Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-21-2015, 09:59 AM - 2 Likes   #1
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
Getting the most out of the Q series

Before wishing for more or better, are you getting the most out of your Q series camera that it has to offer? (Q series refers to all the iterations of the Q produced up to this time.)

It’s amusing, and at times a bit annoying, that so many contributors to this board as well as the detractors who take every opportunity to tell us that some other camera is better, are not totally happy with their Q series camera. I must admit that I quickly went from a Q to a Q10 then settled on two Q7’s in a matter of approximately two months. While I found that the .jpg images I got out of my original Q were no better than the .jpg images my Nokia 928 cell phone can produce, I saw that there were contributors to this board that were getting excellent results out of their original Q and sharing these images with us on this forum. Obviously it was not the camera but a lack of understanding in properly configuring the camera to my personal needs and processing of the files that led to my dissatisfaction with the end results I was getting out of that original Q. While my Q7 has resolved many of those issues I had with the earlier Q cameras, it might not have been the camera at fault but my lack of skills in getting the most out of it. Judging by some of the comments on this board I am not the only one who has faced such issues with the Q series.

With all the wishing and hoping that this or that feature will appear in the next iteration of the Q, more mega pixels, larger sensor, different lenses, higher LCD resolution, Electronic View Finder, and a host of others that could cause the complete bastardization of the series as it was originally conceived and designed, I am wondering if those folks are getting the most out of the equipment they currently have? Do their photographs consistently compare in quality and presentation with the high end images shown on this board?

Without naming names and maybe embarrassing some, there are a handful of contributors to this board who are taking some exceptional shots with their existing Q equipment. IMHO, I find the threads featuring “shared shots” to be the most valuable on this forum. Those threads demonstrate what can be accomplished by supplementing the Q’s existing capabilities with a bit of imagination and photographic skill. I have noted that some of those photographers churning out these great images do not seem to readily participate in the “wish list” conversations. I really wish (my wish list) these photographers who produce the shots that motivate members of this board to offer praise would take the time to explain their workflow process for handling their files, the program they use to manipulate their digital images and the common settings they use in processing their .jpg or RAW files. I wish they would share their thoughts on the basic camera settings such as contrast, saturation, sharpness, filters, special effects, ISO settings, aperture and exposure settings etc. that has helped them produce these great images from their Q series camera and equipment. Maybe each could have their own thread listing their personal preferences and the processes of discovery that led to them. Once everyone is able to produce the same results then suggestions for changes to the camera might be more meaningful and less haphazard.

04-21-2015, 10:47 AM   #2
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
There are two separate questions:

(1) can we make better use of the current camera?

(2) are there things Pentax could do for the camera that would make it better?

Answers for the first question do not automatically rule out answers to the second question.
Yes, we should look at ways to make better use of the current camera; in fact, I would also love to know some of the methods used to get the best pictures.
However, that does not preclude wishing for better features in the future.

For example, before I got my Q7, you tried mightily to convince me and others that no EVF was needed.
Your methods of shading the LCD may meet your goals, but I already knew in advance, from testing with other equipment, that most likely they would not work for me.
Your words did not discourage me, so I kept looking, and I eventually did find a hoodman-clone that would meet my needs (otherwise, I would never have bought a Pentax Q-camera).
However, an EVF would be an even better solution, since it would reduce the amount of stuff I haul around with me.
Since I have a solution here, I don't continually raise this issue, but that doesn't mean that it will go away.
There are others who will not buy an MILC without an EVF, and they will not consider my solution.
In fact, there are rumors of a new Nikon MILC, and at another photo discussion forum, most of the discussion is from those who will not consider it because it appears to lack an EVF.
Ultimately, Pentax gets to decide how they will equip the camera, and potential customers like us get to decide whether they want to buy it.
04-21-2015, 01:01 PM - 1 Like   #3
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 71
Well said and I also think the Q series necessarily gets bashed around by people who "don't get it". The problem is not so much with the camera as it is the philosophy of people who try to look at it as their primary platform to compete with APS-C or Micro Four Thirds. It is not meant to do so, it's a different beast altogether and it's a secondary system.

I currently own a Q10 with the 02 zoom and 01 prime lenses. I love it to bits as it's my "fun" camera. When the original Q first came out, the street price was around $800 in Canada, so I totally dismissed it. I was just way too much money for such a camera, especially when you could get much better mirrorless systems at a similar price point. When the prices dropped to around $250, I decided to try out the Q10 and if I did not like it, I could return it. Here we are a year later, I use my Q10 often, especially when I don't want to lug around my K-3 and extra lenses.

