@340
Elites: 210
 |
|
GFX Forums > GFXartist [GFX] > question regarding photography and manipulation
Back to forum overview
Back to topics
1 
| question regarding photography and manipulation |
|---|
 biddi | 03/14/2008 @276
|  edit post
|
| I know i am only new and have not posted any art of my own simply because i do not think it would rate up to that of the other artists of this site, regardless i have been browsing this site on and off for about a year, isnt art up to personal interpretation and the only person that truely knows the meaning of the artwork is the creator. If this is true then why is artwork getting moved, doesnt it symbolize freedom of speech and even though you can obviously not post a photoshop piece in with free hand shouldnt it be the artists disgression whether or not it is placed in photography or manipulation??? im not trying to cause arguements im just curious as to why this has become such a problem and cant just be left alone?? |
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
 purplerose | 03/14/2008 @309
| edit post
|
|
|
Because... an apple pie isn't an apple. Is this Erlend (Mork)? 
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
 Wysiwyg | 03/14/2008 @495
| edit post
|
|
quote: quote:LOL sure sounds like the same speech to me. But I'll be happy to answer this again. Read my post here. Nos morituri by MorkI find it amazing that a new account is born on the same day I write that speech to someone with the exact views as you 
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio | |
|---|---|
|
slaphapy5 | 03/14/2008 @736
| edit post
|
|
|
just so that everyone can read without visiting his artwork Nos morituri by Mork although, you should visit it as well... because it's quite beautiful... "Sigh...Erland we've already had this conversation. Every artist is entitled to interpret art, and all definitions therein in a way that's unique to themselves. BUT, when uploading to GFX, you need to adhere to GFX rules and definitions. The categories here are indeed need of some additional subcategories, but unfortunately that's outside my reach, and the programmers have made it clear they have other priorities (the projects they actually pay the bills). With the advent of Adobe Lightroom and Camera Raw Plugins...HDR photography....The line between manip and photo, is becoming more blurred. In regards to post processing. I do plan on working with the Admins in the very near future in regards to redefining what needs to go in the 'manip' catagory (strangely I was typing about this on Monday...what timing) and what stays in photo. Most likely it will be a combination of input from the Admins, mods...and yes members (I'll start a thread at the appropriate time). But for now, the guidelines are simple. As GFX defines manips now, this belongs in that catagory. I implore you not to unpublish or give reason to unpublish as it is a amazing work. I also ask you be on standby as I will be sure to contact you when this 'redefinition' discussion takes place as I'm sure you can give some unique insight." by  Wysiwyg"I think it is a very bad idea that a site has such strong stances on what is this and what is that. It should be left to the individuals to define themselves. (And such works very well on other websites). Let the members fight it out, in stead of inspiring this severe lack of questioning what is photography. It's completely fine that you or most people don't agree with me. I just want the freedom to define myself when I enter images. Of course, it's your site to do with what you want and such. But I am tempted to make parallells with different types of political government here.. though this is a storm in a teacup in comparison. One might assume that you wanted to make the best site possible. You mention Lightroom and the simple tool of ACR as blurring the lines of photography and manipulation. But let me guess, my work will never be defined by you as photography, as it is usually as post editied as it can get. This kind of moderation makes for a very very poor climate." by Mork"Mork - if i took a pencil and drew on a piece of paper that doesn't mean it's a painting. Or photography. Or 3d modelling. It's a drawing. This work is a photo-manipulation, as we have tried to tell you before. If you don't agree that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that at this site, that's what it is categorized as." by MePhIstoZoRso... honestly I think there are a lot of issues behind this that are larger than we can really deal with on just this site. BUT, that being said, I completely agree with Mork that there should at least be an attempt within the community to determine whether the photography categories should be changed. However, Im pretty gosh darn sure that it would stay the same unfortunately. I have arguments daily ... DAILY on subject matters like this or very similar with other photographers. I guess I've become rather short tempered by it. Sooo many people have an odd impression by photography. anywhere from it's simply not artwork, to it's only photography if it's done with a camera, slr or otherwise that requires you to deal with aperture/iso/shutter speed. Honestly most of this stuff seems to be bull.... said by those who really don't have the knowledge to use a camera and do things that others can, so they discredit the best work by dismissing it as "oh that's just done in photoshop, anyone can do that.." yeah. well I'd like to see you do it before you go blabbing that BS around. PRIME example of how far those words have stretched into EVERYONE: There is currently a photography show in our gallery at our