Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Hello from Minnesota - Interested in UV-induced fluorescence and IR Photography, Equipment Recommendations?


cdhgamer

Recommended Posts

Hello all!

 

My name is Todd Farnham, and I'm a photographer normally focused on wildlife, landscape, concert, and astrophotography.

 

I was drawn to UV-induced fluorescence photography by the photography of Don Komarechka after watching an interview about his snowflake photography in which he also explained some of his UVIVF process. Don modifies his speedlights to produce non-visible UV light, but it is a costly and dangerous endeavor if you don't know what you're doing. While exploring the internet for more info, I came across this site and learned that costs can be reduced by using longer exposures and UV flashlights with filters.

 

 

 

I'm curious about what gear might be recommended for starting out in this field of photography. I know that the Convoy S2+ 365nm Nichia UV LED is used by many and relatively cheap but I also see that the shipping time for one from Gearbest is 15-30 business days. Are there any models or stores that might have a faster shipping time, or would that likely be my only option at a more reasonable price range?

 

What filters then, would be good for cutting visible light on the flashlight? I've read of some options on the forums, but I'm curious what might be my best value in a cost/benefit analysis, considering it seems like different brands and models vary in effectiveness.

 

 

 

I am also interested in IR photography, but in a couple different styles. I'm very drawn to IR photography using blue skies and white foliage, as well as aerochrome style photos, that utilize blue, white, and pink. As an astrophotographer, I'm also drawn to the possibilities of filtering for astro as well.

 

Would my best bet be to have a full spectrum conversion and then use clip on filters for IR, and an H-Alpha filter for astro? If so, what filters might serve best for the styles I've described in terms of filter brands or light spectrums (nm) values?

 

 

 

I apologize if this is too much of a request for the introduction forum. If so, please let me know moderators, and I can chop up the post, otherwise, it's nice to meet everyone and I look forward to learning a lot more from this valuable resource, thanks!

Link to comment

First off, get some eye protection, Here are my recommended favorite, these will cut UV, they are very affordable:

https://www.fullsour...om/uvex-s0290x/

 

There are other places besides Gearbest to get the Convoy S2+, I don't have experience with others, ask John (JCDowdy, on here), I think he has purchased some from other vendors.

The last two I got from Gearbest got here relatively fast for an international shipment, no special shipping rate, but they do have other rates for faster shipping I think.

 

Make sure you buy the one that is specifically "S2+ 365nm UV Nichia", they have a lot of variations of the S2 and S2+, make sure it is 365nm Nichia.

You can filter them with Hoya U-340 2mm filters. U-340 cuts below the 400nm point. Don't use U-360 or UG1 or ZWB2, those may not cut below 400nm.

 

For blue skies and white foliage, use Schott UG1 or Hoya U-360 2mm thick (or thinner), requires no channel swap, just white balance on foliage, preferably out of camera from RAW file.

You can also do that with various IR longpass filters with cutoff in the 695nm to 720nm range, by swapping the red and blue channels.

 

For Aerochrome/EIR, Tiffen #12 is the classic, it is a yellow longpass filter (minus blue, it cuts off blue, transmits above) using post processing.

Some use 550nm longpass filter (like Schott RG550, etc.), same idea as the #12, you can use various longpass filter for this, depending on which looks/works best for you.

No matter what filter you use, you will need to post process the images to get the Aerochrome/EIR red foliage style.

The other way to do it is to shoot two shots on a tripod, one with visual filter (BG38, BG40, UV/IR-Cut),

and another shot with a monochrome 780nm to 850nm longpass IR filter (I prefer using RG850 for full monochrome IR),

then layer those two shots together in Photoshop (or other) like this:

Visual shot Green channel to Blue, Red channel to Green, IR shot to Red.

 

H-Alpha is not what I would call IR, it is red, and it is a very narrow band of red, you should stick with telescope filter for that.

They make various H-Alpha filters with various band widths. I think the narrower they are the better detail you get, but the narrow they are the more expensive they get also.

I have encountered people trying to use red longpass filter for this, but this will not work, perhaps it can be done by stacking a specific longpass filter with another filter,

say a visual band filter with just the right amount of upper red transmission, but that seems like a very crude way of attaining an H-Alpha bandpass.