Let's face it, the Q series will never have image quality comparable to APS-C, m4/3 or Full Frame cameras. However, the Q10 can produce some really nice images provided you know its limits and you challenge your perspective on how to shoot.

Since the sensor is so small, you have to make some compromises. That means keeping your aperture at f/5.6 and below. Also, keep your ISO below 800. I generally shoot in bright conditions at f/4.0 and that will give you plenty of depth of field and you will not have any diffraction. It's like shooting f/8 or f/10 on larger format sensors. The proof is in the print! I've printed out 5x7's and 8x10's shot with my Q10 at ISO 200 and one is hard pressed to see a significant difference when compared to shots taken with my K-3 or Olympus OMD EM-5. Don't live by pixel peeping. The rest of the world looks at photos in their entirety, whether on social media, blogs or prints.

The JPG engine is actually quite good and it does a great job of maximizing the sensor's abilities (unlike the JPG engines on Pentax DSLRs). I tend to shoot the "bright" mode and I have bumped up the contrast, saturation and sharpness by 1. Of course, this is a subjective preference.

That said, I get the best results from my Q10 by shooting in DNG mode and doing the raw development in Adobe Lightroom. The Q10's sensor, as well as the Q7, has fantastic dynamic range for such a small sensor. You can pull out lot of data from the shadows and highlights. The DNG files also respond quite well to sharpening, provided you use a radius < 0.9 and some focus masking to prevent skies from being sharpened. A bump in Clarity from +5 to +10 really helps give the Q's images some punch.

I tend to stretch histograms in Lightroom, so for the Q10, my workflow is:

Highlights = -100
Shadows = +100
Clarity = 5
Vibrance = 5
Saturation = 3

I then adjust the white slider as far right as possible to avoid clipping. Next, I pull the Blacks slide as far to the left until I start to see pure blacks. As a last step, I adjust the exposure and contrast to get the result I want. Noise reduction and sharpening are applied according to taste. This technique only works with sensors with a lot of dynamic range. I am happy to report the Q10 responds very well to it.

So, I recommend that you always shoot both JPG and DNG. Most of time the JPG engine gets it right, but it's good to have the DNG for trickier lighting situations.

The thing I enjoy most about the Q10 and I think the best way to get the most out of the system, is to program your front dial to your favourite art filters and just go out there and shoot. I know other cameras have art filters and you have to dive into menus or multiple buttons to use them. As such, those filters are often ignored or dismissed. On the other hand, the front dial on the Q invites you to play: it is immersive, tactile and spontaneous. It is one of the most brilliant features I've seen on a compact camera. Moreover, I really dig the look of the Q's art and smart filters. That's what keeps me hooked!

Some sample photos taken with the Q10.

Pickering Flea Market and The Tiny Q

04/18/2015 – First Harley Ride of the Year and Bluffer’s Park Q-ubed

Here are some other photos taken with both an Olympus OMD EM-5 and the Q10. Other than the art filter shots, I challenge you to easily identify which photos were taken with each camera.

June 29 – A Day in Quebec City and fun with the Q

Last edited by rfaucher; 04-21-2015 at 01:22 PM.
04-21-2015, 02:01 PM   #4
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by rfaucher Quote
Let's face it, the Q series will never have image quality comparable to APS-C, m4/3 or Full Frame cameras.

That said, I get the best results from my Q10 by shooting in DNG mode and doing the raw development in Adobe Lightroom. The Q10's sensor, as well as the Q7, has fantastic dynamic range for such a small sensor. You can pull out lot of data from the shadows and highlights. The DNG files also respond quite well to sharpening, provided you use a radius < 0.9 and some focus masking to prevent skies from being sharpened. A bump in Clarity from +5 to +10 really helps give the Q's images some punch.

I tend to stretch histograms in Lightroom, so for the Q10, my workflow is:

Highlights = -100
Shadows = +100
Clarity = 5
Vibrance = 5
Saturation = 3

I then adjust the white slider as far right as possible to avoid clipping. Next, I pull the Blacks slide as far to the left until I start to see pure blacks. As a last step, I adjust the exposure and contrast to get the result I want. Noise reduction and sharpening are applied according to taste. This technique only works with sensors with a lot of dynamic range. I am happy to report the Q10 responds very well to it.

So, I recommend that you always shoot both JPG and DNG. Most of time the JPG engine gets it right, but it's good to have the DNG for trickier lighting situations.

