A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Digital ICE" without Digital ICE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 29th 04, 01:40 PM
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Don) wrote in message ...
On 27 Oct 2004 09:16:49 -0700,
(Lorenzo J.
Lucchini) wrote:

What do you think? I *have* actually tried this stuff and it *appears*
to work and remove a number of defects from the final image - although
many dust spots remains, and I haven't been able to find out whether
the system works differently with dust that's *on the film* and dust
that's *on the scanner*.


[snip]

Besides the obvious such as flaws (both scratches and dust) on top of
the film which will not be detected in the reflective scan,


I still am not sure of this one. If dust (or scratches, I just say
dust because it's one word) is on top of a transparent region of the
film, why do you say it won't be detected? I suppose it will undergo
some dimming, but that should be all, or should it?

[snip alignment problems]

Regarding surface particles (e.g. dust), once you've moved the film
you've dislodged some dust and introduced other.


I'm afraid you're thinking about a different kind of scanner than the
one I'm using. I don't move the film at all between the two scans - I
just leave it on the glass, held by means of the film holder provided
with my scanner.

The only mechanical operation I do between the two scans is opening
the lid for the reflective scan (or closing it for the transmittive
scan, if I do the reflective scan first), so that as little light as
possible is reflected down.
Of course, slamming the lid down is not a good idea since that
obviously *will* move something - but you just have to move it down
gentlier.

Therefore, surface
debris between the two scans will not correspond anymore.


It does almost correspond on my scanner. Mind you, I had to do an
(extremely boring) manual alignment between two test scans in order to
measure the shift my scanner introduces between reflective scanning
and transparency scanning.
So now I know that every transparency scan will be x=-2, y=13 pixels
off every reflective scan, and I just have to adjust every scan
accordingly (of course I've written a script to do that).

Now, it's true that there *will* be some alignment problems between
any two scans, since the motor stepping can't be 100% accurate.
However, if it's good enough for VueScan to offer a multi-scan option,
it can't be too bad for my purposes.

In any case the scripts I've written dilate every noise spot found in
the reflective scan so that these alignment problems should go
unnoticed. Clearly, this way you lose more image data that you must,
since the interpolated region will be somewhat larger than exactly the
size of the dust particle / scratch.
It all depends on whether that's a price one feels like paying.

In other
words, you'd be "cleaning" dust which doesn't exist and, yet, leaving
dust which does.


While I make the reflective scan, some "new" dust will deposit on the
film, since I'm keeping the lid open. But I hope it won't affect
things too much...

So in both instances (internal and external flaws) the alignment,
which is the cornerstone of the method, will itself be flawed.


.... on some scanners that work in a different way than mine. Perhaps
you're thinking of that kind of flatbed+film scanners where you place
the film in a dedicated "drawer" just below the scanner's glass?

At least, if I understood your critics correctly, my method should
still work for scanners that don't require you to put the film in a
different place than you put normal paper.

Nevertheless, I really must commend you again on creative thinking!


Thanks :-) You see, when I buy something and then discover that more
expensive devices have more features (duh!), I then feel I *must*
somehow replicate those features - although using LEGO bricks is only
one option (I mean, this RX500 thing doesn't have automatic power
on/off! I thought every printer, scanner, or printer+scanner made
after 2000 had that feature! What can I do now except connecting a
LEGO-made kludge with a LEGO motor to the RS323 port, and make it push
the Power button on request?).

But seriously, I'm not claiming that my method works as well as real
Digital ICE, nor that it will remove every single defect from a
picture, nor that it will not try to correct some defects that aren't
really there.
I'm just suggesting that, at least on scanners that work like mine, it
might be more effective than a software-only filter, with less risk of
removing real image detail.

Besides, I haven't tried it yet on negatives, since I must first write
a script that crops negatives in the right place, and that's harder
and more boring than with slides, so it's very possible that it won't
work on negatives very well at all.

Don.


