Reading mode: Light Dark

Does Anybody Back to Film after Digital???

Go to last post
Ed Leys said:
Did you notice that two people agreed with me right off the bat?
Click to expand...
Did you notice that truth is not a democracy?
Ed Leys20479 said:
The digital failings they've observed could be different ones.
Wouldn't it be fun for you to ask them!
Click to expand...
Yes it would be hysterical

A 3D quality eh

The fact that you think a scanner can pick it up but a digital camera can't is more than enough information.

Would a digital camera be able to pick it up if you took a picture of a film print?
please.

take a picture with a film camera and a digital of the same motif and post them here. Then I'll make the digital image look like the film. It's just a look Ed besides technically being worse. An arbitrary quality due to the primitive technology. It would be like saying the old glass film from a 100 years ago has a 3D feel that 'modern' film can't capture.
 
Candidate said:
Ed Leys said:
Did you notice that two people agreed with me right off the bat?
Click to expand...
Did you notice that truth is not a democracy?
Candidate said:
The digital failings they've observed could be different ones.
Wouldn't it be fun for you to ask them!
Click to expand...
Yes it would be hysterical

A 3D quality eh

The fact that you think a scanner can pick it up but a digital
camera can't is more than enough information.
Would a digital camera be able to pick it up if you took a picture
of a film print?
please.

take a picture with a film camera and a digital of the same motif
and post them here. Then I'll make the digital image look like the
film. It's just a look Ed besides technically being worse. An
arbitrary quality due to the primitive technology. It would be like
saying the old glass film from a 100 years ago has a 3D feel that
'modern' film can't capture.
Click to expand...
But then you are also the person who said, "Digital left 35mm film in the dust with the 3MP Canon EOS D30."

So I think we all know where you're coming from.

And clearly you don't have a good grip on technology! (nor analogies)

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
 
LMcNeil said:
There are still some instances where film is necessary, such as
various portfolio submissions are stil required to be submitted via
slides. This is because slide projectors are still more common than
Click to expand...
Indeed, the College Board still requires AP Art Studio students to submit portfolios on 35mm slides.
LMcNeil said:
For all intents and purposes, medium and large format films were
holdouts because they allowed impeccable quality prints that
digital cameras were hardplaced to replicate until fairly recently.
I have yet to see a digital print that can equal an 8x10 contact
printed black & white negative from a master printer, such as
Edward Weston (from the 1940's no less!). If you've never seen one,
they're a complete magical experience and have an almost three
dimensional depth to their surface, especially with their silver
prints.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Stieglitz: he was the one who brought back platinum and palladium. And it's nice to see someone well versed in art history.
 
Umm...Not all are in those "Groups" you refer to.

Many pros are happy to keep it fresh by shooting film along side dig. on great subject matter.
I find that film has a soul and digital still looks a bit like video.

I also find it to be VERY marketable and a tad more respect by art buyers even now.

The groups you must be referring to could be the masses of mediocrity.

Many of the greatest image makers in the world are featured in Photo District News, Communication Arts and a few other high caliber venues.

Many of them would not dare stop using film entirely.

I know I won't, that's insane!
Thomas Kachadurian said:
There are two small groups who are going back to film: 1.Those who
don't do very well with the technical stuff and are accustom to
have their labs fix their mistakes, some of them very good
photographers who just never mastered the science more than they
had to. 2. The other group are those who are trying to go digital
without making the full investment is a Pro-level digital camera
and a computer with a properly calibrated monitor. Small things can
make a big difference in how well digital works for you.

In both cases their days are numbered. Digital is the future. My
wedding clients as that as one of the first questions, and they
want digital. Two years ago I had to sell my editorial clients on
digital, now, they all but require it.

Tom
--
http://www.kachadurian.com
Click to expand...
 