Get a filter that is made for H-Alpha, and keep in mind that the cool detailed H-Alpha pics you see are done with narrow band versions, etc...

Link to comment

Thank you Cadmium! That was just what I needed! I just ordered the Nichia S2+ with slightly faster shipping from Gearbest since it was a super cheap bump in price, along with Uvex glasses and some rechargeable batteries for the flashlight.

 

For the

Hoya U-340 2mm filter, is there an online store to order that from? A quick search is really only showing me eBay and Etsy listings, I'm not sure if I'm missing an actual reputable site to order from. If it is only available on Etsy or eBay, I do see a listing for

 

"

Hoya U-340 20.2mm x 2mm UV-Pass filter for 365nm Convoy S2+ torch/flashlight glass"

 

so I assume that should work well/those are the correct dimensions to order.

 

 

 

Thanks so much for listing specific filters for the IR shots I'd like to get. Am I correct in assuming that the best idea for the actual camera itself would be to get a full spectrum conversion and then to use those filters in front of my lens as opposed to having a specific filter installed in place of the IR filter by the sensor?

 

 

First off, get some eye protection, Here are my recommended favorite, these will cut UV, they are very affordable:

https://www.fullsour...om/uvex-s0290x/

 

There are other places besides Gearbest to get the Convoy S2+, I don't have experience with others, ask John (JCDowdy, on here), I think he has purchased some from other vendors.

The last two I got from Gearbest got here relatively fast for an international shipment, no special shipping rate, but they do have other rates for faster shipping I think.

 

Make sure you buy the one that is specifically "S2+ 365nm UV Nichia", they have a lot of variations of the S2 and S2+, make sure it is 365nm Nichia.

You can filter them with Hoya U-340 2mm filters. U-340 cuts below the 400nm point. Don't use U-360 or UG1 or ZWB2, those may not cut below 400nm.

 

For blue skies and white foliage, use Schott UG1 or Hoya U-360 2mm thick (or thinner), requires no channel swap, just white balance on foliage, preferably out of camera from RAW file.

You can also do that with various IR longpass filters with cutoff in the 695nm to 720nm range, by swapping the red and blue channels.

 

For Aerochrome/EIR, Tiffen #12 is the classic, it is a yellow longpass filter (minus blue, it cuts off blue, transmits above) using post processing.

Some use 550nm longpass filter (like Schott RG550, etc.), same idea as the #12, you can use various longpass filter for this, depending on which looks/works best for you.

No matter what filter you use, you will need to post process the images to get the Aerochrome/EIR red foliage style.

The other way to do it is to shoot two shots on a tripod, one with visual filter (BG38, BG40, UV/IR-Cut),

and another shot with a monochrome 780nm to 850nm longpass IR filter (I prefer using RG850 for full monochrome IR),

then layer those two shots together in Photoshop (or other) like this:

Visual shot Green channel to Blue, Red channel to Green, IR shot to Red.

 

H-Alpha is not what I would call IR, it is red, and it is a very narrow band of red, you should stick with telescope filter for that.

They make various H-Alpha filters with various band widths. I think the narrower they are the better detail you get, but the narrow they are the more expensive they get also.

I have encountered people trying to use red longpass filter for this, but this will not work, perhaps it can be done by stacking a specific longpass filter with another filter,

say a visual band filter with just the right amount of upper red transmission, but that seems like a very crude way of attaining an H-Alpha bandpass.

Get a filter that is made for H-Alpha, and keep in mind that the cool detailed H-Alpha pics you see are done with narrow band versions, etc...

Link to comment
Am I correct in assuming that the best idea for the actual camera itself would be to get a full spectrum conversion and then to use those filters in front of my lens as opposed to having a specific filter installed in place of the IR filter by the sensor?

Yes. Get a full spectrum conversion. You really limit your options if you put a specific filter inside the camera, unless you intend to have multiple camera bodies dedicated to each filter type. (For the fluorescence only, it might make sense to have an unconverted body, assuming the built-in filter blocks UV adequately...a big if, as we saw in another recent thread here.)

 

P.S. Cadmium sells filters himself as UVIR Optics. I've never had trouble with any of his.