school. One of the artists exhibited is Alexandre Orion. and his piece "Metabiotics 14" (PLEASE take a look at his work, it's pretty incredible.) just a quick insight: he draws grafiti on walls in Sao Paulo and waits for people to walk by which interact in a candid way with them, capturing some very entertaining moments. While touring the gallery, someone walks up to a piece with another student and when asked about it she replys: "oh, that's probably done by a student, it's amazing what they can do in photoshop and illustrator these days" now, i'm sure you read that and were like "what does that have to do with anything" ... well it's this feeding of ignorance towards photography that has even reached to people who have no involvement with artwork to simply dismiss photographs that are quite incredible and original as "it's just photoshop" I just want to ask... if Jill Greenberg, Jim Fiscus, or Peter lik came to this website, would you disgrace them by telling them they weren't allowed to be called "photographers" but instead "photo manipulation artists" ... do you have any idea how discrediting that would be to them? If you know peter lik, you would probably argue right now. but a) he uses slide film, which has been developed to oversaturate colors. which of course I know what you're thinking... "but that's done in camera" yeah, well we do the same thing with our cameras but instead of manipulating our "emulsion" ie sensor, we use lightroom. However, now that 14 and 16 bit cameras are out thats less of a problem, but until you buy me a leaf back, or a 40d or a 1dsmark 3 then I'm gonna be using lightroom to get the same effect. B) he uses photoshop to enhance image color and contrast to be how "he perceived them" as well as on some occasions, uses double exposures for sky/foreground. Even though this doesnt seem to feel like a manipulation to many people.. it IS and yet we can consider that photography over others? heres my point... if you are going to fudge all over this line of what is or isnt manipulation, you should maybe consider more of it manipulation. Where in turn there will be very few artists (especially on this site) who would fall into photography any more by your standards... maybe instead of doing it that way, we should instead broaden our meaning of photography. yeah sure, if I draw a line on a paper it's a drawing... but if I draw a line with a tablet onto a canvas in photoshop, then what the hell is it by your logic? to me its a computer interpreting how to draw pixels based on the pressure you put out and the size of brush you determined.. now. if I expose light onto photosensitive paper, its' a photograph... but if I put it in photoshop (same program as above!) and overlap a texture... then it's not a photograph? right? which, to me seems like again, a computer interpreting how to draw pixels based on what you determine it to look like... its not like the computer jumps up like a jack russel terrier screaming "oh, i have a really cool idea! you should put a texture of moldy bread over this one! yeah! yeah!" ... no, its your own choices that create the end result. Yet, because it is done through a computer program, everyone in the world seems to think they know how to use, just because they had some buddy burn them a copy of it, we cant consider it a photograph. Funny as well.. I've met several art directors and photographers who recommend trying to get published into communication arts and other highly respected photographic magazines who hold competitions. Yet, none of these have a distinction between photography and photo manipulation. But i've never met a single person, professional or student who said "you should check out Gfxartist, they have really good values reguarding what photography is. JUST A THOUGHT Now, I'm waiting for the endless amounts of ignorant rants about what photography is by people who have never spent time in a darkroom or with professional gear. [Message edited on 03/14 @745]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
purplerose | 03/14/2008 @752
| edit post
|
|
|
Aww, I'm sad you didn't quote my comment... I spend my hours in the darkroom and working with professional cameras, equipment and photo printers. I also print photos on Ceramic pieces. (exactly why must I tell you this to validate my opinion??) Adding other elements to a photo is manipulation. As I stated earlier. An apple pie is not an apple. It is the manipulation of an apple to create something entirely different that takes it out of context of being considered a fruit. I've spent my time engrossed in traditional techniques so I can clarify to myself what is a manipulation and what is not. For me the following is not photomanipulation:
---Sepia (partial homage to Van Dyke Brown), ---Red-brown tints (which you can get traditionally by placing a cyanotype print in tannic acid and sodium carbonate) ---Purple tones (which you can get traditionally by placing a cyanotye print in ammonia and tannic acid.) ---Other Various colors (which pay homage to inkodyes) Photomanipulation for me, consists of:
Do I know enough about photography and it's origins to further validate my opinion, or does this argument only works when you're confronted by people who only do digital photography or not at all??? Or maybe you just discredit everyone??? What's the problem with having a damn good photomanipulation being classified as a photomanipulation?? [Message edited on 03/14 @758]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
purplerose | 03/14/2008 @765
| edit post
|
|
|
Don't forget to look up my terms too. Some of this may have gone over your head.