Ed Leys said:
Candidate said:
Ed Leys said:
than you, but who have come to understand that digital has certain
aesthetic failings.
Click to expand...
What failings would that be Ed?
Click to expand...
Candidate,

Let me give you this one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=10866235

I could give you a synopsis so you wouldn't have to go to the link
and poke around...and that would be fun. But you can go and read
the comment(s) and as much of the thread and links from it as you
dare...and look at the pitchers. You know, kind of a research
project. If your mind is open, you can learn something about
stuff. If it isn't open, well, I guess you might not learn a thing.

Did you notice that two people agreed with me right off the bat?
The digital failings they've observed could be different ones.
Wouldn't it be fun for you to ask them!
Click to expand...
Well, to add to your group here Ed and say that I have had over 27 years of shooting transparency film since age ten.

This means that what I figure is this:

Transparency film's resolution speaks for it self.
It's limited dynamic range is a good handicap.
Digital often looks video-like in spite of it's much touted dynamic range.

With some good exposure work and the right post processing, digital can look close, but not like an awesome tranny film.

The way that the hi-lights transfer to mid tone in a slide film is simply artful.

Now why I think this makes film still valuable over digital for some???

I leave that logic up to you folks..:-)
 
BobTrips said:
Ed Leys said:
Tom,

You seem to have neglected a third group. Those who use computers
very well...who, perhaps, have been using them longer and better
than you, but who have come to understand that digital has certain
aesthetic failings.

They likely use digital along with film, but will completely switch
to digital only over someone's dead body.
Click to expand...
The delusional?

Or maybe that's already what the third group covers.... ;o)

Digital = as many 'looks' as you have imagination....
Click to expand...
But not like film..:-)
 
Mike Goebel said:
Shot film for twenty years. Have shot digital last four and never
looked back. My main income is derived from Senior Portraits and
Weddings.
Click to expand...
I think for that sector of photography, it completly makes sense to go fully digital.

For the high end artistic shooter who always needs an edge in areas such as commercial stock, fine art and magazine photojournalists, film in no where NEAR dead.

Look in today's top notch photographic publications, you will see that some of the worlds best are very happy using digital and film.

Digital has allowed many mediocre shooters to get a bit better and truly top level shooters look even better still in light of it.
 
Phileas Fogg said:
Add this to everything else digital has on film well sorry but
the horse race was lost a while back for film.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Dude, you have SO many great shooters laughing all the way to the bank!!!!

Just keep on-a-believing!!

Really, I'll support you ( Pat's hand on shoulder with big cheezy grin )...........
 
What you think film will beat out digital in the end?

You did know that Kodak's film sales in the 1st quarter of 2004 was over 25% off the year before. Ilford is OUT OF BUSINESS....

The horse race was lost for film it will never regain dominance on the market ever again. Hold outs will hang on for a few more years and from there only the truest diehards will hold out having to buy film stock from 3rd rate Chinese firms as the big film players in the next 5-10 years stop making film all together.

You keep on believing ok? You are the one of few who still think film has a chance to remain a viable force let alone a strong dominance in the photography market.

Really, I'll support you ( Pat's hand on shoulder with big cheezy
Film_Ruled said:
grin )...........
Click to expand...
Film_Rules said:
Film_Ruled said:
Add this to everything else digital has on film well sorry but
the horse race was lost a while back for film.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Dude, you have SO many great shooters laughing all the way to the
bank!!!!

Just keep on-a-believing!!

Really, I'll support you ( Pat's hand on shoulder with big cheezy
grin )...........
Click to expand...
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
 
Come back in 2-3 yeatrs and tell us if they stil require 35mm slides.

Imaging technology and its periphials is moving so fast that in 3 years the facts will even be more entrenched. The world is CONVERGING and its only possible via DIGITAL. Nobody has to like it but you have to understand it and accept it.