By the way, a fluorescent lamp like you find them in scanners doesn't
emit much infrared, right? If it did, I suppose one could place an
infrared-pass filtering material between the lamp and the film,
thereby doing the same thing Digital ICE does. That's assuming a
scanner's CCD is sensitive to infrared light, and it looks like mine
is (I scanned a remote control's emitter with a button pressed -
definitely seems to pick up infrared).

by LjL

  #12  
Old October 29th 04, 01:51 PM
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Mendel Leisk) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

Lorenzo, your first jpeg link appears to be to a maliscous site...

Any idea why this should be???


No. Which link are you referring to?
In case I've mispelled something, the working links are
http://ljl.150m.com/slide_clean.jpg
http://ljl.150m.com/slide_clean_b.jpg
http://ljl.150m.com/slide_original.jpg
http://ljl.150m.com/slide_map.png
http://ljl.150m.com/slide_nmap.png

All they do here is load the respective pictures, with JavaScript both
enabled and disabled.

I've noticed that 150m.com *sometimes* opens a pop-up window, but
usually not. If that popup window contains malicious code, I don't
know.
I see it connects to 0catch.com when it has to show a 404.

Anyway, 150m.com is just one of those free web providers that filling
your mailbox with spam when you sign for an account, whose policies
are dubious at least.

If I could host the files on my own machine, I would, but I can't - I
don't even have a public IP address.

Please avoid using your browser to load those pictures, and just use
wget or your favorite downloader to avoid unpleasant surprises.
If the pictures don't load, try later - the files *are* there and the
links I posted (at least the ones in this article) are correct.

Sorry for any inconvenience, I just don't have a better way to publish
files on the net.

by LjL

  #13  
Old October 29th 04, 02:46 PM
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:53:15 GMT, Gadgets wrote:

Interesting idea, but you'd need your object to be in the exact same
place
when you lifted the lid. Maybe it could work if you put glass over your
orig.


The film holder bundled with my scanner looks just about firm enough.
On the other hand, putting glass over the film is something I, too, was
thinking of... not only to keep the film better in place, but for a much
more compelling reason: focus.
As I understand it, my scanner has focus fixed on the glass. However, the
film holder keeps the film something like half a millimeter above the
glass surface, and unless I'm missing something, this would definitely
compromise (compromit?) correct focus.
Besides, films from one-hour photo development often comes back less than
flat, with the section looking like this:

_ _
__ __
____ ____
________ ________
________________

(although the effect in ASCII art is definitely exaggerated).

I bet focus doesn't benefit from this.

However, putting glass on the film means that the film comes in contact
with both the scanner glass and the newly added glass; I'm afraid friction
could cause scratches on the film as soon as there is a dust particle
moving... so I'm not sure this would be a good idea, at least for the
film's health.

by LjL

  #14  
Old October 29th 04, 04:38 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 29 Oct 2004 05:40:02 -0700, (Lorenzo J.
Lucchini) wrote:

Besides the obvious such as flaws (both scratches and dust) on top of
the film which will not be detected in the reflective scan,


I still am not sure of this one. If dust (or scratches, I just say
dust because it's one word) is on top of a transparent region of the
film, why do you say it won't be detected? I suppose it will undergo
some dimming, but that should be all, or should it?


Because the reflective scan will generally only register what's on the
underside of the film. Depending on film density some "stuff" on top
may come through but it will be distorted and unreliable not to
mention overwhelmed by the underside reflections. (Also, see next
segment about focus.)

BTW, I read below you actually open the lid for the reflective scan. I
understand you're doing this to reduce the "transparency effect" but
by the same token this will further reduce data from the top as the
light from the lamp has nothing to bounce off of once it's gone
through the film. Any reflections from the top scratches or dust
itself will be very tiny and then further diffused by the film
substrate by the time they reach the sensors. Finally, I expect that
whatever weak data survives all that it will then be drowned by the
strong reflection from the underside of the film.

Regarding surface particles (e.g. dust), once you've moved the film
you've dislodged some dust and introduced other.


