# weddings and post processing



## jols (Jan 16, 2008)

ok cat amongst the pigeons time.

wedding tog are expensive. FACT

the togs say its cause the hours they put in. FACT.

THERE IS A DAYS WORK AND ALL THE POST PROCESSING.

so if they took a great pic in the first place and did not need hours and hours of post processing would nt their job be easier and then they could lower their prices.


so the moral of this thread is take a decent pic straight off


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 16, 2008)

I'll say this in their defense.  A wedding is supposed to be a perfect day and let's just say not all people look perfect...  But everybody deserves to feel like for at least that one day everything, and everyone was perfect.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 16, 2008)

The time that we put it, is only one way of justifying the cost.  

It's not just about the time...it's about the style and expertise.  Not everyone can put up with the pressure of a wedding and still be able to create beautiful photos.  A wedding is (or is supposed to be) a once in a lifetime event...there is very little room for error.

Film photographers probably didn't put in as much time as digital photographers...but their prices were about the same.


----------



## jols (Jan 16, 2008)

i do weddings so i know about the time involved i just think some well overcharge and then blame it on pp, which i think should be minimal if you got it nearly right when taking the pic


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 16, 2008)

I guess that depends if you (and the client) want images that look like they came right out of the camera.

I touch up things like blemishes etc.  Some do a lot more....and that's what attracts their clients.  Look at elsapet for example...


----------



## jols (Jan 16, 2008)

i see what you are saying and i ear i may be repeatiing myself but take the pic right in the first place.

and i know the mark up of prints so i stick by what i say.

most togs are well over priced.


----------



## ScottS (Jan 16, 2008)

jols said:


> i see what you are saying and i ear i may be repeatiing myself but take the pic right in the first place.
> 
> and i know the mark up of prints so i stick by what i say.
> 
> most togs are well over priced.


 
I disagree!!! I think way to many are not charging enough!

Oh yea and not to mention, it doesnt matter if you take a good exposure in the first place, I edit them all to get 'that look' that makes me different than all the people with the P&S. (Thats just me maybe )


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 16, 2008)

Photography is less of a trade and more of an art...and art is worth what people are willing to pay for it.  

If you are paying an electrician to wire your house...all you want is the job done right and to pay as low a price as possible.  If one electrician charged more but still did the job right (the same level of service)...then they might be considered over priced.

Shooting a wedding isn't just about snapping photos and getting good exposures 'in-camera'.  In other words...just doing 'the job right' isn't enough.  Or at least it shouldn't be, for photographers who charge a good amount.  

What the client is paying for, is to have artwork created...and that doens't come cheap...unless we are talking about gluing macaroni onto construction paper.


----------



## mrodgers (Jan 16, 2008)

Question, how much time is involved in wedding photography?

Most folks here understand post processing.  I'm trialling Lightroom myself at the moment.  I'm reading lots on it as well.  Seems that you can process one photo from a shoot, then apply that process to the majority of the photos of the same location (ie, outside shots, then ceremony shots, then the reception, thus 3 processings and applying).

So, I paid $650 for my wedding photographer.  I recieved ~$40 worth of prints, if that.  So, I would have to assume that either the photographer did 24 hours worth of processing on my photos, or she was very much overpaid.  I'm going to guess that she was very much overpaid myself.

It's simple greed that makes people think that they are worth $100+ per hour.  What a photographer makes in a few hours work, takes other folks 2 weeks to make and that is just greed.

It's not really the photographer's fault though.  It is the consumer's fault for continuously paying that.  Just like the price of cars.  If we didn't constantly purchase cars at the ridiculous prices they are going for, they wouldn't cost that much any more.

And the markup on prints is nothing but robbery.  It costs $3 for an 8x10 print, photographers are just greedy when they mark it up to $20


----------



## ScottS (Jan 16, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Question, how much time is involved in wedding photography?
> 
> Most folks here understand post processing. I'm trialling Lightroom myself at the moment. I'm reading lots on it as well. Seems that you can process one photo from a shoot, then apply that process to the majority of the photos of the same location (ie, outside shots, then ceremony shots, then the reception, thus 3 processings and applying).
> 
> ...


