about the price of the stand doesn't know what similar display stands cost or how well designed the pro stand actually is. it's *not* a piece of stamped metal (or worse, plastic), which is what they're probably used to. None of which really stopped the negative press & kibitzing, as is illustrated by the fact that here we are *still* talking about it. Even if one could prove that the stand was priced perfectly, there's still the irrational elements to Public Relations management that factor in and can affect other Apple customers in other product lines. These sorts of intangibles are commonly associated to Reputation and affect customer Brand Loyalty. This intangible is quite real: every time that you've heard anyone say that they'd pay more for Apple because their good reputation, or that they'd buy Apple without even considering another product. non-pros would be much, much better off with a 4k or 5k display. apple doesn't make one, and *that's* what they're whining about. Which is just such an example of how unhappy customers will find things to bitch about, even when its not rationally a product that they themselves will ever buy, which circles back to the stand as being a PR management failure. After all, its not like people are going to buy the stand and not the monitor. false. many users will skip the pro stand and buy the vesa mount instead. Try re-reading: what I wrote is not false when customers buy the VESA in lieu of the stand. vesa customers would have paid $700 more. That's a diversion attempt away from the claim that you made. Basically, I said: (Qty of Stands sold) (Qty of Monitors sold) ....to which you said "false". FYI, I'll also assert: (Qty of VESA mounts sold) (Qty of Monitors sold) Now are you going to claim this is false too? Similarly, for completeness, the question of: [(Qty of Stands sold) + (Qty of VESA mounts sold) } vs. (Qty of Monitors sold) ....this one's an "Equal or Greater than". that's why the pro stand is optional. not everyone needs or wants it. Which is why if the price was split differently, Apple would actually walk away with more money. if more money was their goal, they'd have priced the display at $10k, which is still a lot less than existing solutions and still sold a lot. they could have also bundled the pro stand rather than make it optional, thereby forcing everyone to buy it when they didn't actually need it, adding to their bottom line. And yet they could have included both the Stand *and* VESA mount in that $10K price and everyone would have been delighted … and Apple would have had a Public Relations win instead of the negative remarks they received because of the Stand subassembly. keep in mind that there will be a third party stand market, where apple won't sell *any* stand. There will only be a 3rd Party market if Apple leaves sufficient room for them, and at a $1K price point, Apple left TONS of room, along with customer motivation to trim $500. Its not really any different to how Apple chooses to jack up RAM upgrade prices and alienates themselves from their own "accessory" sales. Case in point, consider two scenarios: fabricated scenarios mean absolutely nothing. Which you deleted because it illustrated how you were wrong. there are other scenarios where they'd make less. None of which were even notionally detailed out because .. why? Mayhaps they'd been quite easily revealed as bull****. apple actively worked with pros to design the xdr display, the very customers that would be buying it, and have a *much* better idea of sales expectations for the pro stand versus vesa versus nothing. Interesting claim, considering that Apple nevertheless decided on a product that's incompatible with existing VESA interface standards. you might also have noticed there's no built in webcam. pros don't want that **** and they told apple in no uncertain terms that if there's any sort of camera, the display ceases to be an option no matter how good it is. those who want a camera can buy a third party solution. Incorrect: webcams are dirt cheap and its hardware wouldn't have altered the price of the XDR by even 1%, which reveals that this isn't a "don't want" factor as you assert, but a "I can't buy it if it has that" constraint. This is a not-uncommon corporate security policy and it has restricted my ability to buy Apple systems too. -hh |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
In article , -hh
wrote: Nor did you countermand the observation that Apple squandered the positive press & customer goodwill that they could have gleaned from that superior value product because the stand was associated with it, and the stand was negatively perceived because of its price point. pros don't give a **** about that, nor do most people. people bitched about the iphone 4 antenna (out of ignorance) yet it was the best selling iphone in apple's history at that time. the reality is that there was no problem specific to the iphone 4. the 'problem' was fabricated by companies that had no products to compete with it, so they tried to bash it out of despair, only to have it backfire. https://www.fastcompany.com/1707227/...ate-hits-hypoc ritical-htc The handset maker defends signal drop-out problems with its HD7 phone, notes that the effect is ³inevitable.