Old 02-13-2007, 03:09 PM   #26
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG_F45
...did I read that correctly? You can make a slide from a digital image? Does that mean I could have a few of my digital photos made into slides to show at the next model rr club slide night in their old Kodak projector?
Yup, lot's of such vendors on the web, upload a file, they send you back slides. I can't think of one off-hand as I never have slides made, but it should be easy enough to find one with a web search.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots

Last edited by JRMDC; 02-13-2007 at 04:15 PM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 03:22 PM   #27
EdM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Default

yeh, and down the cellar sits a 4x5 omega, a 2 1/4 omega and all the other stuff. not worth carrying up to the garbage... lite safes, safe lites, hugh timers, trays,.. the 4x5 crown went to the school, the canon 430's were traded in for the equivalent of $30 each, the 4x6 Bronica went fer $250 (it cost 3k second hand) whee.. nothing changes like change.... tick tock and the school (the educational institute) is still teaching what they know to the students, BW photography..and we are paying for it still.. sigh...... Ed
__________________
spinner of many antennas as well as tall tales and some outright lies..
EdM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 04:26 PM   #28
SD70MACMAN
The man with the plan
 
SD70MACMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonds, Washington
Posts: 375
Send a message via AIM to SD70MACMAN
Default

Id be doing some more film work, but I don't have access to a B&W darkroom anymore, so digital all the way! Darkrooms sure are fun and they really let your appreciate the hobby even more.
__________________
~Mike Bjork

UP's new slogan for Amtrak:
"We'll help you spread you wings and fly right into a siding!"

TRAINS TRAINS TRAINS!!! May the fun never end!
I'm a traitor! Im on JP.net! But all my plane shots involve trains!

BN FOREVER!
SD70MACMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 05:02 PM   #29
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Not only that, but unless you're shooting with a 1DS-Mark II, the quality & capability of your camera STILL isn't anywhere near the quality of a genuine slide. Of course, in the digital world (digital image -v- one the same), that's dependant on how good your imaging hardware (scanner) is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goremirebob
3) Quality digital projection is still not a practical proposition for the common railway photographer, both in terms of cost and technical limitations. We're told the cost will come down, but it seems to be taking a long time to happen. You still need to connect a digi projector to a computer, and seemingly spend a good 15 minutes making adjustments, though admittedly once its set up the results can be impressive.
Yes, but it can't be said for the other way around. You can shoot digital like slides in that manner, but not slides like digital. The technology isn't there, unless you have the hardware available. My point being you can't manipulate a slide in it's "normally" projected state. In digital, all is fair game, but that doesn't mean it's photography, IMO. Any dummy can pull the switch (shutter), then use their skills to later butcher the image as they wish to make the perfect. Digital opens up a whole new world of dummies (not photographers) to showcase their work, providing they know how to use Photoshop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Regarding your "all they need to do" point, the same is true of digital, if you take a photo in the right way, you don't need to manipulate it. Janet (WembYard) did say "can be" manipulated, not "must be." I see no difference between scanned film and digital in terms of process, in both you can choose the extent to which you manipulate.

Last edited by Fotaugrafee, Ink.; 02-13-2007 at 05:40 PM.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 05:17 PM   #30
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Not only that, but unless you're shooting with a 1DS-Mark II, the quality & capability of your camera STILL isn't anywhere near the quality of a genuine slide. Of course, in the digital world (digital image -v- one the same), that's dependant on how good your imaging hardware (scanner) is.
There is a lot of debate on this claim. Here is one link to an opposing view. I don't much care personally, so I don't have a horse in this race.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7A.html
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 05:18 PM   #31
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
My point being you can't manipulate a slide in it's "normally" projected state.
True. Good ol' Ansel craftily got around this by displaying his work as prints. So sneaky, Ansel!
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 05:38 PM   #32
jason15c
Member
 
jason15c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 45
Default Slides from digi