 
I have soooo many problems with your post, and your ignorance to shooting weddings really shows here. 
One of the things you dont consider is all of the equipment that they use. Getting to the point where you can even shoot a wedding cost _*A LOT*_! ( Having all pro gear, and then a backup for every piece of equipment) NOT, to mention all of the batteries and other things like gas. 

After you get out of all the things that it cost the photographer to actually DO the weddings, there is all the other things. Weddings are a lot more work than i think you realize, so before you go and call photographers who want more than $700 for doing a wedding, *ROBBERS* maybe you should get a clue... 


Oh and another thing, batch processing, isnt really that good of an idea for wedding photography, because the shots differ SO much, applying one edit to all the photos or even 1/3 of the photos, would be stupid.


----------



## MissMia (Jan 16, 2008)

How much are the memories from your wedding worth? The photos/video are all you have left when your special day is over.  I'm glad I had an artist for a photographer that captured our day perfectly.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 16, 2008)

jols said:


> ok cat amongst the pigeons time.
> 
> wedding tog are expensive. FACT
> 
> ...



If you can take 600 photos in a 10 hour day and have every one of them perfect then you are worth WAY more than most every photog out there.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 16, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Question, how much time is involved in wedding photography?
> 
> Most folks here understand post processing.  I'm trialling Lightroom myself at the moment.  I'm reading lots on it as well.  Seems that you can process one photo from a shoot, then apply that process to the majority of the photos of the same location (ie, outside shots, then ceremony shots, then the reception, thus 3 processings and applying).
> 
> ...



1: Understanding PP and being good at it are entirely separate things.

2:  Are you saying that you didn't read the contract, or are you griping about the content?

3:  The vast majority of the cost of a car is not in the materials but rather in the design, tooling, labor, facilities, and the *Number One Thing* that folks who start these threads (I realize that it wasn't you but still) forget is that it's not just how much it costs to _Do_ Business but _*How Much It Costs To Stay In Business!!!*_

4:  Once again you should read the contract and negotiate your deal.  If it makes you happy to pay $610 and get your own prints done then find someone who will agree to that.  If you would rather pay $650 and not have to worry about the prints, whats the beef?

And lastly, It doesn't matter how much time it takes the photog to do his/her thing so long as they get the job done in an acceptable manner- not even if it only takes 45 minutes.  (It is unlikely that you would be paying any self respecting photog by the hour anyway)  The money is due for an agreed upon job.  If you want to treat a photographer like a domestic servant best of luck to you but you will get no sympathy from me when you get laughed at to your face.

If this offends you then I'm sorry you feel bad but all the self absorbed people in the world griping about the decisions they made and then wanting the rest of the world to make concisions for them at the cost of others wears a little thin.


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 16, 2008)

Well I would be willing to sell people 250 4x6 sheets of photo paper for $90 (that is approximately doubling the original buying price from the printing store) - but they aren't really paying for the sheet of paper are they? They are paying for the 'art' that is on it 

Let me dig up a photo that is technically perfect but I am certain the couple would have been sorely disappointed in. (Be back in a few)


----------



## jstuedle (Jan 16, 2008)

OK, I gotta speak up. First a disclaimer, I am not now a wedding photographer. The last wedding I shot for pay was the early 1970's. That Said, here goes.

Who here that thinks wedding photogs are expensive and has ever worked a production type job? Flipping burgers don't count, and service jobs are out also for reasons that will become apparent. 