² Conveniently it seems to have forgotten it said the opposite when calling out Apple over the iPhone ³antennagate² affair. https://appleinsider.com/articles/10...t_paper_iphone _4_antennagate_is_a_us_problem.html Both Nokia and HTC have responded to Antennagate with bold claims that signal drops experienced when a phone is held in a particular way are a problem unique to Apple, while at the same time warning users not to hold their own Nokia or HTC phones in such a way as to cause signal attenuation. Overall, Apple probably could have done themselves a favor by increasing the MSRP by $700 and sold the stand for $300. that would have been a very dumb idea. The Apple fan base opined otherwise. so what? the xdr is not intended for them so they're whining. Doesn't matter because they are Apple customers in other product lines, so everything Apple does - particularly screw-ups - will have an impact on their perception of the overall company and to their willingness to buy *any* Apple products. You're trying to ignore the effects of reputation and Brand loyalty. there are always a bunch of vocal whiners in every product category. i remember when nikon released the d40, the first nikon slr without an internal focus motor, which meant existing autofocus lenses with a cam linkage were now manual focus. only lenses with internal motors would autofocus. nikon fanbois were *furious*. bat**** crazy furious. the photo news sites claimed it was a drawback (it wasn't, it was a *feature*) and the various forums were filled with people ranting about how stupid that was, how it made existing lenses obsolete, nikon was doomed, blah blah. the d40 was smaller, lighter in weight, less expensive, making it *more* attractive than having a focus motor that was almost always dead-weight, which is why it became the best selling nikon slr in nikon's history at that time. nikon knew exactly what the market wanted and hit a home run, and that's *with* the 'bad' press. for those who want focus motors, nikon continued to make many *other* slrs that had one. From a pedantic standpoint they aren't necessarily correct, from any standpoint. but it still generated negative press for Apple, which incurs a "worth". only from those who don't understand the target market and was expecting a consumer display. the xdr display is not a consumer device. it is intended for high end pros that need colour critical displays and/or high sustained brightness, who previously had to spend $20-30k for something that wasn't as good. anyone bitching about the price of the stand doesn't know what similar display stands cost or how well designed the pro stand actually is. it's *not* a piece of stamped metal (or worse, plastic), which is what they're probably used to. None of which really stopped the negative press & kibitzing, as is illustrated by the fact that here we are *still* talking about it. nothing stops negative press. it's linkbait. that's why the pro stand is optional. not everyone needs or wants it. Which is why if the price was split differently, Apple would actually walk away with more money. if more money was their goal, they'd have priced the display at $10k, which is still a lot less than existing solutions and still sold a lot. they could have also bundled the pro stand rather than make it optional, thereby forcing everyone to buy it when they didn't actually need it, adding to their bottom line. And yet they could have included both the Stand *and* VESA mount in that $10K price and everyone would have been delighted Š and Apple would have had a Public Relations win instead of the negative remarks they received because of the Stand subassembly. nope, because people would have a pile of stands they don't want or need. again, apple worked directly with the very customers for whom this display is targeted. it's *not* a consumer product. Case in point, consider two scenarios: fabricated scenarios mean absolutely nothing. Which you deleted because it illustrated how you were wrong. nope. it's because anyone can fabricate a scenario to 'prove' whatever they want, which makes it bull****. there are other scenarios where they'd make less. None of which were even notionally detailed out because .. why? Mayhaps they'd been quite easily revealed as bull****. just as was yours. apple actively worked with pros to design the xdr display, the very customers that would be buying it, and have a *much* better idea of sales expectations for the pro stand versus vesa versus nothing. Interesting claim, considering that Apple nevertheless decided on a product that's incompatible with existing VESA interface standards. false. you might also have noticed there's no built in webcam. pros don't want that **** and they told apple in no uncertain terms that if there's any sort of camera, the display ceases to be an option no matter how good it is. those who want a camera can buy a third party solution. Incorrect: webcams are dirt cheap and its hardware wouldn't have altered the price of the XDR by even 1%, which reveals that this isn't a "don't want" factor as you assert, but a "I can't buy it if it has that" constraint. This is a not-uncommon corporate security policy and it has restricted my ability to buy Apple systems too. in other words you agree with what i said, thus not 'incorrect'. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 10:36:46 AM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote: [deleted by nospam: two instances where he was unwilling [to concede on a point lost. Nor did you countermand the observation that Apple squandered the positive press & customer goodwill that they could have gleaned from that superior value product because the stand was associated with it, and the stand was negatively perceived because of its price point. pros don't give a **** about that, nor do most people. Pros not caring about professional reputations? _Really_? people bitched about the iphone 4 antenna... And other so-called examples. But how about the 'Butterfly' keyboard and Apple's subsequent product warranty extensions/etc? Do you really want to try to claim that that didn't have any adverse effects on MBP sales? Doesn't matter because they are Apple customers in other product lines, so everything Apple does - particularly screw-ups - will have an impact on their perception of the overall company and to their willingness to buy *any* Apple products. You're trying to ignore the effects of reputation and Brand loyalty. there are always a bunch of vocal whiners in every product category. Which invariably affect product sales. Even if something is a "blockbuster hit!", it could have been a bigger one. i remember when nikon released the d40, the first nikon slr without an internal focus motor, which meant existing autofocus lenses with a cam linkage were now manual focus. only lenses with internal motors would autofocus. nikon fanbois were *furious*. bat**** crazy furious. the photo news sites claimed it was a drawback (it wasn't, it was a *feature*) and the various forums were filled with people ranting about how stupid that was, how it made existing lenses obsolete, nikon was doomed, blah blah. It wasn't a feature, but a trade-off: reduced capability in the fully supported lenses, for a modest cost & weight savings. Ironically, it was precisely because of Nikon's cluster**** with their lens support (which this is an example) is why I personally decided to go to Canon instead. However small my individual financial contribution was, its still lost revenue for Nikon. None of which really stopped the negative press & kibitzing, as is illustrated by the fact that here we are *still* talking about it. nothing stops negative press. it's linkbait. Which does a better job at managing negative press: screwing up, or not screwing up? /rhetorical question And yet they could have included both the Stand *and* VESA mount in that $10K price and everyone would have been delighted Å* and Apple would have had a Public Relations win instead of the negative remarks they received because of the Stand subassembly. nope, because people would have a pile of stands they don't want or need. Because its so difficult to throw a piece of metal in a trash can? /S Plus there's many ways to price & offer the products other than what Apple did. Just to name two, they could have made it standard but with a "zero cost delete" option like some automakers do for some features, or they could have included one in the base price and given buyers the choice (Stand or VESA included). again, apple worked directly with the very customers for whom this display is targeted. it's *not* a consumer product. Nope. Customers are still customers, even if they're a buyer in an Enterprise setting vs personal consumption. Case in point, consider two scenarios: fabricated scenarios mean absolutely nothing. Which you deleted because it illustrated how you were wrong. nope. it's because anyone can fabricate a scenario to 'prove' whatever they want, which makes it bull****. Except that you didn't actually prove it to be BS. Oops. there are other scenarios where they'd make less. None of which were even notionally detailed out because .. why? Mayhaps they'd been quite easily revealed as bull****. just as was yours. Incorrect, because by illustrating the principle being applied that would have addressed the complaint, others could poke holes. In contrast, your deliberately vague hand-wave denied others any opportunity to critique the nature of your claim. That choice of a dodge wasn't an accident on your part...that gets back to factors of "reputation" and how your poor one precedes you such that readers know better than to blindly trust your claims. apple actively worked with pros to design the xdr display, the very customers that would be buying it, and have a *much* better idea of sales expectations for the pro stand versus vesa versus nothing. Interesting claim, considering that Apple nevertheless decided on a product that's incompatible with existing VESA interface standards. false. If you think for just a minute, you would realize that if the XDR monitor were itself VESA compliant, then there would be no need for Apple to separately sell an adaptor for $200. And yes, its an adaptor: the word "Adaptor" is literally in Apple's product name: https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/specs/ And note that it is the VESA