I'm afraid you're thinking about a different kind of scanner than the
one I'm using. I don't move the film at all between the two scans - I
just leave it on the glass, held by means of the film holder provided
with my scanner.


Ah, then you have a different problem: Focus!

In general, flatbed scanners are "fixed focus" to the top of the
glass. By placing the film holder on top you're moving the film away
from the scanner's range.

That's unimportant when you're performing a transparency scan because
in that case it's the projected image on top of the glass that's being
scanned and not the film surface.

(Indeed, if you want to improve the resolution, you may wish to use a
slide projector and project the image onto the glass to fill the whole
scan area! Some scanners actually come with a holder to keep the
scanner on its side. In my case this was undocumented and I was
puzzled for weeks what that funny looking part was for! :-)
Failing that you can open the scanner lid at a 90 degree angle and
have the scanner rest on the lid. Since it's hard to focus on the
glass you may wish to place a sheet of paper on the glass to help with
the focus and then remove it before scanning. I haven't actually tried
all this, but it should work.)

However, when you do a reflective scan, this time it's the bounce from
the film itself that gets registered. And since the holder makes the
film "float" several millimeters above the glass it will be out of
focus.

Now then, flatbeds generally have a certain amount of depth of field
(except some, like Canon Lido series, which use a different
technology). However, for such finicky work like removing dust (and
scratches) I fear this inaccuracy will impact the algorithm.

I guess, you could improve this considerably by not using the film
holder at all and placing the film directly on the glass.

The only mechanical operation I do between the two scans is opening
the lid for the reflective scan (or closing it for the transmittive
scan, if I do the reflective scan first), so that as little light as
possible is reflected down.
Of course, slamming the lid down is not a good idea since that
obviously *will* move something - but you just have to move it down
gentlier.


Unfortunately, at this level of accuracy no matter how careful you are
there will be movement.

But more importantly, any time you do multi-pass multi-scanning (which
is in effect what you are doing) there will be registration problems.
Even if the film was perfectly in place the stepper motor will never
be in the same place as on the previous scan. Furthermore, again due
to scanner mechanics, the sensor array is bound to move laterally as
well. The end result will be misalignment on both axis.

You can check this by simply scanning an image twice. You'll notice
that even though nothing has changed between the two scans there will
be major misalignment. When I got my flatbed this was a big revelation
to me! I then kept reducing the resolution expecting that at some
point the images will be in sync but even at the lowest resolution of
50 they were still off!

Actually, I've been wrestling with multi-pass multi-scan image
alignment in a different context (film scanner) where the slide
remains in the scanner between the scans and - still - there is major
misalignment. What's worse this is on sub-pixel level, so I have to do
sub-pixel alignment before I can merge the two scans, which opens up a
whole new can of worms...

BTW, on my flatbed I don't have to open the lid to switch between
reflective and transparency scans. The only thing I have to do is
connect the cable that provides the power to the light source in the
lid, as well as indicate that the lamp in the scanner should be turned
off. Couldn't you just do that? It would improve things quite a lot
because no matter how careful you are, you are bound to move the
holder if you open the lid. Not to mention that by opening the lid
you're not pressing on the holder anymore so it's bound to "float"
even further from the glass.

Therefore, surface
debris between the two scans will not correspond anymore.


It does almost correspond on my scanner. Mind you, I had to do an
(extremely boring) manual alignment between two test scans in order to
measure the shift my scanner introduces between reflective scanning
and transparency scanning.

So now I know that every transparency scan will be x=-2, y=13 pixels
off every reflective scan, and I just have to adjust every scan
accordingly (of course I've written a script to do that).


I fear that, for the reasons outlined above, this will actually differ
with each scan. Furthermore, there will also be sub-pixel
misalignment.

Here's a little trick/workflow I use in Photoshop to check the
(mis)alignment of two images:

1. Click on the magnifying glass.
2. Make sure "Resize Windows To Fit" checkmark is *ON*
3. Load an image.
4. Double-click the magnifying glass to get 100%
5. Press Control/+ until the image is 300% or 400%
6. Repeat for second image.
7. Use Control/Tab to toggle between the images.