Say you work in a machine shop. The shop owner bids a job. To do that they have to know how many hours it will take the machine operators to make the part. This includes machine setup, reading the blueprint, planning the process on your specific machine, finding or making the fixtures, getting the tooling, and making the cuts on say the lathe you operate. Breaking down the setup, cleaning up shavings and other debris and returning any tools or fixtures to the tool crib. Say on the machine you are hired to run, it takes 10 hours. You make $20.00 an hour. It has taken you 15 years to get up to that level of pay. Trainees in your shop are paid $10.00 to start. The shop owner needs to charge $110.00 an hour to make the minium profit to cover your wages for every hour you work. You work 40 hours a week. You earn $800.00 a week. The owner must charge $4400.00 for your labor. 
Why? The building has a mortgage on it. That new brandX engine lathe you operate cost $65,000.00. The tooling you used was $600.00 and about 25% of that was expendable. That is, it is gone and can't be recovered. Add electric, water, licenses and fees, support labor (floor sweepers to maintenance personal) workman's compensation, and on and on. Take into consideration scrap and rework, the costs add up. 

Now, take your overpriced wedding shooter. He wants to pay his home mortgage,car payment and other day to day expenses. In other words he wants to make a decent living. To do that he needs to make $20.00 take-home wages. For him to take home that $800 a week, he needs to charge 5.5X that rate.That pays the overhead, transportation, appropriate clothing, meeting with the client 2-3 times before the shoot, insurance, law suit and loss of image protection, monitors, editing tablets, cameras, lenses, computers and related equipment, backup storage, studio mortgage, maintenance, incorporation fees and taxes, other state and fed fees. Add expendables like proofs, prints, postage and shipping, packaging, albums, mats, frames,  lost shoots due to cancellations,  local rental equipment for special requests and other hidden expenses.  5.5 times the base wage is the minimum amount required to make a living wage. What about student loans, the 15-20 years experience to create the ART you want as a remembrance of your wedding?

Now, what part of the cost of doing business is so hard to understand?


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 16, 2008)

Here we are. This is what it looked like before a maximum of 4 minutes in photoshop (Can we say 'bland'?).  Let me first say the one other thing that might have been done 'better' is framing to prevent the distortion but... before anyone hyperventilates that it isn't perfect sit down and take a breather 

Luckily I had been here the day before when the sun was shining, the character of this building was shining through and the mountain source water was crystal clear with a lustrous hue. On the wedding day it poured cats and dogs and the water turned into scum, the colours were sucked in (but yay! no shadows, so I am not completely complaining) so with quick tweaking, it is back to the weather they had expected on their wedding day with some perks.  I don't know about you but I would rather spend 1-4 minutes on each of 250 photos of post production to present better quality photos then just handing them the disc with the raws saying "Exposure is good and there are 900 for you to sort through" 

Just an opinion of course






This is the final product


----------



## sabbath999 (Jan 16, 2008)

jols said:


> ok cat amongst the pigeons time.
> 
> wedding tog are expensive. FACT
> 
> ...



No offense intended, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## jstuedle (Jan 16, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> No offense intended, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.




Amen brother. Sabbath is a man of brevity. Short and to the point.


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 16, 2008)

*cough**nods*


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 16, 2008)

jstuedle said:


> Amen brother. Sabbath is a man of brevity. Short and to the point.



He is one of the people here I would listen to if he gave me critique on one of my photographs.


----------



## ScottS (Jan 16, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> No offense intended, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


You said what we were all thinking.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> so the moral of this thread is take a decent pic straight off



And you would never be able to sell it. The touchup being done is art, not making the picture better because it was not taking properly in the first place, but making a good picture more sellable. Elsapet is a fantastic example of this, I doubt she'd have the same clientèle if she didn't post process the way she does.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 17, 2008)

If I'm not mistaken, she's mentioned that a lot of her clients ask for it. (I'm paraphrasing but it's easy enough to ask her)


----------



## elsaspet (Jan 17, 2008)

Jols, Jols, Jols,

I've yet to lay my hands on a camera that takes blemishes off faces, or removes a pesky double chin on an otherwise beautiful emotional moment.
If you have found a magic camera like that, by all means, tell me where to find it, and I'll buy it.

But oh, if I buy it, I'll probably have to pay for it too.  And since there is two of us, hubby will need one.  More money.....