Mount Adaptor, not the XDR monitor, which is stated as being: "Compatible with 100 x 100 mm VESA stand or mount.", you might also have noticed there's no built in webcam. pros don't want that **** and they told apple in no uncertain terms that if there's any sort of camera, the display ceases to be an option no matter how good it is. those who want a camera can buy a third party solution. Incorrect: webcams are dirt cheap and its hardware wouldn't have altered the price of the XDR by even 1%, which reveals that this isn't a "don't want" factor as you assert, but a "I can't buy it if it has that" constraint. This is a not-uncommon corporate security policy and it has restricted my ability to buy Apple systems too. in other words you agree with what i said, thus not 'incorrect'. No, I do not. I'm noting that there is a significant difference between "don't want [that ****]" and "cannot have". -hh |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
On 17/12/2019 5:53 am, David wrote:
On 16/12/2019 08:17, geoff wrote: On 11/12/2019 1:24 pm, David wrote: Your photographs will look unbelievable on one of these! https://www.apple.com/uk/pro-display-xdr Do scroll for all the info. Another fantastic piece of kit from Apple! :-) So that would be an LG brand OLED display panel ? No Geoff - APPLE! You need to *scroll* at the link:- The first 32-inch Retina 6K display ever. Up to 1,600 nits of brightness. An astonishing 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio and super-wide viewing angle. Over a billion colours presented with exceptional accuracy. And dynamic range that transforms the professional workflow. Introducing Apple Pro Display XDR, the world’s best pro display. = Watch the video! :-D So you are suggesting that rather than using display-panels manufactured by display-panel manufacturers as they have up to now, that Apple have begun to actually manufacture panels ? geoff |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
On 20/12/2019 2:04 am, nospam wrote:
it is intended for high end pros that need colour critical displays and/or high sustained brightness, who previously had to spend $20-30k for something that wasn't as good. Every year the quality of displays goes up, and the price comes down. Just like for consumer TVs. geoff |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Believing is seeing!
In article , -hh
wrote: [deleted by nospam: two instances where he was unwilling [to concede on a point lost. Nor did you countermand the observation that Apple squandered the positive press & customer goodwill that they could have gleaned from that superior value product because the stand was associated with it, and the stand was negatively perceived because of its price point. pros don't give a **** about that, nor do most people. Pros not caring about professional reputations? _Really_? really. they care about whether a product does what they need and how productive they can be when using it, not what others think about it. people bitched about the iphone 4 antenna... And other so-called examples. But how about the 'Butterfly' keyboard and Apple's subsequent product warranty extensions/etc? Do you really want to try to claim that that didn't have any adverse effects on MBP sales? the butterfly keyboard certainly has problems, however, macbook sales have been increasing, so clearly it's not as bad as some might want you to believe. some people even like the short travel, particularly on the lighter weight macbooks. Doesn't matter because they are Apple customers in other product lines, so everything Apple does - particularly screw-ups - will have an impact on their perception of the overall company and to their willingness to buy *any* Apple products. You're trying to ignore the effects of reputation and Brand loyalty. there are always a bunch of vocal whiners in every product category. Which invariably affect product sales. Even if something is a "blockbuster hit!", it could have been a bigger one. not significantly. i remember when nikon released the d40, the first nikon slr without an internal focus motor, which meant existing autofocus lenses with a cam linkage were now manual focus. only lenses with internal motors would autofocus. nikon fanbois were *furious*. bat**** crazy furious. the photo news sites claimed it was a drawback (it wasn't, it was a *feature*) and the various forums were filled with people ranting about how stupid that was, how it made existing lenses obsolete, nikon was doomed, blah blah. It wasn't a feature, but a trade-off: reduced capability in the fully supported lenses, for a modest cost & weight savings. it was a feature. the target market never used the motor. they didn't have a collection of lenses and used only the kit lens. Ironically, it was precisely because of Nikon's cluster**** with their lens support (which this is an example) is why I personally decided to go to Canon instead. However small my individual financial contribution was, its still lost revenue for Nikon. canon was worse. they ****ed everyone ever who had manual focus lenses. granted, they had to, since the canon fd mount was awful and could not support autofocus, but that didn't help people with existing lenses who were