The thing I enjoy most about the Q10 and I think the best way to get the most out of the system, is to program your front dial to your favourite art filters and just go out there and shoot. I know other cameras have art filters and you have to dive into menus or multiple buttons to use them. As such, those filters are often ignored or dismissed. On the other hand, the front dial on the Q invites you to play: it is immersive, tactile and spontaneous. It is one of the most brilliant features I've seen on a compact camera. Moreover, I really dig the look of the Q's art and smart filters. That's what keeps me hooked!
Thank you.

I, and others, have asked multiple times trying to get the specific path used to get particular results, but no one has been this specific. Even those of us who use other software, such as PhotoShop or gimp, should benefit from this.

In general, many here don't seem to be very interested in volunteering tutorials, so my path has been to ask lots of questions. Sometimes I start a thread for that specific reason and sometimes it is in direct response to what someone else has already said. Sometimes I understood what was said to me, and sometimes I need to ask a "followup" question. I would encourage others here to do likewise.

04-21-2015, 02:24 PM   #5
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Thank you.

I, and others, have asked multiple times trying to get the specific path used to get particular results, but no one has been this specific. Even those of us who use other software, such as PhotoShop or gimp, should benefit from this.

In general, many here don't seem to be very interested in volunteering tutorials, so my path has been to ask lots of questions. Sometimes I start a thread for that specific reason and sometimes it is in direct response to what someone else has already said. Sometimes I understood what was said to me, and sometimes I need to ask a "followup" question. I would encourage others here to do likewise.
You are welcome! Glad I could help.
04-21-2015, 03:16 PM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,891
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Once everyone is able to produce the same results . . .
How many "same results" compared to what? . . . the general population? . . . are required before one can lament the lack of something like a manual/wired remote release port which is common on so many other bodies and perhaps useful to only a few?

Are there firmware changes a development team focused on a particular market may have overlooked. Something easily remedied.

Do I have to match skill levels with LR or HDR software or portrait lighting or . . . before a personally useful limitation may be mentioned?

My purchase logic for equipment/tools is:

- how does it meet my needs
- are there disqualifying characteristics
- is it good value for the cost
- how can I adapt it via DIY projects

Once acquired, my consideration is would feedback to the OEM be a respectful and useful endeavor given what I understand about QA, marketing, cost vs. profit and practical improvements.

Yeah, folks piss an' moan about lots of stuff -- but some of it actually results in improved products.

Personal skill with the product is a separate issue IMO.
04-21-2015, 03:29 PM   #7
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 69
I'm sorry, but I find the original post to be out of line. It would make every sense if it was meant for some folks who come here to bash the system. But, on the contrary, it focuses on those who point out specific improvements they'd like to see. It's poor enough form to mix up the two attitudes, let alone tell the latter they should shut up until they can make the most out of a system they aren't dissing in the first place.
If I can't shoot properly without a viewfinder, I should shut up about it until I manage to shoot as good as folks who can shoot without it? Really, is that the advice that will take us forward?
I opened this link thinking it had to do with tips and tricks on how to get the most out the system. How wrong I was!
04-21-2015, 04:43 PM   #8
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rfaucher Quote
Since the sensor is so small, you have to make some compromises. That means keeping your aperture at f/5.6 and below. Also, keep your ISO below 800. I generally shoot in bright conditions at f/4.0 and that will give you plenty of depth of field and you will not have any diffraction. It's like shooting f/8 or f/10 on larger format sensors. The proof is in the print! I've printed out 5x7's and 8x10's shot with my Q10 at ISO 200 and one is hard pressed to see a significant difference when compared to shots taken with my K-3 or Olympus OMD EM-5. Don't live by pixel peeping. The rest of the world looks at photos in their entirety, whether on social media, blogs or prints.

The JPG engine is actually quite good and it does a great job of maximizing the sensor's abilities (unlike the JPG engines on Pentax DSLRs). I tend to shoot the "bright" mode and I have bumped up the contrast, saturation and sharpness by 1. Of course, this is a subjective preference.

That said, I get the best results from my Q10 by shooting in DNG mode and doing the raw development in Adobe Lightroom. The Q10's sensor, as well as the Q7, has fantastic dynamic range for such a small sensor. You can pull out lot of data from the shadows and highlights. The DNG files also respond quite well to sharpening, provided you use a radius < 0.9 and some focus masking to prevent skies from being sharpened. A bump in Clarity from +5 to +10 really helps give the Q's images some punch.