And I suppose we might need some lights.....

And some cards,

Oh, and maybe a lens or two or five....

Also, I might need a computer so that I can get the files off.  And a desk to put the computer on, and a room to put the desk in.......

I'd go on and on, but the OP's statement in just to ridiculous to waste time on.


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

told u cat amounst the pigeons,

but ido know what im talking about i do weddings,

i have the gear but its already paid for i dont expect every person i do a wedding for to pay for it over and over again.

but then i am in the uk and most of you guys are in the usa so maybe thats are difference


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 17, 2008)

Question for you....
Do you make your living by shooting weddings?


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

half my living.

but i dont need the money to pay bills


----------



## JDS (Jan 17, 2008)

There's your answer then.  If someone shoots weddings for their living, their prices have to be high to cover their costs of living.

If a photographer had a wedding every other weekend (some do more), the entire rest of the weeks in between would be spent on post-processing, meeting with clients, dealing with orders and prints and then making sure the final product reaches the client in a timely fashion.  Sounds like a full time job to me.

In other words, the job doesn't end when the bride & groom ride off into the sunset.

Peanuts' post is a perfect example of why PP is necessary.  You don't PP to 'fix' the photo, but only to 'enhance' it.  Granted, it's tough to really 'enhance' a photo if it wasn't a technically good image straight from the camera.  At that point all of your time would be spent truly 'fixing' it..if it was salvageable.

If your clients don't mind paying for the bland, straight-out-of-the camera shots, that's great.  But there are many other photographers who have clients that demand a few steps above that in quality.


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> told u cat amounst the pigeons,
> 
> but ido know what im talking about i do weddings,
> 
> ...


 
What happens when your equipment wears out and you have to buy more?

And, i have to say, there probably is a difference between the US and the UK
Not to mention its a supplementary income for you... You _DONT_ need it to pay the bills, and when you have a lag in weddings, you dont go poor


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

ok.  so a tog spends a day say 12 hours doing a wedding.

then he spends 6 days say 10 hours a day doing the pp


then charges 5000 for a wedding or  3000

thats a nice wage for a weeks work!!!!!!!


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> ok. so a tog spends a day say 12 hours doing a wedding.
> 
> then he spends 6 days say 10 hours a day doing the pp
> 
> ...


 
It is nice, but you have to think, wedding are stressful, and being a wedding photographer is not an easy job!

Oh yea and then there is all the time youo spend with all the bussiness related stuff just to keep your business running  Dont forget about that.


----------



## JDS (Jan 17, 2008)

That isn't all wages - a lot of it goes into keeping the business itself afloat.  If a photographer just used it for whatever he/she pleased (nice 60" plasma TV, that new yacht, etc), he/she wouldn't be in business for very long because the money wasn't properly allocated back to the business to take care of the business expenses.

Not trying to be mean here, but what I think you fail to see is the difference between doing wedding photography on the side as a supplemental income (that isn't necessarily needed, but is nice to have), and doing it for an actual living.  The bills do have to be paid, equipment has to be maintained, etc.


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 17, 2008)

Also note it isn't just the labour/wedding but the small reimbursement for actually learning the skills whether it is through school or reading etc.

I would be willing to pay an accountant more if s/he had gone to school for 6 years earning degrees and the likes as opposed to a friend down the street who recently picked up "Accounting for Dummies" book and offered to do mine for a fee.

I think you are kind of missing the business aspect of this.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

You are forgetting about meeting with the people ahead of time finding out the style of photograph they want.  Finding out the type of person they are.  All the meetings with other potential clients that didn't go well and therefore no money coming from there.  Truthfully any service oriented business like that works in a similar manner.  If I wanted to start up a business tutoring math (virtually no startup cost only real costs to me would be gas) I could still reasonably expect to make $30-$50 per hour not to cover my costs but to cover the massive amount of time I'm not with the student but still working.  I'm guessing a $3000 dollar photographer would probably spend upwards of 60+ hours doing everything from preparation to PP now if the photographer isn't doing this work then they aren't worth the money and the original post was completely correct.  Anybody who is truly skilled at something SHOULD be getting $50 an hour or more.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 17, 2008)

This all points to a simple logical fallacy. The fact that you're a "pro" does not in and of itself mean that you know what you're talking about.