Keep shooting film if you like in 5 years it will be near impossible to find it made by any traditional corp. By that time 3rd party Chinese upstarts will likely be the only ones making film buying that last patents for film types. They will offer film for maybe 5 more years after that.
andrewlam said:
LMcNeil said:
There are still some instances where film is necessary, such as
various portfolio submissions are stil required to be submitted via
slides. This is because slide projectors are still more common than
Click to expand...
Indeed, the College Board still requires AP Art Studio students to
submit portfolios on 35mm slides.
andrewlam said:
For all intents and purposes, medium and large format films were
holdouts because they allowed impeccable quality prints that
digital cameras were hardplaced to replicate until fairly recently.
I have yet to see a digital print that can equal an 8x10 contact
printed black & white negative from a master printer, such as
Edward Weston (from the 1940's no less!). If you've never seen one,
they're a complete magical experience and have an almost three
dimensional depth to their surface, especially with their silver
prints.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Stieglitz: he was the one who brought back platinum
and palladium. And it's nice to see someone well versed in art
history.
Click to expand...
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
 
Member said:
It is, after all, a digital forum. I doubt you will find here
significant agreement with this sentiment. Digital prints made with
LightJet, Durst Lambda, Fuji, Kodak and other professional
technology last as long as prints from any wet process, and as you
are well aware digital quality depends both on the skills of the
photographer and the type of digital camera equipment used.

You walk the borderline between troll and strong personal bias.
There is no problem with having a personal bias for or against
digital, but to suggest on a professional digital forum that the
client benefits more from film without substantiation and facts to
back up that view invites criticism and controversy which flames
the fires and is easily interpreted as trolling.

Though you say you use digital professionally but prefer film for
personal use (which is fine) you continue to use a handle which
also might be considered by many to be inflammatory since this is
still a digital forum.
Click to expand...
I hate to rain on your parade fellow Colorad'n but I make HUGE sales off of film with big agencies..

I am not semi-pro and niether are my Colorado friends Chris Ranier, John Feilder, Ace Kvale to name a few.

We shoot film and digital ( Except John ) because our clients demand what they are used to, the very best.

Digital is great but film has some other limitations that make it great to able to see beyond the human perception of light.

If you are truly brilliant at shooting slide film, then you will know what I mean. If not, then you simply won't know.

I guess it also depends on who your clients are and how big the checks are.

Digital does not respond like this top seller yet Lin:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1055515

This may be a digital forum but let's not go spreading around rehtoric that is Simply not true.
 
Phileas Fogg said:
What you think film will beat out digital in the end?
Click to expand...
No, but for now it is very much used and making tons of money.
Phileas Fogg said:
You did know that Kodak's film sales in the 1st quarter of 2004 was
over 25% off the year before. Ilford is OUT OF BUSINESS....
Click to expand...
Most of the images I am thinking of are not shot on Kodak products.
Phileas Fogg said:
The horse race was lost for film it will never regain dominance
on the market ever again. Hold outs will hang on for a few more
years and from there only the truest diehards will hold out
having to buy film stock from 3rd rate Chinese firms as the big
film players in the next 5-10 years stop making film all together.

You keep on believing ok? You are the one of few who still think
film has a chance to remain a viable force let alone a strong
dominance in the photography market.

Really, I'll support you ( Pat's hand on shoulder with big cheezy
Phileas Fogg said:
grin )...........
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And who are your clients?

Do you make $175 an hour, $900 per day ir even $8,000 a sale?

My CLIENTS are telling me that film is still VERY much appreciated.

What ever you are doing for a living, you are still making me laugh!!!
Phileas Fogg said:
Film_Rules said:
Phileas Fogg said:
Add this to everything else digital has on film well sorry but
the horse race was lost a while back for film.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Dude, you have SO many great shooters laughing all the way to the
bank!!!!

Just keep on-a-believing!!

Really, I'll support you ( Pat's hand on shoulder with big cheezy
grin )...........
Click to expand...
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
Click to expand...
 
Lin Evans said:
João Francisco Mariano said:
Nice point of view!
That is real!

The National Geographic for example just use film, they have know
digitals photographers.
Click to expand...
Not any more João - National Geogrphic recently published their
first all digital article.
Click to expand...
You are correct, but did you know that a couple of folks I know said that Bert Fox commented that with the exception of the opening spread, it looked a bit flat and lacking in the demensional representation of good film.