I tend to stretch histograms in Lightroom, so for the Q10, my workflow is:

Highlights = -100
Shadows = +100
Clarity = 5
Vibrance = 5
Saturation = 3

I then adjust the white slider as far right as possible to avoid clipping. Next, I pull the Blacks slide as far to the left until I start to see pure blacks. As a last step, I adjust the exposure and contrast to get the result I want. Noise reduction and sharpening are applied according to taste. This technique only works with sensors with a lot of dynamic range. I am happy to report the Q10 responds very well to it.

So, I recommend that you always shoot both JPG and DNG. Most of time the JPG engine gets it right, but it's good to have the DNG for trickier lighting situations.

Some sample photos taken with the Q10.

Pickering Flea Market and The Tiny Q

04/18/2015 – First Harley Ride of the Year and Bluffer’s Park Q-ubed

Here are some other photos taken with both an Olympus OMD EM-5 and the Q10. Other than the art filter shots, I challenge you to easily identify which photos were taken with each camera.

June 29 – A Day in Quebec City and fun with the Q
Thanks for taking the time to post your settings and recommendations and for providing links to some of your images. This is the type of information I was hoping to get when I started this thread.

I have often suspected that, with the exception of portrait work, some of the shooters are significantly upping the contrast and sharpness levels in both the initial camera settings as well as in the post processing. Especially those who are working in B&W. I also use Lightroom and I noticed you did not mention any increases in sharpness, or detail in your PP work flow. At -100 you really pull the Highlights down


04-21-2015, 07:42 PM   #9
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Thanks for taking the time to post your settings and recommendations and for providing links to some of your images. This is the type of information I was hoping to get when I started this thread.

I have often suspected that, with the exception of portrait work, some of the shooters are significantly upping the contrast and sharpness levels in both the initial camera settings as well as in the post processing. Especially those who are working in B&W. I also use Lightroom and I noticed you did not mention any increases in sharpness, or detail in your PP work flow. At -100 you really pull the Highlights down
Hello Denny, glad I was able to answer some of your questions. As for sharpening in Lightroom, I usually go around 35 or so for the Q with a radius of 0.8 and generally leave the details around 25.

I know going -100 really pulls down the highlights, the key is to bring the whites slider back up until it just starts to clip and then back it off a bit. That way, the whites will get a full tonal range.
04-21-2015, 09:11 PM   #10
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Thanks for taking the time to post your settings and recommendations and for providing links to some of your images. This is the type of information I was hoping to get when I started this thread.

I have often suspected that, with the exception of portrait work, some of the shooters are significantly upping the contrast and sharpness levels in both the initial camera settings as well as in the post processing. Especially those who are working in B&W. I also use Lightroom and I noticed you did not mention any increases in sharpness, or detail in your PP work flow. At -100 you really pull the Highlights down
OK, your original post was much more general than that, So, what you seem to be addressing now are the continual questions about the sensors used by Q-family cameras, which are acknowledged to have less dynamic range and shallower color depth than larger sensors.

In that case, we probably also need to talk about what we do when taking the actual picture, because that creates the only data we have to manipulate with software. If I recall correctly, in his wonderful "Cruise" series of pictures, Heinrich Lohmann sometimes adjusted the EV downward to prevent some of the brightly lighted areas from being over-blown, and then adjusted to a more correct balance in Lightroom. Are there other ways of dealing with that sensor limitation before-hand? When I visited my daughter in San Diego last month, I took some pictures using the HDR facility (which I had no experience with) as an experiment to see how it would preserve things. The downside of that approach, of course, is that a jpeg file is all that you end up with. Are there other ways of dealing with the sensor's limited dynamic range?
04-21-2015, 10:48 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
OK, your original post was much more general than that, So, what you seem to be addressing now are the continual questions about the sensors used by Q-family cameras, which are acknowledged to have less dynamic range and shallower color depth than larger sensors.