Read: The fact that you "do weddings"


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

Heck I forgot to mention in my post the time that is spent doing accounting and other business related work.  Much less time spent keeping the skills up when it ISN'T wedding season.  Time spent becoming a better photographer is another expense that isn't mentioned because it is really hard to calculate too.  The number 1 way to fail in business is to not realize how much your time is worth.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 17, 2008)

> then charges 5000 for a wedding or 3000
> 
> thats a nice wage for a weeks work!!!!!!!


It's not a wage...it's the gross income.  The net profit, after all considerations, will be much less.


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> It's not a wage...it's the gross income. The net profit, after all considerations, will be much less.


 

i would nt mind earning 5000 a week and then take 2000 out for tax expenses ect.

thats a lot of money.

anyway i think this thread is done.


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

No, you just cannon grasp the fact that running a business cost lots of money...

And its really not a lot of money... But go ahead, screw yourself out of the money you deserve.... By all means...


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> i would nt mind earning 5000 a week and then take 2000 out for tax expenses ect.
> 
> thats a lot of money.
> 
> anyway i think this thread is done.



First remember weddings usually only happen from spring to fall and not evenly during that time so say you DO get 3000 a week for a while (say from april to october probably longer than the real wedding season as I'm not a wedding photographer) that balances out to 1500 a week over the year that is basically a living wage in a the areas of the US where you could possibly get that kind of money.  Reasonably I wouldn't expect to get NEAR 5000 for a wedding and at that I wouldn't expect one every week either in most of the US.


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

i do it because i love taking photos and thats it really.

just the love of taking photos

if you have you earn a certain amount of money a year the fun must certainly be taken out of it to some extent

i dont think anybody can argue with that.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> i do it because i love taking photos and thats it really.
> 
> just the love of taking photos
> 
> ...



You're right the fun is taken out of it.  But people DO have to support families if what you're good at is photography weddings probably could help do that but even at the figures you're listing 1/week and 5000 per shot you're living on lean times.


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> i do it because i love taking photos and thats it really.
> 
> just the love of taking photos
> 
> ...


 
Thats good that you shoot, and do what you love, I thinks thats awesome! :thumbup:
But please dont go arround telling other PROFESSIONALS what it takes to run their business, because you dont know.


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

im not .


is 5000 pounds a week thats 10000 dollars a week not a lot of money in the usa


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> im not .
> 
> 
> is 5000 pounds a week thats 10000 dollars a week not a lot of money in the usa



At those rates you're not talking about your typical wedding photographer you're talking about someone doing REALLY high end work that is getting the rewards of working yourself into the right circles if you get up there you DO deserve to get paid more.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 17, 2008)

> anyway i think this thread is done.


It should be...but you've stirred up quite a hornet's nest.

You could look though society and pick out half of the people and say that they are over paid.  The low to mid level employees of most companies, work much 'harder' than the president and the executives...but who gets paid more?  

Politicians get paid lots of money, they even give themselves raises...and most would say that they don't work nearly as hard as the typical government employee.

Most wedding photographers are also business owners...so yes, they get the monetary benefits of owning a business...if it's run well.  Part of running a business well...is charging enough to meet or exceed your needs...and still being able to attract clients to pay that much.

I've heard this time and again...but many photographers didn't start to really become successful until they raised their prices.  They got more bookings, not less.  And they also attract better, more cooperative clients.

However, there will always be a market for bargain hunters...so if photographers don't want to 'over charge' they can cater to those types of clients.