NOTE: This is the only reliable way I found to actually have the two
*windows* aligned. Any other method appears to skew the windows'
alignment.

To move the image within the window use Home, End, PageUp and
PageDown, then toggle with Control/Tab and repeat for the other image
to keep them in sync.

Now, it's true that there *will* be some alignment problems between
any two scans, since the motor stepping can't be 100% accurate.
However, if it's good enough for VueScan to offer a multi-scan option,
it can't be too bad for my purposes.


Ah... VueScan... Hmmm... I'm not a fan, to say the least... ;o) Far
too buggy for my taste.

As I like to say, VueScan's multi-pass multi-scan option is a very
time consuming and complicated way to blur an image... ;o)

In any case the scripts I've written dilate every noise spot found in
the reflective scan so that these alignment problems should go
unnoticed. Clearly, this way you lose more image data that you must,
since the interpolated region will be somewhat larger than exactly the
size of the dust particle / scratch.


That's exactly it! What you perceive as spot removal is really loss of
data. You could probably achieve a very similar effect but simply
applying a small amount of Gaussian Blur.

It all depends on whether that's a price one feels like paying.


Well... Yes... But doing stuff like this is so much fun! ;o)

By the way, a fluorescent lamp like you find them in scanners doesn't
emit much infrared, right? If it did, I suppose one could place an
infrared-pass filtering material between the lamp and the film,
thereby doing the same thing Digital ICE does. That's assuming a
scanner's CCD is sensitive to infrared light, and it looks like mine
is (I scanned a remote control's emitter with a button pressed -
definitely seems to pick up infrared).


I don't know the spectral characteristics of a garden variety flatbed
lamp or CDD response but I wouldn't be surprised if some IR data is
picked up. The problem is separating this IR data from the rest
because that's what you need to perform dust removal. This may be
possible by applying Fast Fourier Transformation to extract only
certain (i.e., IR) frequencies but that's only a wild guess and way
over my head...

Don.
  #15  
Old October 29th 04, 05:57 PM
Kennedy McEwen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Don
writes
On 29 Oct 2004 05:40:02 -0700, (Lorenzo J.
Lucchini) wrote:

By the way, a fluorescent lamp like you find them in scanners doesn't
emit much infrared, right? If it did, I suppose one could place an
infrared-pass filtering material between the lamp and the film,
thereby doing the same thing Digital ICE does. That's assuming a
scanner's CCD is sensitive to infrared light, and it looks like mine
is (I scanned a remote control's emitter with a button pressed -
definitely seems to pick up infrared).


I don't know the spectral characteristics of a garden variety flatbed
lamp or CDD response but I wouldn't be surprised if some IR data is
picked up. The problem is separating this IR data from the rest
because that's what you need to perform dust removal. This may be
possible by applying Fast Fourier Transformation to extract only
certain (i.e., IR) frequencies but that's only a wild guess and way
over my head...

"No FT - no comment!" ;-)
(For those unaware, the FT in that instance was Financial Times!)

Seriously though, there is no need to FT to achieve this, just an IR
filter - although I doubt that much IR is emitted from the light source.
I had hoped to check this for you, but having looked in my filter box I
seem to have mislaid my Kodak No.87 - and since I haven't used it for
years, I probably won't bother replacing it.

In any case, with an IR filter in place you will probably get some
response in all colours, so just make a grey mask.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  #16  
Old October 30th 04, 12:38 AM
Tetractys
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lorenzo J. Lucchini wrote:

As I understand it, my scanner has focus fixed on the glass.
However, the film holder keeps the film something like half
a millimeter above the glass surface, and unless I'm missing
something, this would definitely compromise correct focus.


PMFBI, and I haven't posted here before, but ...
two things:

1) Parallax may enter into the equation, if one scan is reflected
from one side of the film, and the other is "through." Although
tiny, there may be a noticeable difference in scanned image
size -- depending on pixel density, possibly enough to affect
your final result beyond the intended effect.