In that case, we probably also need to talk about what we do when taking the actual picture, because that creates the only data we have to manipulate with software. If I recall correctly, in his wonderful "Cruise" series of pictures, Heinrich Lohmann sometimes adjusted the EV downward to prevent some of the brightly lighted areas from being over-blown, and then adjusted to a more correct balance in Lightroom. Are there other ways of dealing with that sensor limitation before-hand? When I visited my daughter in San Diego last month, I took some pictures using the HDR facility (which I had no experience with) as an experiment to see how it would preserve things. The downside of that approach, of course, is that a jpeg file is all that you end up with. Are there other ways of dealing with the sensor's limited dynamic range?
Yes. You can expert multiple low contrast files from your RAW file and do an exposure merge, then tone map for clarity. I process most odd my images this way.
04-22-2015, 03:40 AM   #12
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 69
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
If I recall correctly, in his wonderful "Cruise" series of pictures, Heinrich Lohmann sometimes adjusted the EV downward to prevent some of the brightly lighted areas from being over-blown, and then adjusted to a more correct balance in Lightroom. Are there other ways of dealing with that sensor limitation before-hand? When I visited my daughter in San Diego last month, I took some pictures using the HDR facility (which I had no experience with) as an experiment to see how it would preserve things. The downside of that approach, of course, is that a jpeg file is all that you end up with. Are there other ways of dealing with the sensor's limited dynamic range?
Isn't highlight correction what you're looking for?
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/282600-how-do-dynamic-range-settings-work.html
04-22-2015, 08:13 AM   #13
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,105
Denny,

I agree that the Q system is a beautiful and unique design that inspires photographers to take pictures which they otherwise may not have. Almost everyone here in the forum loves the Q tremendously. I think the suggestions and even the complaints are posted not to bash the system but because we want a great system to be even better. That's where I am coming from when I add my voice to those who post asking for lenses and features. A lot of us are heavy DSLR users and see the Q as mini DSLR. I think a lot of us would love to see even more power and features of a DSLR married with the form factor and fun factor of the Q. Right now we see that marriage consummated part way. We have advanced shooting modes, RAW output, interchangeable lenses, and extra physical controls on the body. All of this tempts us to want more out of that diminutive little body like wickedly fast AF, better camera response time, etc.

I do find myself running into the limits of the Q both in form and function. That is because I am a heavy DSLR user as mentioned above and I see many DSLR-like features in the body. So, I begin to use the camera as if it were my K-3! Sometimes this works out brilliantly and other times I run into a brick wall. That's totally OK though. If I am willing to enjoy the rewards of the Q's design then I ought to be willing to suffer the consequences too! I also process the Q's raw files the same as I would my K-3's raw files. This brings out deficiencies in the sensor. Yes, there will be more noise and less dynamic range. Who can't help but pixel peep, right? On the other hand, when ISO is low and perfect focus is achieved ... holy cow! I am shocked at how marvelous the system works!

I think the subject you bring up almost begins to beg the question not what can I get out of the Q but what can I get out of photography using a Q? That's a broader, more creative question. The Q simply becomes a stylistic tool to enable the creativity in all of us. It will work for some and not for others. Some paint with brushes while others draw with charcoal. It's all good.
04-22-2015, 09:32 AM   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East Bay Area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 786
I think it's ironic that a traditional camera with small sensor is automatically shunned on, while people wows over great images taken by modern, top-tier, cell phone. Anyone with some photography knowledge can see that those great, "DSLR level quality", images are usually very low ISO, taken by properly controlling the exposure and with some post edit, and are usually not action shots if it's in low light. In other words, the quality is due to the person behind the camera. If you give those people the Q, they would be able to take the same, or better, shots.

For some reason, there's the stigma that a traditional camera needs to do better than a cell phone to be worth while. To me, even though their hardware limitations are similar, having all the dslr controls and ability to change lenses is what sets Q apart.
04-22-2015, 02:57 PM   #15
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
Denny,

I also process the Q's raw files the same as I would my K-3's raw files. This brings out deficiencies in the sensor. Yes, there will be more noise and less dynamic range.
And how do you accomplish this? What software do you use? What are your basic settings for both the camera as well as the software. What if any are your recommendations. This is the sort of information that I am attempting to get shared. What are you doing that produces the results you like? Obviously you have used the Q series to produce some images that meet your standards. What did you do to meet your expectations?

In any book store you can find books devoted to any Canon or Nikon camera and associated software but none to the Pentax line. I believe one service, boards and forums such as these are meant to provide, is to share information about our successes that may help others improve or enhance their use of the Pentax line of cameras. In this case specifically the Q series as it currently exists.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, files, images, mirrorless, osprey, pentax adapter, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, results, settings
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Getting the most out of a $25 Vivitar 28mm lens ismaelg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 04-23-2015 07:27 AM
How to get the most out of pictures if the night sky? elicius General Photography 8 03-04-2015 01:25 AM
How to get the most out of my DA* zooms? lithedreamer Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 09-27-2014 07:41 PM
Getting the best out of the sigma 10-20mm amicah22 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 33 04-06-2009 01:28 AM
Getting the most out of my K20D shadowraven Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 01-29-2009 04:35 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:06 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top