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> im not .
> 
> 
> is 5000 pounds a week thats 10000 dollars a week not a lot of money in the usa


When you get to that point, you will probably have several other people working for you, 
someone to manage you business,
Someone to answer phone calls,
Couple of assistants
Photo editor
And so on and so forth... Then you are paying for them to do their jobs too, and that money goes fast!


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

ScottS said:


> When you get to that point, you will probably have several other people working for you,
> someone to manage you business,
> Someone to answer phone calls,
> Couple of assistants
> ...


 

sorry i misunderstood.

i thought you meant 10 000 dollars for one wedding for one tog


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

Ohhh OK. If there is some photographer out there that charges 10,000 dollars for a wedding, I can pretty much guarantee that they have a bunch of people working for them.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> sorry i misunderstood.
> 
> i thought you meant 10 000 dollars for one wedding for one tog



We were just going with the numbers you posted (which I was assuming wrongly were in euros or dollars).  I'm guessing that those numbers are a bit high for your typical photographer and in dollars that would be a decent living but not exactly high on the hog where you could get it in pounds well that is an entirely different story and an entirely different realm of work.


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

sorry for not stating english pounds.

us brits are a bit dim sometimes


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

No problem it is just easy to forget where you're from when you don't have a location listed   and don't worry us Americans are a bit arrogant at times   (I try not to be but it is hard to remember that in an english language forum there might be people from other countries that are english speaking AND not assuming dollars)  So a bit your bad a bit mine eh?


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

cool.

lets end this thread on a happy note.
and 

we are all just happy snappers:lmao:

thats not happy slapping

oh 

do you know what that is?


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

I'll have to say I'm a bit lost with that one...


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

haha yea im lost too.


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

ok its not good.

people [mostly teenagers]  run up to someone in the street and slap them around the face and film it on their mobile phone.

but its getting out of hand now with kids filming fights ect


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> ok its not good.
> 
> people [mostly teenagers]  run up to someone in the street and slap them around the face and film it on their mobile phone.
> 
> but its getting out of hand now with kids filming fights ect



Have yet to see that one...  I've had random people jump on me and lick the side of my face but no one come up and slap me randomly...  Also random group of 16 year old girls once surrounded me and started singing at me but yeah no slapping...


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> ok its not good.
> 
> people [mostly teenagers] run up to someone in the street and slap them around the face and film it on their mobile phone.
> 
> but its getting out of hand now with kids filming fights ect


 
Thats not very nice!


----------



## Rrr3319 (Jan 17, 2008)

jols-
where the money conversion thing is concerned, i would say this- though i've only been to the UK twice i've noticed that the actual number price of things in the US and UK is pretty similar and maybe a little less in the UK
example: a meal you would get for 10 dollars in the US would probably be maybe 7 pounds (of course, after we exchange money it costs us more like 14 dollars)  so don't look at the conversion rate.  something we would pay 5000 dollars for might be like 4500 pounds (am i making sense?)  as a bride to be myself, i've noticed most in my area are closer to maybe $2000.  i would guess that would equal more like $1500-$1700 pounds.  does that make sense?  currency conversions don't work in trying to compare costs like this.


----------



## jols (Jan 17, 2008)

lick the side of your face now thats funny:lmao:


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

jols said:


> lick the side of your face now thats funny:lmao:



Yeah I was even more shy then than I am now otherwise I would have gotten her number


----------



## Jeepnut28 (Jan 17, 2008)

I think this is a ridiculous question posed and not worthy of a response.  

Thats what I think.


----------



## ShePaintsOrange (Jan 17, 2008)

Quite frankly, the photographer that shot my wedding had a lot more talent, character and integrity than my groom did.  I should have paid the photographer triple to take shots just of me and told the groom to take a hike!   :lmao:


----------



## jols (Jan 18, 2008)

Jeepnut28 said:


> I think this is a ridiculous question posed and not worthy of a response.
> 
> Thats what I think.


 

ha but you did respond cause you felt you had too:lmao:


----------



## Arch (Jan 18, 2008)

this thread has run its course.


----------