2) Often, there is crud under the scanner glass which is difficult
to clean. Every couple of years, I take my scanners apart to
clean off dust which has gotten inside the works, and most
especially the plasticizer residue sublimated off the wiring and
electronics. While out of the focal plane, probably enough not
to matter, it's something to consider when you're getting down
to the (admirable!) level of detail you're chasing. BTW, all
of the scanners I have require breaking of seals or use of Torx
drivers and so on to get into the case. You also have to be
very careful of ribbon cables, tiny boards, optics, plugs, etc.
Not for the faint-hearted, but IMHO worth the time and risk
to end up with a pristine imaging path. (I've never damaged
a scanner doing this, but I have experience in this kind of thing.)


  #17  
Old October 30th 04, 01:32 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:57:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

I don't know the spectral characteristics of a garden variety flatbed
lamp or CDD response but I wouldn't be surprised if some IR data is
picked up. The problem is separating this IR data from the rest
because that's what you need to perform dust removal. This may be
possible by applying Fast Fourier Transformation to extract only
certain (i.e., IR) frequencies but that's only a wild guess and way
over my head...

"No FT - no comment!" ;-)
(For those unaware, the FT in that instance was Financial Times!)

Seriously though, there is no need to FT to achieve this, just an IR
filter - although I doubt that much IR is emitted from the light source.
I had hoped to check this for you, but having looked in my filter box I
seem to have mislaid my Kodak No.87 - and since I haven't used it for
years, I probably won't bother replacing it.


That's a good idea, although he'd then have to lift the lid in order
to insert the filter thereby causing misalignment problems as the
slide is bound to move. I guess a gelatinous IR filter (if such a
thing exists) would be even better in practical terms.

So, using Financial Times ;o) to extract only the IR component may be
easier in the end.

Don.
  #18  
Old October 30th 04, 01:32 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:57:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

I don't know the spectral characteristics of a garden variety flatbed
lamp or CDD response but I wouldn't be surprised if some IR data is
picked up. The problem is separating this IR data from the rest
because that's what you need to perform dust removal. This may be
possible by applying Fast Fourier Transformation to extract only
certain (i.e., IR) frequencies but that's only a wild guess and way
over my head...

"No FT - no comment!" ;-)
(For those unaware, the FT in that instance was Financial Times!)

Seriously though, there is no need to FT to achieve this, just an IR
filter - although I doubt that much IR is emitted from the light source.
I had hoped to check this for you, but having looked in my filter box I
seem to have mislaid my Kodak No.87 - and since I haven't used it for
years, I probably won't bother replacing it.


That's a good idea, although he'd then have to lift the lid in order
to insert the filter thereby causing misalignment problems as the
slide is bound to move. I guess a gelatinous IR filter (if such a
thing exists) would be even better in practical terms.

So, using Financial Times ;o) to extract only the IR component may be
easier in the end.

Don.
  #19  
Old October 30th 04, 01:32 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:38:23 -0500, "Tetractys"
wrote:

As I understand it, my scanner has focus fixed on the glass.
However, the film holder keeps the film something like half
a millimeter above the glass surface, and unless I'm missing
something, this would definitely compromise correct focus.


PMFBI, and I haven't posted here before, but ...
two things:


Not at all! The more the merrier!

1) Parallax may enter into the equation, if one scan is reflected
from one side of the film, and the other is "through." Although
tiny, there may be a noticeable difference in scanned image
size -- depending on pixel density, possibly enough to affect
your final result beyond the intended effect.


That's a very good point. Parallax is bound to contribute to his
misalignment problems.