You are referring to the Australia Monsoon story I assume..
 
Film_Rules said:
Phileas Fogg said:
What you think film will beat out digital in the end?
Click to expand...
No, but for now it is very much used and making tons of money.
Click to expand...
You were the one laughing at my point that film has lost the horse race.
Film_Ruled said:
Film_Ruled said:
You did know that Kodak's film sales in the 1st quarter of 2004 was
over 25% off the year before. Ilford is OUT OF BUSINESS....
Click to expand...
Most of the images I am thinking of are not shot on Kodak products.
Click to expand...
Ok whomever's you use I'm betting are seeing sales drop off as compared to previous years.
Film_Ruled said:
Film_Ruled said:
The horse race was lost for film it will never regain dominance
on the market ever again. Hold outs will hang on for a few more
years and from there only the truest diehards will hold out
having to buy film stock from 3rd rate Chinese firms as the big
film players in the next 5-10 years stop making film all together.

You keep on believing ok? You are the one of few who still think
film has a chance to remain a viable force let alone a strong
dominance in the photography market.

Really, I'll support you ( Pat's hand on shoulder with big cheezy
Film_Ruled said:
grin )...........
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And who are your clients?

Do you make $175 an hour, $900 per day ir even $8,000 a sale?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how much I may make. I never denied that many still shoot film I just said it's lost the race and is going to in all sense of purpose die out.
Film_Ruled said:
My CLIENTS are telling me that film is still VERY much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I never argued against such
Film_Ruled said:
What ever you are doing for a living, you are still making me laugh!!!
Click to expand...
Meh, if it makes you happy, but remember lunatics usually have uncontrollable spurts of laughing and usually for little to no reason.
Film_Ruled said:
--
Click to expand...
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
 
Film_Rules said:
Film_Ruled said:
It is, after all, a digital forum. I doubt you will find here
significant agreement with this sentiment. Digital prints made with
LightJet, Durst Lambda, Fuji, Kodak and other professional
technology last as long as prints from any wet process, and as you
are well aware digital quality depends both on the skills of the
photographer and the type of digital camera equipment used.

You walk the borderline between troll and strong personal bias.
There is no problem with having a personal bias for or against
digital, but to suggest on a professional digital forum that the
client benefits more from film without substantiation and facts to
back up that view invites criticism and controversy which flames
the fires and is easily interpreted as trolling.

Though you say you use digital professionally but prefer film for
personal use (which is fine) you continue to use a handle which
also might be considered by many to be inflammatory since this is
still a digital forum.
Click to expand...
I hate to rain on your parade fellow Colorad'n but I make HUGE
sales off of film with big agencies..
Click to expand...
Well good for you. I used to make huge sales off film too, but since 1995 I've make a VERY good living off primarily digital.
Film_Ruled said:
I am not semi-pro and niether are my Colorado friends Chris Ranier,
John Feilder, Ace Kvale to name a few.
Click to expand...
Did someone say you were (semi-pro)? What has this to do with this being a digital forum?
Film_Ruled said:
We shoot film and digital ( Except John ) because our clients
demand what they are used to, the very best.
Click to expand...
My clients demand the very best also and they get it with digital...
Lots of us shoot film and digital - but that's not the point is it?
Film_Ruled said:
Digital is great but film has some other limitations that make it
great to able to see beyond the human perception of light.
Click to expand...
Well, the above is lost on me - I haven't a clue what you're saying...
Film_Ruled said:
If you are truly brilliant at shooting slide film, then you will
know what I mean. If not, then you simply won't know.
Click to expand...
What does "brilliant" at shooting slide film mean?
Film_Ruled said:
I guess it also depends on who your clients are and how big the
checks are.
Click to expand...
My clients are world wide and the checks are big enough to buy me all the equipment I need to continue to make a very comfortable living.
Film_Ruled said:
Digital does not respond like this top seller yet Lin:
Click to expand...
Like "what" top seller??
Film_Ruled said:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1055515

This may be a digital forum but let's not go spreading around
rehtoric that is Simply not true.
Click to expand...
What "rehtoric" might this be? You're tallking in riddles and vague generalities, be specific and maybe we can discuss it...