orphaned. at least with nikon, nearly every lens since around 1959 can be used on a modern nikon. existing manual focus lenses work perfectly fine, as manual focus lenses, the same as they always did. in fact, the d40 could use non-ai lenses, which were not compatible with cameras that had motors, such as the d70, d200, etc. pentax also maintained compatibility. minolta, on the other hand, ****ed everyone over like canon did, but unlike canon, didn't have a good reason to do so. it should be no surprise that minolta no longer exists, its ashes bought up by sony (after the failed konica deal). And yet they could have included both the Stand *and* VESA mount in that $10K price and everyone would have been delighted ? and Apple would have had a Public Relations win instead of the negative remarks they received because of the Stand subassembly. nope, because people would have a pile of stands they don't want or need. Because its so difficult to throw a piece of metal in a trash can? /S it's much, much more than a piece of metal. Plus there's many ways to price & offer the products other than what Apple did. Just to name two, they could have made it standard but with a "zero cost delete" option like some automakers do for some features, or they could have included one in the base price and given buyers the choice (Stand or VESA included). they no doubt thought of that, and decided that was worse. again, apple worked directly with the very customers for whom this display is targeted. it's *not* a consumer product. Nope. Customers are still customers, even if they're a buyer in an Enterprise setting vs personal consumption. not nope. it's a professional class product, not a consumer class product. Case in point, consider two scenarios: fabricated scenarios mean absolutely nothing. Which you deleted because it illustrated how you were wrong. nope. it's because anyone can fabricate a scenario to 'prove' whatever they want, which makes it bull****. Except that you didn't actually prove it to be BS. Oops. nor did you. oops. there are other scenarios where they'd make less. None of which were even notionally detailed out because .. why? Mayhaps they'd been quite easily revealed as bull****. just as was yours. Incorrect, because by illustrating the principle being applied that would have addressed the complaint, others could poke holes. anyone can fabricate a scenario to prove whatever they want. In contrast, your deliberately vague hand-wave denied others any opportunity to critique the nature of your claim. That choice of a dodge wasn't an accident on your part...that gets back to factors of "reputation" and how your poor one precedes you such that readers know better than to blindly trust your claims. ad hominem. apple actively worked with pros to design the xdr display, the very customers that would be buying it, and have a *much* better idea of sales expectations for the pro stand versus vesa versus nothing. Interesting claim, considering that Apple nevertheless decided on a product that's incompatible with existing VESA interface standards. false. If you think for just a minute, you would realize that if the XDR monitor were itself VESA compliant, then there would be no need for Apple to separately sell an adaptor for $200. which would make the pro stand impossible. not a good idea. unlike you, they talked with pros and worked with them to design something that they actually wanted. And yes, its an adaptor: the word "Adaptor" is literally in Apple's product name: https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/specs/ And note that it is the VESA Mount Adaptor, not the XDR monitor, which is stated as being: "Compatible with 100 x 100 mm VESA stand or mount.", yep. did you have a point? no. you might also have noticed there's no built in webcam. pros don't want that **** and they told apple in no uncertain terms that if there's any sort of camera, the display ceases to be an option no matter how good it is. those who want a camera can buy a third party solution. Incorrect: webcams are dirt cheap and its hardware wouldn't have altered the price of the XDR by even 1%, which reveals that this isn't a "don't want" factor as you assert, but a "I can't buy it if it has that" constraint. This is a not-uncommon corporate security policy and it has restricted my ability to buy Apple systems too. in other words you agree with what i said, thus not 'incorrect'. No, I do not. I'm noting that there is a significant difference between "don't want [that ****]" and "cannot have". nope. they don't want it *because* it's prohibited. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
They are believing against sharp, for tired, at easy forks. | John McAdams | Digital Photography | 0 | June 27th 06 07:38 AM |
Porch Monkeys, all solid frames under the elder cellar were believing above the weak spring, Detestable Horndog. | Colonel Jake TM | Digital Photography | 0 | June 4th 06 06:34 AM |
i was loving smogs to empty Richard, who's believing for the bandage's lake | Jamie | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 22nd 06 05:09 PM |
Believing One's Own BS Mr. Scoville? | David Cary Hart | Digital Photography | 0 | February 12th 06 03:13 PM |