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG_F45
...did I read that correctly? You can make a slide from a digital image? Does that mean I could have a few of my digital photos made into slides to show at the next model rr club slide night in their old Kodak projector?
Try http://shop.fotopic.net/product3600.html
I have had several done by fotopic. Not only can you put a digital image onto a slide, but this is also a great way to transfer shots from negatives onto slide using a scanner. And dare I say it, you can also make fake photos for inclusion in your slide show, not that I would ever do anything like that
__________________
Jason Cross

http://www.15c.co.uk
jason15c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 05:59 PM   #33
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

The link you provide brings up grand points in the "film -v- digital" debate. However, it doesn't mention how digital (projected or printed) stands up against projected / "real" 35mm. My answer to that debate, to be fair, was that the scanned media is only as good as the hardware one is using.

I've had some steller Kodachrome prints made from my trip to the Apache last February that trump anything I shot on digital. Although, I'm just as happy with the quality (and obvious cheaper prices) for digital printwork. The reason? My processor has a damn good scanner & dedicated team, more expensive than anything I could ever afford.

I even tried scanning my own slides at one point after going digital in 10/2003, spinning them to CD in order to take advantage of digital rates through them, but the quality was sub par. I'll pay the 2-3x to make sure it comes out right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
There is a lot of debate on this claim. Here is one link to an opposing view. I don't much care personally, so I don't have a horse in this race.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7A.html
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 08:10 PM   #34
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Smile

I'm still shooting film (Provia 100 and 400, a bit of Kodak E200) because I can easily mix the new pix with the old pix into slide shows. And for posts and prints I can scan the slides.

But as I get more and more of my older slides scanned, that rationale will slowly disappear. My China slide show is probably going to go digital in the near future......the cost of a digital projector is the big challenge. From the digitally projected shows I've seen projected image quality isn't much of an issue any more. Moreover, Photoshop provides a lot of opportunity to inprove the faded and color shifted older stuff.

I just got back from a week in central China that is famous for it's grotty weather, and clearly digital would have been a more flexible medium for getting usable pix in that kind of weather. A good digital camera at ISO 400 (or higher) seems to capture far better shadow detail and color gradient that Provia 400.

So by this time next year my guess I will be a digital old fart.

John
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 12:14 AM   #35
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

I'm still using Provia 100 with my cam...sometimes. My digital takes better shots most of the time, but the night is still the domain of film for me.
I might use film more, but....$40 a roll....including processing and CD...
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 03:07 AM   #36
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

$40 per roll? Holy s**t, where are you shopping?

If you go by way of B&H, it shouldn't be more than $10 per roll, using mailers to boot!! So, a $30 difference for a CD? Am I misunderstanding something?

Scrap the CD, depending on where you're getting it done. If it's Wallyworld, their scans sort of blow, not worth it in the least. You're best off saving the difference & buying your own scanner for the quality they give you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
I might use film more, but....$40 a roll....including processing and CD...
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 04:12 AM   #37
Frederick
Senior Member
 
Frederick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hastings, Minnesota
Posts: 594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
$40 per roll? Holy s**t, where are you shopping?
That's in Canadian dollars.
__________________
Railpics Photos

Flickr Account
Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 06:24 AM   #38
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

That's still heinous! Since when is US to Canada $.50 to their Loonie? $40 for anything, regardless of the pre-scanned CD, that's ridiculous. All the more reason to purchase your own scanner, you could pay it off in 20 rolls worth of savings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
That's in Canadian dollars.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 02:13 PM   #39
trainmonster
Senior Member
 
trainmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 378
Talking

Film?! Forget it... on a fixed income, I could never afford it, I'm too paranoid to use mailers, the travel distance here in the boonies would total ~100 mi. between purchasing, dropping off, picking up, etc.... after I find out that it's special prepaid order from the podunk store here. Not to mention $1000 for a good slide scanner. F it. Digital is the best thing that ever happened to me. The first P&S has already paid for itself twice over, and the 30D is well on its way to doing the same.