Link to comment

Thank you Andy! I received a generous gift from my aunt who upgraded her camera recently, of a Nikon D810, and so I'll probably use that or my D750 as my primary unmodified cameras for fluorescence. Having two full frame bodies now freed me up to convert my old Nikon D3400 backup body to a full spectrum camera, so that's what jumpstarted my interest in pursuing IR photography. I know that they might still require an additional filter for cutting further visible light like some of the Baader filters I think it is. Do you think the potential visible spectrum that might still leak from the S2+ with a Hoya

U-340 is going to be a huge problem right away, or is it a minor thing that just prevents people from being able to claim true UV fluorescence?

 

Yes. Get a full spectrum conversion. You really limit your options if you put a specific filter inside the camera, unless you intend to have multiple camera bodies dedicated to each filter type. (For the fluorescence only, it might make sense to have an unconverted body, assuming the built-in filter blocks UV adequately...a big if, as we saw in another recent thread here.)

Link to comment
Do you think the potential visible spectrum that might still leak from the S2+ with a Hoya

U-340 is going to be a huge problem right away, or is it a minor thing that just prevents people from being able to claim true UV fluorescence?

The Hoya shouldn't be leaking anything if you choose the right thickness? It's unfiltered flashlights that cause the problems as far as I know? Cadmium has told me that at 1mm, U-340 will leak visible light, but hopefully if you get 2mm or more that will not be an issue.

 

I know that they might still require an additional filter for cutting further visible light like some of the Baader filters I think it is.

For infrared, you shouldn't have any trouble with visible light leaks using Schott or Hoya filters -- the IR-passing glasses tend to be less of a headache to deal with than UV glasses like the U-340 we discussed above. I have a Hoya R72 and have never noticed an issue of them transmitting light outside the given specs, but the R72 only claims to have its 50% point at 720nm, whereas we typically say infrared begins at 700nm. So in that sense it transmits some visible light, but it is expected to! If you want to block all visible, just get a filter that cuts on at 850nm or so.

Link to comment

Ah, I'm sorry, I was thinking of a UV/IR-Cut Barrier Filter on the camera lens from the Fluorescence sticky that Andrea has posted, not a light leak for infrared.

 

 

For infrared, you shouldn't have any trouble with visible light leaks using Schott or Hoya filters -- the IR-passing glasses tend to be less of a headache to deal with than UV glasses like the U-340 we discussed above. I have a Hoya R72 and have never noticed an issue of them transmitting light outside the given specs, but the R72 only claims to have its 50% point at 720nm, whereas we typically say infrared begins at 700nm. So in that sense it transmits some visible light, but it is expected to! If you want to block all visible, just get a filter that cuts on at 850nm or so.

Link to comment

Welcome

 

This is an addictive hobby and will cost you plenty of dollars :D

 

That said, you can buy all your filters with confidence, as many here will tell you, from UVIROPTICS on ebay. (also known as cadmium who gave you all that useful info)

https://www.ebay.com/str/uviroptics/

 

I will let the others carry on as I'm just as new to the scene as you are.

 

Cheers

Terry

Link to comment
I know that they might still require an additional filter for cutting further visible light like some of the Baader filters I think it is.
Ah, I'm sorry, I was thinking of a UV/IR-Cut Barrier Filter on the camera lens from the Fluorescence sticky that Andrea has posted, not a light leak for infrared.

Oh, I see, yeah, those are for cutting UV and IR, and passing visible (not cutting it). People in the other thread seemed to be suggesting you could get by without it, if your filtering of the light source is good and camera is unmodified.

Link to comment

As a photographer, I am already way too used to throwing away money on photography and gear, haha. And do you mean that Cadmium is the owner of UVIROPTICS? That's awesome if so.

 

Welcome

 

This is an addictive hobby and will cost you plenty of dollars :D

 

That said, you can buy all your filters with confidence, as many here will tell you, from UVIROPTICS on ebay. (also known as cadmium who gave you all that useful info)

https://www.ebay.com/str/uviroptics/

 

I will let the others carry on as I'm just as new to the scene as you are.

 

Cheers

Terry

 

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification, "exclude all non-visible light" kind of read like a double negative in my head and I was a little confused, haha.

 

Oh, I see, yeah, those are for cutting UV and IR, and passing visible (not cutting it). People in the other thread seemed to be suggesting you could get by without it, if your filtering of the light source is good and camera is unmodified.