Lin
 
Phileas Fogg said:
Film_Rules said:
Phileas Fogg said:
What you think film will beat out digital in the end?
Click to expand...
No, but for now it is very much used and making tons of money.
Click to expand...
You were the one laughing at my point that film has lost the horse
race.
Phileas Fogg said:
Phileas Fogg said:
You did know that Kodak's film sales in the 1st quarter of 2004 was
over 25% off the year before. Ilford is OUT OF BUSINESS....
Click to expand...
Most of the images I am thinking of are not shot on Kodak products.
Click to expand...
Ok whomever's you use I'm betting are seeing sales drop off as
compared to previous years.
Click to expand...
Nope! It's actually gone up!!! Many top agencies are insisting on film for many things and are tired of mediocre submissions from the new digital crowd.
Phileas Fogg said:
Phileas Fogg said:
Phileas Fogg said:
The horse race was lost for film it will never regain dominance
on the market ever again. Hold outs will hang on for a few more
years and from there only the truest diehards will hold out
having to buy film stock from 3rd rate Chinese firms as the big
film players in the next 5-10 years stop making film all together.

You keep on believing ok? You are the one of few who still think
film has a chance to remain a viable force let alone a strong
dominance in the photography market.

Really, I'll support you ( Pat's hand on shoulder with big cheezy
Phileas Fogg said:
grin )...........
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And who are your clients?

Do you make $175 an hour, $900 per day ir even $8,000 a sale?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how much I may make. I never denied that many
still shoot film I just said it's lost the race and is going to in
all sense of purpose die out.
Click to expand...
There is no Race it is simply new technology that has allowed other options to the old crowd and a whole new one.
Phileas Fogg said:
Phileas Fogg said:
My CLIENTS are telling me that film is still VERY much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I never argued against such
Phileas Fogg said:
What ever you are doing for a living, you are still making me laugh!!!
Click to expand...
Meh, if it makes you happy, but remember lunatics usually have
uncontrollable spurts of laughing and usually for little to no
reason.
Phileas Fogg said:
--
Click to expand...
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
Click to expand...
And visit this image among others:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2683397
 
Film_Rules said:
Phileas Fogg said:
Film_Rules said:
Phileas Fogg said:
What you think film will beat out digital in the end?
Click to expand...
No, but for now it is very much used and making tons of money.
Click to expand...
You were the one laughing at my point that film has lost the horse
race.
Film_Ruled said:
Film_Ruled said:
You did know that Kodak's film sales in the 1st quarter of 2004 was
over 25% off the year before. Ilford is OUT OF BUSINESS....
Click to expand...
Most of the images I am thinking of are not shot on Kodak products.
Click to expand...
Ok whomever's you use I'm betting are seeing sales drop off as
compared to previous years.
Click to expand...
Nope! It's actually gone up!!! Many top agencies are insisting on
film for many things and are tired of mediocre submissions from the
new digital crowd.
Click to expand...
Pleae name the manufacturer of the film you use. I highly doubt their corpoarte sales have increased over previous years.

Mediocre is in the eye of the beholder to my friend.
Film_Ruled said:
Film_Ruled said:
Film_Ruled said:
Film_Ruled said:
The horse race was lost for film it will never regain dominance
on the market ever again. Hold outs will hang on for a few more
years and from there only the truest diehards will hold out
having to buy film stock from 3rd rate Chinese firms as the big
film players in the next 5-10 years stop making film all together.

You keep on believing ok? You are the one of few who still think
film has a chance to remain a viable force let alone a strong
dominance in the photography market.

Really, I'll support you ( Pat's hand on shoulder with big cheezy
Film_Ruled said:
grin )...........
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And who are your clients?