2) Often, there is crud under the scanner glass which is difficult
to clean. Every couple of years, I take my scanners apart to
clean off dust which has gotten inside the works, and most
especially the plasticizer residue sublimated off the wiring and
electronics. While out of the focal plane, probably enough not
to matter, it's something to consider when you're getting down
to the (admirable!) level of detail you're chasing. BTW, all
of the scanners I have require breaking of seals or use of Torx
drivers and so on to get into the case. You also have to be
very careful of ribbon cables, tiny boards, optics, plugs, etc.
Not for the faint-hearted, but IMHO worth the time and risk
to end up with a pristine imaging path. (I've never damaged
a scanner doing this, but I have experience in this kind of thing.)


I recently did this on my flatbed which is only months old but I
already noticed the residue on the underside of the glass. In my case
no seals needed breaking I just lifted two plastic screw protectors
alongside the lid hinge to reveal the screws (took a while to figure
it out!). I then lifted the back and the front just slid out.
Furthermore, the lid came off together with the glass making it much
easier to handle. I just turn the whole assembly over. All the
electronics as well as the lamp assembly stay in the base which is
very handy.

Ever since, I've been doing this every couple of weeks because the
residue keeps building up. The longer the scanner is on the more
apparent it gets as, presumably, the temperature rises and evaporation
increases.

BTW, what do you use to clean the glass? I use lens cleaner and lens
paper but this still seems to leave a thin film/smudges behind no
matter how thorough I am. I even tried to polish this off using a
microfiber cloth but just can't seem to get it all off. I'm starting
to get the feeling I'm just redistributing it.

Don.
  #20  
Old October 30th 04, 01:32 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:38:23 -0500, "Tetractys"
wrote:

As I understand it, my scanner has focus fixed on the glass.
However, the film holder keeps the film something like half
a millimeter above the glass surface, and unless I'm missing
something, this would definitely compromise correct focus.


PMFBI, and I haven't posted here before, but ...
two things:


Not at all! The more the merrier!

1) Parallax may enter into the equation, if one scan is reflected
from one side of the film, and the other is "through." Although
tiny, there may be a noticeable difference in scanned image
size -- depending on pixel density, possibly enough to affect
your final result beyond the intended effect.


That's a very good point. Parallax is bound to contribute to his
misalignment problems.

2) Often, there is crud under the scanner glass which is difficult
to clean. Every couple of years, I take my scanners apart to
clean off dust which has gotten inside the works, and most
especially the plasticizer residue sublimated off the wiring and
electronics. While out of the focal plane, probably enough not
to matter, it's something to consider when you're getting down
to the (admirable!) level of detail you're chasing. BTW, all
of the scanners I have require breaking of seals or use of Torx
drivers and so on to get into the case. You also have to be
very careful of ribbon cables, tiny boards, optics, plugs, etc.
Not for the faint-hearted, but IMHO worth the time and risk
to end up with a pristine imaging path. (I've never damaged
a scanner doing this, but I have experience in this kind of thing.)


I recently did this on my flatbed which is only months old but I
already noticed the residue on the underside of the glass. In my case
no seals needed breaking I just lifted two plastic screw protectors
alongside the lid hinge to reveal the screws (took a while to figure
it out!). I then lifted the back and the front just slid out.
Furthermore, the lid came off together with the glass making it much
easier to handle. I just turn the whole assembly over. All the
electronics as well as the lamp assembly stay in the base which is
very handy.

Ever since, I've been doing this every couple of weeks because the
residue keeps building up. The longer the scanner is on the more
apparent it gets as, presumably, the temperature rises and evaporation
increases.

BTW, what do you use to clean the glass? I use lens cleaner and lens
paper but this still seems to leave a thin film/smudges behind no
matter how thorough I am. I even tried to polish this off using a
microfiber cloth but just can't seem to get it all off. I'm starting
to get the feeling I'm just redistributing it.

Don.
 




Thread Tools
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why digital is not photographic Tom Phillips In The Darkroom 35 October 16th 04 08:16 PM
Top photographers condemn digital age DM In The Darkroom 111 October 10th 04 04:08 AM
Sad news for film-based photography Ronald Shu 35mm Photo Equipment 200 October 6th 04 12:07 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.