Link to comment

Technically you should filter the camera with 420nm or 435nm longpass or the like, and filter the light with -400nm in both both stock and full spectrum camera situations, especially on full spectrum cameras of course,

but it has been my experience that shooting with even a full spectrum camera, with no filter other than even just a visual range BG38 filter will give pretty good results, but not perfect.

That is not a bad starting point for those using Nichia LED 365nm UV light, if you don't have all the other accouterments rounded up, and you just want to see something work, that will probably work

(but have eye protection).

 

Also, a common thing, people will shine the unfiltered torch at things, see the blue fluorescence, like off paper... but even on fairly non fluorescing objects,

then they put the U-340 2mm filter on and still see blue fluorescence...

That is not blue/visual violet light leaking through, it is just florescence. Blue light might show up more in an actual photo.

Don't do this, in my opinion it is dangerous no mater what eye protection you have, so I will say that up front, but for example, if you looked at an unfiltered Nichia LED 365nm torch you would see visual violet (blue),

but if you looked at a filtered Nichia LED 365nm torch, you will see nothing, no visual light at all. Don't do this, but it is true.

You see no visual light coming from a filtered torch, so if they are turned on and pointed at you, you will not see it, which makes them more dangerous to other people.

A filtered torch will however fluoresce everything in the beam, so you will know when the torch is turned on, and pretty much everything fluoresces in some minute amount, enough to see the torch is turned on.

In either situation, be careful about pointing the torch at people, and always wear your UV eye protection, remember that some objects/materials in the beam target can reflect UV light back at you,

and that is impossible to see, all you see is the visual fluorescence.

They don't really warn people about black lights, they sell them everywhere, and although they may not have as intense of 365nm UV light as the Nichia, they are still UV,

and they are a broader band of UV light than the Nichia LED's also, so it is my opinion that people should be more cautions of the garden variety black light than we are taught to be.

Link to comment

A good IR photography filter you may have lieing around and not knowing is one of those cheap plastic FLD filters that are sometimes included with a lens purchase.

It seems to place all green foliage into white and all other colors stay about normal. This I have used with my full spectrum Olympus Em1. That is if you white balance off green grass. I am not sure if the Nikon 3400 has white balance issues.

Link to comment

Thank you for the safety info Cadmium and for that additional info for filtering. I see that you mention this is a decent starting point for quick results, out of curiosity what is the next step up in a UV rig? I wouldn't probably upgrade for a while, but is there a sub-$500 rig that works well or do you really have to spend a lot to get a decent setup?

 

Technically you should filter the camera with 420nm or 435nm longpass or the like, and filter the light with -400nm in both both stock and full spectrum camera situations, especially on full spectrum cameras of course, but it has been my experience that shooting with even a full spectrum camera, with no filter other than even just a visual range BG38 filter will give pretty good results, but not perfect. That is not a bad starting point for those using Nichia LED 365nm UV light, if you don't have all the other accouterments rounded up, and you just want to see something work, that will probably work (but have eye protection). Also, a common thing, people will shine the unfiltered torch at things, see the blue fluorescence, like off paper... but even on fairly non fluorescing objects, then they put the U-340 2mm filter on and still see blue fluorescence... That is not blue/visual violet light leaking through, it is just florescence. Blue light might show up more in an actual photo. Don't do this, in my opinion it is dangerous no mater what eye protection you have, so I will say that up front, but for example, if you looked at an unfiltered Nichia LED 365nm torch you would see visual violet (blue), but if you looked at a filtered Nichia LED 365nm torch, you will see nothing, no visual light at all. Don't do this, but it is true. You see no visual light coming from a filtered torch, so if they are turned on and pointed at you, you will not see it, which makes them more dangerous to other people. A filtered torch will however fluoresce everything in the beam, so you will know when the torch is turned on, and pretty much everything fluoresces in some minute amount, enough to see the torch is turned on. In either situation, be careful about pointing the torch at people, and always wear your UV eye protection, remember that some objects/materials in the beam target can reflect UV light back at you, and that is impossible to see, all you see is the visual fluorescence. They don't really warn people about black lights, they sell them everywhere, and although they may not have as intense of 365nm UV light as the Nichia, they are still UV, and they are a broader band of UV light than the Nichia LED's also, so it is my opinion that people should be more cautions of the garden variety black light than we are taught to be.