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio | |
|---|---|
|
slaphapy5 | 03/14/2008 @769
| edit post
|
|
|
no, I dont discredit your opinion. most of my post was reguarding those who moderate this site. VERY few of which are involved with photography at all, and yet, they determine what does and doesnt fall into that category. ANYWAY, i have had my fair share of arguments with those who place themselves into "fine art" photographers and not those digital sell outs. not saying you said that or anything... but with the majority of what you mentioned in your post, i'm sure you consider yourself a fine art photographer. heres my problem. What are you going to be calling a manipulation artist in 10 years? because honestly right now they should already be considered photographers. look through archive, communication arts etc. and just take a look at what photography is becoming. Do you realize how few even shoot with a film camera anymore? I know many students and teachers that just had a huge headache put on them because now poloroid is no longer going to produce type 59 and a few others. which basically took a crap (excuse the language) on anyone who likes to shoot 4x5 professionally. there is now only one place in town that will even develop professional film, where there was 3 not even 4 months ago. pictorico had a rumour going around that they were going to abandon their paper (used to make digital transparencies) fortunately they didnt, and simply found a cheaper emulsion to use. (because it costs too much to produce for the few who even use it!) What is photomanipulation going to become when every company abandons film, as they have been already in the motion of doing. i dont know if you still buy chemicals or other darkroom supplies. but it continually becomes harder to even find that, not to mention finding it at a reasonable price. Now, I'm not anti film or anything, I love it. hell, I absolutely adore taking out a holga from time to time and just shooting for the sake of shooting film. But in 10 years... photomanipulation will just be photography. There will be no fuzzy line. It's just the NEXT progression towards photography. I'm sure people such and Niepce would be proud that people are trying as many things as they can to add to such an amazing art. So my argument is, why are we so prone to hold back to a change. why do we have to rename it. photography means, painting with light... why do we have to define it now as light manipulation. are they not THE SAME? and as for your last comment... I Have made van dykes, cyanotypes, I tried gum bichromate but... oh, shocker, really hard to get hold of some of those chemicals on a limited budget, because what, maybe 5 artists are actually known for it? [Message edited on 03/14 @769]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
purplerose | 03/14/2008 @776
| edit post
|
|
|
I knew you would try to fit me in to the group that disagrees with you some how. So, now we're adding so called fine art photographers to the list... What's next?? You can't account for what's going to happen in the future. You're not a psychic or a fortune-teller. (Or are you? )I get a steady supply of traditional equipment and the studio I use gets a steady supply of chemicals. We haven't run out or been afraid of running out. They make 4x5 film that's not a polaroid. I've used it and still do. Build your own darkroom and buy your own chemicals if you can't find a place to do it for you. I know more than a handful of people who have darkrooms at home and I'll be adding my name to that list soon. Every company will not abandon film. It's timeless and it's classic. Film produces a different look, feel and softness that digital photography will never reach. A manip is a manip an apple is an apple. You don't go to the store asking for apples and they give you oranges. That's all I have to say on this subject. You've already repeated yourself and I refuse to repeat myself. [Message edited on 03/14 @778]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio | |
|---|---|
|
slaphapy5 | 03/14/2008 @778
| edit post
|
|
|
why would I want to build a darkroom? every photographer I have assisted for or visited the studio of shoots digital because the art director/client/marketing/ director/food stylist etc can see the images immediately... nobody wants film anymore in a commercial industry. and yes, obviously you can buy film for 4x5. but poloroids allow you to see your image before you waste the film. Anyone who's shooting for a commercial business will use at least 5 - 10 poloroids before they take a shot. anyway, that is all completely seperate from what we are discussing. well I opt that drawing be split into two categories. fine art and digital. same goes for painting and 3d modeling.