Rich
__________________
"Truck trailers belong on flatcars"
trainmonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 02:47 PM   #40
Ken Carr
Senior Member: Vegasrails
 
Ken Carr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Henderson Nevada
Posts: 285
Default

Since 2004 been using and learning the DSLR. Using two Canon models a 20D for action shots (days) and the 300D for night and timed exposures. I still have 4 film cameras (2 AE-1's,Rebel TI and a little Samsung pocket camera). Shooting occasional BW film in the TI, I use one of the DSLR for exposure settings and then shoot the scene with film most of these scenes are of abandoned property found out in the desert during RF trips vehicles, barns houses, bottle cans etc. Otherwise for trains, storms and sports Digitial for close to 3 plus years. The pocket camera is for those moments when I can't sneak in a DSLR to a specific location/event do to work. This will soon be replaced with a pocket digital camera.
__________________
Regional Coordinator for Operation Lifesaver
Southern Nevada and Southern Utah

See what I do for fun along the rails and in the desert

See some of my slide shows


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Ken Carr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 02:59 PM   #41
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

That's extremely closed-minded and speaking with "0" factual knowledge about film usage & digital archiving. Even on bad weeks, my film took 14 days to get from PA to KS & return. Sure, there are nightmare stories about the mailer process, but if the boogeyman scared you everynight, you'd be an insomniac.

Nothing wrong with Mailers, depending on what you shoot...by default, most of it all goes the same place these days anyway. Do you think the CVS courier drives it all the way out to Kansas?

$1000 for a good slide scanner, eh? Sure, I suppose if you're doing publication grade work. A friend who owns a magazine just purchased a new Nikon Coolscan 9000 for under $1900, and he has valid reason for such a purchase.

Mind you, I bought my Nikon LS40 BRAND NEW (!!) approx. 2001 for $800 + tax. That was their top of the line consumer offering at that time. Today, they have the LS50, if you can find it, for $550 (@ B&H Photo, currently out of stock). Unless you're hell bent on absolute archival scanning quality, and web-quality will suffice, Epson & Canon both make flatbed models for under $200.

Proud to have 9 rolls of K64 going out for processing whenever I get my lazy ass over to CVS for the drop-off..., and yes, I shoot a 20D as well. Mind you, I don't bother shooting 35mm print film, as that is the only thing digital has replaced in my own shooting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trainmonster
Film?! Forget it... on a fixed income, I could never afford it, I'm too paranoid to use mailers, the travel distance here in the boonies would total ~100 mi. between purchasing, dropping off, picking up, etc.... after I find out that it's special prepaid order from the podunk store here. Not to mention $1000 for a good slide scanner. F it. Digital is the best thing that ever happened to me. The first P&S has already paid for itself twice over, and the 30D is well on its way to doing the same.

Rich

Last edited by Fotaugrafee, Ink.; 02-16-2007 at 03:02 PM.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 03:51 PM   #42
ken45
LA&SL Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 700
Default

If you have a college or university near you that has a photo department, they might be able to scan your slides for you. I know that my university has a department where you can scan slides onto a CD for a reasonable price. That'll save you from buying a slide scanner if you find the cost prohibitive.
ken45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 05:19 PM   #43
EdM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Smile

there were some comments about going from digital to slides.... I have a hugh problem with that, having over 45 carosels, most the 140's. Very big storage problem and I welcomed digital photo storage, and especially the ability to make a self starting "slide show" with the click of a mouse, containing "slides" taken on multiple days. This permits "slide" storage by date, and slide viewing by... well just about anything... and on a CD rom yet.. I store my recent "slides" by date, then make up "slide" shows by topic and store the shows on CD's... The (few) really really good ones get printed for the notebook.
The decision to go from film to digits wasn't even a shade of grey, it was a whopee! and DONE!.. The light box, carosel proj, & loop, have joined the empty and semi-empty carosels in storage. BTW, it seems no matter how much desecant one puts into a carosel box,....."could desacant bring mildew" ? meybe it is because I cannot spell it... Ed
__________________
spinner of many antennas as well as tall tales and some outright lies..