 

I don't believe I've ever received any filter with a lens purchase sadly, haha. The only filters I have around at the moment are ND filters that I use for long exposure light trails and smooth water.

 

A good IR photography filter you may have lieing around and not knowing is one of those cheap plastic FLD filters that are sometimes included with a lens purchase. It seems to place all green foliage into white and all other colors stay about normal. This I have used with my full spectrum Olympus Em1. That is if you white balance off green grass. I am not sure if the Nikon 3400 has white balance issues.
Link to comment
what is the next step up in a UV rig

Do you mean UV fluorescence? You should get a cut filter for the camera. Other than that, fluorescence is just the same as any other visible light photography. You can always buy a better camera body and lenses! A lot of fluorescence is also macro photography, so that might be something to look into? For reflectography, there is a lot of stuff you can do. But that is a different ballgame.

Link to comment

Thank you for the safety info Cadmium and for that additional info for filtering. I see that you mention this is a decent starting point for quick results, out of curiosity what is the next step up in a UV rig? I wouldn't probably upgrade for a while, but is there a sub-$500 rig that works well or do you really have to spend a lot to get a decent setup?

 

 

Hard to answer a nonspecific question like this. Maybe.

 

First would need to know what you mainly want to photograph. Landscape, macro, people, or other?

I can answer for close up and macro as that is what I like to mainly photograph.

Here I would recommend an Olympus camera. The DOF advantage is good and the noise is better than anything with a larger sensor at equivalent depth of field.

You can find a used Em1 for under $400, and it will out of the box be good to about 370nm. For deeper uv photography you will need to self convert it or pay around $400 for conversion. So now we are above the $500 limit. But if you can find a cheap EPl5 you can easily modify it like this:

 

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/how-to-mod-olympus-e-pxx-cameras.44060/

 

Next is a good lens. The Nikon EL 80mm f5.6 enlarger lens is excellent and you can get one around $50. Then the step up ring is about $30 from RAF camera to use 52mm filters. You will also need a helicoid. So total lens cost will be about $100. See the lens sticky section for others.

Another option with the Olympus cameras is an UKA optics 25mm f2.8 quartz lens. This is just under $600, so over budget, but will allow for deeper UV. Its a c-mount lens.

 

Next is filters. I like the Baader venus U filter. But its currently $400, so over budget. Other options are to stack either u340 or u360 with a S8612. Cadmium I think has helped here. These filters will be under $200, I think. With Olympus cameras you can also use 25mm filters with most lenses. But I have had some really big misses here so may not recommend these cheaper ones.

So we are at about $100 for lens, $200 for filter and you may be able to get an EPL5 for under or about $200. So yes its possible.

 

Also lights can be cheap as well. For flash the Canon 199A is super easy to convert. And cheap. Keh has a bunch at $2 or you can get confirmed working units for about $20 off ebay.

You know about cheap S2+ flashlights.

For indoor home macro use you can use 365nm led bulbs from Amazon or compact fluorescent black lights. These are under $20.

For uvb lighting I have had great luck with the lucky herb UVb 15 compact fluorescent light. It was a little better than the Exo terra 200 bulb. Both are under $20 and cool. The lucky herb mercury vapour lamp at 125W outputs more uvb, but gets really hot. So can welt flowers.

Link to comment

I apologize, I should have specified in lighting/filters, that's my bad. I'll be looking to shoot indoor fluorescence of organic material - fruits, flowers, etc., and I imagine mostly in a macro setting. My camera setup should have me covered, I have a Nikon D750 and D810, and the Tokina 100 mm f/2.8 macro lens, and Laowa 25 mm 2.5:1 - 5:1 magnification macro lens.

 

Do you mean UV fluorescence? You should get a cut filter for the camera. Other than that, fluorescence is just the same as any other visible light photography. You can always buy a better camera body and lenses! A lot of fluorescence is also macro photography, so that might be something to look into? For reflectography, there is a lot of stuff you can do. But that is a different ballgame.

Hard to answer a nonspecific question like this. Maybe.

 

First would need to know what you mainly want to photograph. Landscape, macro, people, or other?

I can answer for close up and macro as that is what I like to mainly photograph.

Here I would recommend an Olympus camera. The DOF advantage is good and the noise is better than anything with a larger sensor at equivalent depth of field.