Do you make $175 an hour, $900 per day ir even $8,000 a sale?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how much I may make. I never denied that many
still shoot film I just said it's lost the race and is going to in
all sense of purpose die out.
Click to expand...
There is no Race it is simply new technology that has allowed
other options to the old crowd and a whole new one.
Click to expand...
It's a race when one considers SELL THROUGH and market share.
Film_Ruled said:
Film_Ruled said:
Film_Ruled said:
My CLIENTS are telling me that film is still VERY much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I never argued against such
Film_Ruled said:
What ever you are doing for a living, you are still making me laugh!!!
Click to expand...
Meh, if it makes you happy, but remember lunatics usually have
uncontrollable spurts of laughing and usually for little to no
reason.
Film_Ruled said:
--
Click to expand...
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
Click to expand...
And visit this image among others:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2683397
Click to expand...
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
 
Lin Evans said:
Film_Rules said:
Member said:
It is, after all, a digital forum. I doubt you will find here
significant agreement with this sentiment. Digital prints made with
LightJet, Durst Lambda, Fuji, Kodak and other professional
technology last as long as prints from any wet process, and as you
are well aware digital quality depends both on the skills of the
photographer and the type of digital camera equipment used.

You walk the borderline between troll and strong personal bias.
There is no problem with having a personal bias for or against
digital, but to suggest on a professional digital forum that the
client benefits more from film without substantiation and facts to
back up that view invites criticism and controversy which flames
the fires and is easily interpreted as trolling.

Though you say you use digital professionally but prefer film for
personal use (which is fine) you continue to use a handle which
also might be considered by many to be inflammatory since this is
still a digital forum.
Click to expand...
I hate to rain on your parade fellow Colorad'n but I make HUGE
sales off of film with big agencies..
Click to expand...
Well good for you. I used to make huge sales off film too, but
since 1995 I've make a VERY good living off primarily digital.
Member said:
I am not semi-pro and niether are my Colorado friends Chris Ranier,
John Feilder, Ace Kvale to name a few.
Click to expand...
Did someone say you were (semi-pro)? What has this to do with this
being a digital forum?
Click to expand...
Many on here are...most are not even that.
Member said:
Member said:
We shoot film and digital ( Except John ) because our clients
demand what they are used to, the very best.
Click to expand...
My clients demand the very best also and they get it with digital...
Lots of us shoot film and digital - but that's not the point is it?
Click to expand...
It kind of is as I am trying to make it pretty clear that top agencies, magazines and other art buyers still preffer film.
Example: Patagonia.
Member said:
Member said:
Digital is great but film has some other limitations that make it
great to able to see beyond the human perception of light.
Click to expand...
Well, the above is lost on me - I haven't a clue what you're saying...
Click to expand...
Film responds different...

Show me your top ten slide images and I will be to see if you have touched this realm.
Member said:
Member said:
If you are truly brilliant at shooting slide film, then you will
know what I mean. If not, then you simply won't know.
Click to expand...
What does "brilliant" at shooting slide film mean?
Click to expand...
David Alan Harvey
John Fielder
Ace Kvale
Frans Lanting
Anne Griffiths-Belt
Bill Hatcher
Jimmy Chin
Gordon Wiltsie
Peter Essick
Daniel Bayer..:-)

Take a close look at the work above and tell me if have consistently seen this type of image from digital.

Hint: Some of the links are close by.
Member said:
Member said:
I guess it also depends on who your clients are and how big the
checks are.
Click to expand...
My clients are world wide and the checks are big enough to buy me
all the equipment I need to continue to make a very comfortable
living.
Member said:
Digital does not respond like this top seller yet Lin:
Click to expand...
Like "what" top seller??
Click to expand...
The one on the link below
Member said:
Member said:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1055515

This may be a digital forum but let's not go spreading around
rehtoric that is Simply not true.
Click to expand...
What "rehtoric" might this be? You're tallking in riddles and vague
generalities, be specific and maybe we can discuss it...
Click to expand...
That digital has film beat in pro use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top