Last edited by EdM; 02-16-2007 at 05:35 PM.
EdM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 06:23 PM   #44
Wonka001
Senior Member
 
Wonka001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Woods Cross, UT
Posts: 203
Default

I tried my hand at film, but since I wasn't educated in how to properly do film, I found i was wasting it, so I figured I would go with digital. and haven't looked back.. at least for now.
__________________
Out of 93 pictures in one night I submit three, get one in, and forget about the rest..

Here is a show of my work here on RPN

Another place to look at pictures if there is more to photography than railroading http://www.picpublisher.com/referral/William_Grow
Wonka001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 07:05 PM   #45
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

What kind of climate is the room you're keeping your work in? That has ALOT to do with it. A friend, who at one time sent me 9 carousels worth of scanning (probably not realizing how long that would take, for NO consideration, mind you), had mildew on half of them ~ his father's collection of older Ektachromes that just sat around with no one eyeballing them now & again. And this was "ick" mildew, all over the emulsion, not just a few spatters.

The same can be done for digitally archived 35mm slides, it's all about how much WORK you wish to put into your work!

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdM
there were some comments about going from digital to slides.... I have a hugh problem with that, having over 45 carosels, most the 140's. Very big storage problem and I welcomed digital photo storage, and especially the ability to make a self starting "slide show" with the click of a mouse, containing "slides" taken on multiple days. This permits "slide" storage by date, and slide viewing by... well just about anything... and on a CD rom yet.. I store my recent "slides" by date, then make up "slide" shows by topic and store the shows on CD's... The (few) really really good ones get printed for the notebook.
The only education is one you're not willing to learn. That's sort of an ignorant statement. If you can't expose film properly, how do you expect to expose a photo from a digital camera? Wait...lemme guess..."point-n-shoot"? It's going to take time, and in the past, it took money. The only difference now is the instant feedback of it all. For the most part, I still shoot the same range of settings on my DSLR as I did my 35mm ISO-100 film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonka001
I tried my hand at film, but since I wasn't educated in how to properly do film, I found i was wasting it, so I figured I would go with digital. and haven't looked back.. at least for now.

Last edited by Fotaugrafee, Ink.; 02-16-2007 at 07:18 PM.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 11:48 PM   #46
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Not really, if one takes a proper photo to begin with, all they need to do is scan & resize. With all the photoshoppers removing poles; garbage; changing exposures, etc. - the editor vs. photographer is extremely valid.
This raises an interesting subject, as a friend of mine and I were discussing this very thing the other day while out railfaning (I actually brought it up due to this particular post, but at the time I first read it, I wasn't cleared to post in the forum yet). My point to him was, what difference does it make if you pre-edit or post-edit something out of your picture? I'll use the garbage example above. You could either pick it up and remove it from view, or you could could clone it out in photoshop. Either way, you have achieved the same exact result (providing your cloning skills are up to par)...the garbage has been removed from your image. Same can be said for annoying branches or ground foliage. A few times I've trimmed branches to give a clearer view, and a few times I've cloned branches to achieve the same result. Only difference, pre-editing the scene vs. post-editing.

I know it's impossible to physically remove telephone poles, wires, and other fixed subjects in the image, but at what point does editing cross the line and fall under the criticism it sometimes receives? If I could physically move that telephone pole out of the background to get a nice clean image of a train passing by, would anyone care? Most likely not. But for some reason, removing that immovable stationary object in Photoshop suddenly becomes a negative thing.

I think there is a "too far" point when editing, but the minor stuff surely makes for an interesting debate when you actually have the ability to edit, err, move it PRIOR to taking a picture.