[Message edited on 03/14 @779]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
 Byonder | 03/14/2008 @798
| edit post
|
|
|
Oh goodie, I was hoping we'd all get to talk about this again Purplerose, I definitely appreciate your knowledge of traditional photography. It is a background that seems to be severely lacking in "newer" photographers. I've had the pleasure of creating prints using nearly all the methods you've mentioned, and it definitely feels more rewarding when all is said and done than digital does. I'm not bashing digital at all, as I use it all the time, but I think the appreciation for it's ease is often lost without the comparison. Some things I definitely miss when doing digital -- the smell of the chemicals, the intrigue of watching a print develop, etc. And there are some things I definitely don't miss -- such as color-balancing. If I never have to see those blasted color-cards again, it'd still be too soon... As someone who started out doing solely film and alternative processes and then progressing onto digital, it's definitely tempting to judge all photography based on that experience. Although, the more I think about it, the more I'm not so sure if digital photography shouldn't be judged by a standard other than traditional photography, as Mark was saying. Another reason I think a new standard really needs to be established to deal with digital photography is because I honestly don't think the majority of photographers now really understand traditional photography anyway. I know that more than a few of the "elite" photographers on here don't at any rate, and it almost seems pointless to judge them and everyone else based on a yardstick they don't understand. Yeah, it's still annoying and digital makes it much easier for any hack to just jump right in and start snapping crappy pics, but there's really nothing to be done about it now. *actual point pertaining to the thread* A while ago Brett said something to the effect that manipulations should be classified as such when the main focus of the piece is the manipulation itself. While the current rules of GFX don't seem to favor this viewpoint, I believe it's probably the most accurate. While cloning out dust specks may be similar to spot-toning on a traditional print, it'd require much more effort to clone-out tree stumps, road signs, and other objects that are regularly cloned-out of digital prints without the slightest thought of calling it a "manipulation." *end of actual point pertaining to the thread* Almost every photograph you see in publish today has been retouched. As Mark mentioned, the further away we get from traditional photography, the more copious amounts of retouching will be simply be considered pure photography. I'm not really convinced that this is a bad thing, really. Part of me wants to say to those who've never done traditional work, "You have no idea what it's like to create a REAL print." but honestly, would that really be any better than my grandmother whining about how we, with our newfangled computers, have no idea what it was like to use a typewriter? Granted, there's definitely more of an artistic process to creating a traditional print than there is between the differences of a typewriter to a computer, but I think you get my point... [Message edited on 03/14 @811]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Wysiwyg | 03/14/2008 @799
| edit post
|
|
The way this is going the only way would to be have one catagory called 'art'.  The catagories are also a way for those searching for something specific to find a particular piece. You think it's messed up here? Go to DA with the billion catagories/subcatagories. We can debate this forever, but the bottom line is as long as you post here you will abide by the guidelines specific to this site. As those guidelines are put up for discussion/review...they can evolve, but for now what is...is. |
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Byonder | 03/14/2008 @804
| edit post
|
|
quote:Ironically enough, I went to post something there the other day, and they didn't have the category (or even anything close to) what I was looking for. They did, however, have at least 5 categories that were all basically the same, and 2-3 that I couldn't ever see posting anything in Most times more options = more confusing. [Message edited on 03/14 @814]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Millink | 03/14/2008 @850
| edit post
|
|
|