You can find a used Em1 for under $400, and it will out of the box be good to about 370nm. For deeper uv photography you will need to self convert it or pay around $400 for conversion. So now we are above the $500 limit. But if you can find a cheap EPl5 you can easily modify it like this:

 

https://www.mu-43.co...-cameras.44060/

 

Next is a good lens. The Nikon EL 80mm f5.6 enlarger lens is excellent and you can get one around $50. Then the step up ring is about $30 from RAF camera to use 52mm filters. You will also need a helicoid. So total lens cost will be about $100. See the lens sticky section for others.

Another option with the Olympus cameras is an UKA optics 25mm f2.8 quartz lens. This is just under $600, so over budget, but will allow for deeper UV. Its a c-mount lens.

 

Next is filters. I like the Baader venus U filter. But its currently $400, so over budget. Other options are to stack either u340 or u360 with a S8612. Cadmium I think has helped here. These filters will be under $200, I think. With Olympus cameras you can also use 25mm filters with most lenses. But I have had some really big misses here so may not recommend these cheaper ones.

So we are at about $100 for lens, $200 for filter and you may be able to get an EPL5 for under or about $200. So yes its possible.

 

Also lights can be cheap as well. For flash the Canon 199A is super easy to convert. And cheap. Keh has a bunch at $2 or you can get confirmed working units for about $20 off ebay.

You know about cheap S2+ flashlights.

For indoor home macro use you can use 365nm led bulbs from Amazon or compact fluorescent black lights. These are under $20.

For uvb lighting I have had great luck with the lucky herb UVb 15 compact fluorescent light. It was a little better than the Exo terra 200 bulb. Both are under $20 and cool. The lucky herb mercury vapour lamp at 125W outputs more uvb, but gets really hot. So can welt flowers.

Link to comment

Next is a good lens. The Nikon EL 80mm f5.6 enlarger lens is excellent and you can get one around $50.

The Nikon EL 80mm f5.6 old metal version, not the tyre-shaped plastic cased latest model.

 

Then the step up ring is about $30 from RAF camera to use 52mm filters.

 

A cheap Chinese 34mm to XXmm step-ring with enough tape or other thin spacer material on the 34mm thread can work too.

I tried that when waiting for my dedicated RAF camera 34.5-52mm step ring.

 

It is a bit fiddly to apply, and not as strong, but possible to use with some luck.

I think a cheap 34.0-52mm step ring can cost $2.

Such a ring could also be melt glued directly to the lens if you feel that is OK.

Link to comment

Guys, all of that equipment is for REFLECTOGRAPHY but cdhgamer said he is interested in FLUORESCENCE. You don’t need an EL-Nikkor for fluorescence!

 

Honestly, cdhgamer, it sounds like you have most of what you need? You could get a UV converted flash or something but I’m not sure how sensitive fluorescence is to the frequency of the exciting radiation.

Link to comment

Andy, he was also interested in other things besides fluorescence. Read his first post.

 

"I am also interested in IR photography, but in a couple different styles. I'm very drawn to IR photography using blue skies and white foliage, as well as aerochrome style photos, that utilize blue, white, and pink. As an astrophotographer, I'm also drawn to the possibilities of filtering for astro as well.

 

Would my best bet be to have a full spectrum conversion and then use clip on filters for IR, and an H-Alpha filter for astro? If so, what filters might serve best for the styles I've described in terms of filter brands or light spectrums (nm) values?"

 

That is more than just fluorescence.

Link to comment

@Andy,

Possibly. I did try to answer a nonspecific question, using my user bias. I think I actually got to $500. So a win.

 

For fluorescent induced by UV, you maybe correct. He maybe covered. He will need to test the Nikons. I remembered my Df saw no UV with the Baader venus filter. But I haven't tested yet with my 390bp25 filter. May have a 410nm cut off like some Nikons. You will only know when you test it.

 

My Panasonic Gm5 also I think is very well filtered. In quick test I saw no uv or IR leakage, even at the highest ISO settings. But now I will have to test both more thoughly. As it may save me $13 on a Lee 3 filter I have been eyeing.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Hello Todd and welcome to UVP! I've been away temporarily and am just now getting back to work. So apologies for the delay in greeting you. We do hope you enjoy the site and find the info you need.

 

I posted some info for you over on your Cicada topic. :lol:

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...