As this is my first post in the forum, I apologize if I've taken the original intent of this thread in a different direction with my thoughts.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 12:27 AM   #47
EdM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Default

"Kodak is considering hiving off its traditional photographic film arm and selling or spinning off the business it created more than a century ago.

The business, which has long been in decline, could raise as much as $1.5 billion (664 million), according to Wall Street analysts.


Yeh, well Kodak , if I remember correctly, sold its slide processing to some outfit about 10-15 years ago and then bought it back.. Remember 16-30 Rt 208 Fairlawn,NJ? then it went to somewhere else????Qualux????

Three or four years ago, out of lazyness, I sent a few rolls of b/w 120 via the local Kodak pickup from the camera store for processing... Remember when you processed your first roll of b/w, possibily with MQ? If you made the mistake I did back in the forties, you creased the film loading it into the tank., sometimes in more than one place until you learned.. Creasing unprocessed film leaves a "wedgie" across the film which shows up to completely ruin the frame... Well, to make a long story short, I got a "wedgie" on the beginning of a roll of Kokak processed b/w 120 trix... That, along with my lazyness spelled the end of Kodak processing for me, and went a long way towards the digital move.
(I really loved b/w medium/large format, one had to handle the negs with care to keep from getting cut, so sharp were, especially, the 4x5 ones)
__________________
spinner of many antennas as well as tall tales and some outright lies..

Last edited by EdM; 02-17-2007 at 12:36 AM.
EdM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 03:50 AM   #48
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
My point to him was, what difference does it make if you pre-edit or post-edit something out of your picture? I'll use the garbage example above. You could either pick it up and remove it from view, or you could could clone it out in photoshop.
Interesting argument, but two different things, IMO. For me, taking a photo is capturing the history of the scene, even if it includes garbage or branches that might be in the way. If someone sees your shot with branches cloned out and then goes to the same spot the next day and the branches are there, your image is a false representation of the actual scene. That's how I justify pre- and post-editting...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 04:14 AM   #49
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG_F45
...did I read that correctly? You can make a slide from a digital image? Does that mean I could have a few of my digital photos made into slides to show at the next model rr club slide night in their old Kodak projector?
But of course!
I've had a few slides made from negatives - basically, you take a picture of the print (or negative) and process the slide. I believe this was called and internegative? I would imagine you could also inverse the colors in a digital file and print to a transparency though I haven't seen the service offered anywhere.

Regarding film - I've tried my darndest to get the cartridge into my Canon
20D but it just won't fit. If I decide to shoot dedicated B&W or ISO 64 then I'll take the 'ol EOS A2E out, the cartridges seem to fit in much easier. I like the idea of perfecting a photo digitally and then setting up the film camera side by side with similar settings.

/Mitch
Stop, look and comment!
Click Here and tell me which of my photos are digital and which are film.

(Just kidding it's about 60/40 - bit it's probably not noticable at the resolution RP uses which is the next best thing to a "watermark").
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 04:18 AM   #50
trainmonster
Senior Member
 
trainmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 378
Smile

[quote=JimThias]
I know it's impossible to physically remove telephone poles, wires, and other fixed subjects in the image, but at what point does editing cross the line and fall under the criticism it sometimes receives? If I could physically move that telephone pole out of the background to get a nice clean image of a train passing by, would anyone care? Most likely not. But for some reason, removing that immovable stationary object in Photoshop suddenly becomes a negative thing.[quote]

For me, I have no guilt whatsoever with cloning out an errant power line or piece of garbage, etc. that I missed when setting up. Any more than that I can't do in good conscience. Only other editing I do is crop, sharpen, color correct, level and resize. I just make sure to compose well and shoot full manual... I've heard the excuse that "well, it's digital, I can crop it down and fix it (under/overexposed) in Photoshop." No dice with me. I refuse to get sloppy!

Here you go. Original:



Too far!



Rich
__________________
"Truck trailers belong on flatcars"

Last edited by trainmonster; 02-17-2007 at 04:22 AM.
trainmonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.