With post-editing a lot of artistic process is run through in a matter of seconds. With pre-editing (composition etc.) there is a lot of thinking to be done. An important matter in this is: time. Time makes me reflect and think. When one shot is hard to make, or takes a lot of effort, I cycle to the place I want to shoot, take my sketchbook, and start drawing. Because my film is valuable, and taking photos (and developing them) is very time-consuming, I need to go through an artistic process. Its just the most sensible thing to do. With digital editing, this isnt necessary at all. Most of the time im thinking: just take the damn picture already. But this way I cant explore the area, think about light... And I keep on forgetting thinking about simple things as: "what time is it". In my eyes, art consists of three 'dimensions'. 1. Skill (can I handle my materials?) 2. Esthetics (does it have some kind of attraction?) 3. Vision (what do I want to say or show?). To cover all these area's, a process in necessary. Btw, what in the world is wrong with photo-manipulation? Art was never about creating 'new things'....? I completely forgot what this has to do with the thread  Jeez, Im sorry. Im gonna post it anyway... Otherwise my typing would be for nothing 
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Mork | 03/14/2008 @908
| edit post
|
|
| I was just now made aware of this thread by mr. slaphapy5. So just to clarify any doubts, I have not posted in this thread before and have only this one account at GFXartist. The admins could check where the IP-adresses come from if necessary.. |
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Mork | 03/14/2008 @922
| edit post
|
|
|
I agree with slaphapy5 that even though the majority of you proclaim this narrowminded definition currently, you are a dying race. I don't really have enough time to sit and discuss on the internet all day. I don't care anymore which definition will be enforced at GFXartist in the future. The problem is the enforcement itself. That is why I can only propose a Free-for-all-definitions Photography section with additional subcategories for those who insist so. Fortunately there are other websites and the world is even bigger.GFXartist is backing out of the game.. I'd be curious to know the reasons of GFXartist.com for the enforcement of these definitions, and what horrible futures they envision were they not. [Message edited on 03/14 @925]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Byonder | 03/14/2008 @927
| edit post
|
|
|
What exactly do you gain from attempting to clump everything into one category? Aside from acting arrogant with absolutely no basis (aside from some pompous existential blather) there doesn't seem to be any reason to demand a lack of definition. There's quite obviously a difference between a photograph straight off of a camera and a composite of multiple photographs. No one is saying that neither (or only one) is art. To deny that there's a differece at all (even on a purely technical level) would be stupidity. At least figure out what you're trying to accomplish before lighting a torch... |
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Wysiwyg | 03/14/2008 @939
| edit post
|
|
quote:IP address check is not reliable btw. That's easy to circumvent. |
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Mork | 03/14/2008 @948
| edit post
|
|
|
Byonder: I am not denying that there is a difference. I am saying that Photography is a very broad term. Photography as you might define it was not born independently from the darkroom. They were and are one and the same. Two persons, but siamese twins. If you would claim that digital photography is Photography as much as analog photography, you would also have to accept that PS is pretty much the same counterpart to the old darkroom. That I now with a larger degree of control can weave together 100 exposures in stead of just 5 does not help your case. Just the word of 'manipulation'... Do you have any idea of the amount of manipulation that goes on in your DSLR and through your computer then projected onto your computer screen? Show me an unmanipulated image. (be my guest and disregard that as irrelevant information for your current conception of Photography) Existential blather? I realize that most don't share my appreciation and respect for logic, but a little Socretian reasoning would give everyone a better life.. |
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Mork | 03/14/2008 @949
| edit post
|
|
quote:Then please give me the benefit of doubt until proven guilty.. |
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Wysiwyg | 03/14/2008 @982
| edit post
|
|
quote:I actually like the PS -> Darkroom metaphor there... One main issue is the use of the word 'manipulation' as it usually comes with a negative context. Adjusted, Enhanced, Manipulated, are all subjective terms in reality and that's why there is no real finite conclusion to this discussion. But a line does indeed need to be drawn somewhere. The founders of this site decided to make just the 6 categories as broad as possible to minimize confusion to the artist during submission. I mean, you think Manip is an issue? I still have to contend with 'Design' as a category I would rather categorize work by their method of creation.
Though we could also do it by purpose.
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Mork | 03/14/2008 @992
| edit post
|
|
Categorization by subject/purpose is an infinitely better idea. If there was a category to rule out "faeries" and other things with pointy ears I would be very happy 
[Message edited on 03/14 @993]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Wysiwyg | 03/15/2008 @095
| edit post
|
|
quote:lol at least we agree on something
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
 kittyKat | 03/15/2008 @107
| edit post
|
|
|
my 2 cents to what I know is a photo manip no ifs ands or buts about it. manip 1. http://oilcorner.deviantart.com/art/Look-What-I-Found-79988308 how it was made 2. http://www.checkmystuff.net/?page_id=2 so if your photo has 'added photo parts' its a manipulation if its just darkened or resized or color correction blah blah blah... not a manip [Message edited on 03/15 @110]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
Byonder | 03/15/2008 @203
| edit post
|
|
quote:Help my case? Do you even know what my case is, or are you just reciting your tired mantra over and over without actually reading what people have to say? As I said before, I came from a traditional darkroom photography background. I never said digital photography was the same as analogue photography, in fact, I said they are so different that they should be judged by completely different standards. Maybe you should do a bit of reading before pigeonholing people. And thanks for the little blurb about photography and the darkroom, I'm well aware of the origins of photography. If you valued logic you'd realize that your "deduction" about manipulation is simply an extremely pedantic dissection of definitions. Nothing more than simplistic semantics. Congratulations, you've figured out that digital images are... digital. Way to go, you get a star. In order for me to show you an "un-manipulated" image I'd have to bring one over to your house, because even if I scanned in one of my traditional darkroom prints, it's still be scanned and thus "manipulated" -- ooh, how infinitely clever. If I were to take a picture of one of my traditional oil-paintings and upload it, it'd still be a "manipulation," because it'd actually be a DIGITAL picture of the traditional painting. Wow, isn't being annoyingly ostentatious fun?! Furthermore, EVERYTHING you look at on a computer screen is "manipulated" because it's being seen on a digital monitor, which is really just a bunch of red, green, and blue lights. Congratulations, you win the grandiloquent award. So really all we need is one category entitled, "Computer Monitor." Huzzah for mind-numbingly anal definitions... What's your point? [Message edited on 03/15 @683]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
MsMichelleLynn | 03/15/2008 @345
| edit post
|
|
In photo-manip we could offer several categories :
The point is ... with different minds come different ideas concerning the definition of Photo-manip. Perhaps we could do some "cleansing" here so that every mind thinks alike? Adolph would like that. As was previously mentioned, we could make dozens of categories in photography. Why? To confuse things and to make the site more difficult to navigate? In my opinion, adding more categories would do nothing more. If we'd like to demand from artists divulgence of how they've achieved their final result, then perhaps we might require that a listing of digital darkroom methods be presented within the description section of the post. Personally, I think it would be interesting to view such added information as it might encourage me to explore different digital darkroom techniques. That being said, I'm of the opinion that posting of digital darkroom techniques should be optional and NOT a requirement. [Message edited on 03/15 @472]
|
| Re: question regarding photography and manipulatio |
|
|---|---|
|
MePhIstoZoR | 03/15/2008 @643
| edit post
|
|
|
What i think is great slaphapy5 is that you are so quick to assume we have no idea what we are talking about. Just because the opinion doesn't fit yours does not by any means mean we are ignorant of other forms of artwork besides our "preference" of work . Like i've said in a thread that went along these exact same lines, with exactly the same things said - i have actually studied photography academically ( if that goes over your head - yes i've spent considerable time in dark rooms and using "professional gear" ) , and brett isn't a stranger to it either. Don't be so quick to make assumptions. Why don't you try to contribute like Pam, or Michelle or Brett - who are doing so constructively instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again ?
[Message edited on 03/15 @647]
|
Search the site
Got an idea to make this page better? Report it!
Copyright © 2000-2008 All rights reserved
Read the Terms of use and Privacy Statement.
This site is a property of Brothers in art For more information and support, contact .
Copyright © 2000-2008 All rights reserved
Read the Terms of use and Privacy Statement.This site is a property of Brothers in art For more information and support, contact .
Profile
GFXuser name:
biddi
Full Name:
stephen
Gender:
Male
Birthdate:
12/01/1989 (18)
Country:
Australia
Member since:
03/14/2008
Actions:
View profile
biddiFull Name:
stephen
Gender:
Male
Birthdate:
12/01/1989 (18)
Country:
Australia
Member since:
03/14/2008
Actions:
View profile
Sponsored Links
Affiliates
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |